Hah! I’d forgotten about switching “God” to “Damn” in that list, but of course your observation was precisely why I did it. I thought I’d only hit preview. Too funny.
As for Webster’s, perhaps you missed the second part of that definition I quoted: “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” Websters goes on to define “religious” as “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.”
So I think it’s clear your brother has a “personal set” of attitudes and beliefs “relating to . . . an acknowleged . . . deity.” (Please don’t make me define “deity” to include your description of “a higher power - the idea of God, if you will.”) If those religious attitudes and beliefs tell him not to worry about the practices, then I don’t think it matters for the definition that he doesn’t have any religious practices.
Yeah, me and four circuit courts of appeals, out there on the lunatic fringe. :rolleyes:
I said:
To which you reply:
We are talking about two different things. I said that the definition of religion is irrelevant (in theory) because however you define it, you must prove establishment or advancement of it (religion, however defined) in order to have a constitutional problem. In your quote, you go beyond asserting that any belief in God constitutes a religion to further asserting that any belief in God constitutes an establishment of religion – a huge leap, IMO. But defining religion and defining the establishment of religion are two different things.
If, if, if. Even if it is a religious motto – which I do not believe – it still would not be considered to promote, advance, or endorse religion unless it had the purpose of doing so, appeared to do so a a reasonable observer, or excessively entangled government in religion – in other words, unless it fulfilled the Lemon test. Which it has never been held to do.
This is really unfair of you, and I’m surprised to see you post it. I do not believe that IGWT presents an establishment problem; that does not mean that I do not realize that establishment problems exist in other contexts. You may attempt to paint me as a right-wing theocratic Nazi if you choose, simply because I disagree with you, but I will not give you the satisfaction of responding in kind.
Surely you can see that endorsing religion and “endorsing the contents of the that motto” are two different things. How could you possibly test whether the motto endorses itself?
MINTY, “personal” and “religious” are both adjectives defining other terms, respectively “set or system” (plural) and “attitudes, beliefs, and practices” (plural). The definition clearly contemplates more than one belief, and concentrating on the fact that those beliefs, plural, should be both personal and religious does not change the fact that they are also plural.
Once again: No, he does not. He has one belief, singular. He believes in the existence of some godlike higher power somewhere. That’s it. I don’t know how the reverse could be “clear” to you when I am the one explaining to you what he believes. He is, after all, my brother.
Yes, his belief, singular, relates to a diety. Specifically, he believes that a diety exists. That’s it. That is not a religion.
Once more, with feeling: He has one belief, singular. He doesn’t have any “attitude;” he doesn’t have any beliefs other than that one; he doesn’t have any “practices.” He does not have religion, general, and he doesn’t have a religion, specific.
To talk of God in the singular implies to me a reference to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. Traditionally, Indian Buddhists have believed in the Hindu pantheon of Gods, though they have argued that this pantheon wouldn’t do them much good. Extending that point, I don’t think a Buddhist be comfortable claiming to “trust” in God. If anything, Buddhists put their trust in Buddhist doctrine (dharma), if I understand these beliefs correctly.
I’d say IGWT is broadly monotheist.
I find it a stretch to claim that “In God We Trust” is similar to “Thank God it’s Friday”. I only see the former saying on coins and bills, I can’t recall ever hearing it in common speech. I’d say IGWT is closer to “E Pluribus Unim”, the only difference being that the former is more controversial.
Historically, an original justification for inserting a God reference in our currency was to emphasize that the US were not “heathens”, images of the Goddess of Liberty notwithstanding. See my link above.
Another saying that could be placed on bills might be, “Freedom from G*d”. Atheists or agnostics would have no problem with that. And, hey, we’re only trying to underline the notion of free will. You do believe in free will, don’t you? :innocent look:
Nah, I don’t care either. And if somebody wants write other comments on currency, that wouldn’t bother me either provided the bills are still fit for reuse and the comments are either accurate or amusing. Eye of the beholder, I know.
Well, minty, my dictionary says religion requires more than belief:
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. 1992, Houghton Mifflin Company.)
I think the key part in 1.a is “reverence for.” In 1.b it’s “worship,” in 3 it’s “set of beliefs, values and practices,” and in 4 it’s “pursued.”
I don’t think we’ve been given any reason to believe that Jodi’s brother holds any reverence for the god whose existence he acknowledges.
Why am I looking for a citation, when you’ve already said you’ll just reject it anyway? Oh well.
These sorts of statements are pretty common in letters to the editor and small-town editorials and computer bulletin boards and things like that. I guess the hoi polloi just aren’t subtle enough to appreciate the reasoning of the great and wise Justices of the Supreme Court.
Oh, by the way, it looks like the unwashed and ignorant masses who foolishly think that “In God We Trust” has something to do with religion (and therefore prayer) include at least some of the honorable members of the Georgia Legislature. No surprise there, I guess.
But I guess no one would call state legislators “reasonable observers”, eh?
And if you think it’s a pain crossing IGWT off of your paper money before you spend it, think of how tough it’s going to be to cross IGWT off of your coins!
Incidentally, I heard about a group of people in the gay rights movement a few years ago who rubber-stamped the words “gay dollars” onto all the paper money they spent. It supposedly helped drive home, in the mind of the recipients, the notion that gay people are a rather large demographic and are responsible for a considerable amount of the recipients’ business.
A pro-gun friend of mine heard about this practice, made his own rubber stamp, and now stamps all of his paper money with the words “second amendment dollars”.
– tracer, wondering if he shouldn’t rubber-stamp his money with the words “vegetable hater dollars”.
By “I fail to see any reasonable argument” I meant “I do not find the given or cited arguments reasonable.” I am sorry that my usage apparently misled you into thinking I had been unable to read the words.
I do have one further question, though, does your brother trust God?
Here in Topeka, Kansas there has been a running brou-haha over the “In God We Trust” issue. The Shawnee County Treasurer, Rita Cline, put up two small signs of IGWT in the offices where people come to transfer auto titles, pay for licenses, etc. Two local women, Mary Lou Schmidt and Darlene(can’t remember last name) filed a lawsuit with the ACLU to get her to take them down. It went badly, as Cline, IMHO, is a rather provocative personality, and the others seem to be esily provoked. Cline replied to Schmidt on office stationery, questioning her patriotism, and Schmidt, a self-declared Pagan, got hot. Cline said she was just putting up the “national motto”, but other statements she made seemed to indicate it was a religious issue. Cline has recently switched to Republican from Democrat because of what she calls a gay agenda at work in the latter party. There are too many articles and letters to the editor to cite them all, but if you go to http://cjonline.com/archive and try enterin “Cline”, “In God We Trust”, or “Schmidt” you will, in the first three months of 2001, find a lot of info. And by the way the ACLU lost the case. Here is an address for that story. http://www.cjonline.com/stories/020701/com_clineaclu.shtml
[shameless hijack] Another thing you can write on your bills is http://www.wheresgeorge.com , The Great American Dollar Bill Locator. The website allows you to register your dollar bill serial codes. If somebody finds a marked bill and lets wheresgeorge know, you get… well, you get to find out where your currency traveled to. Cheap thrills. [/shameless hijack]
“To talk of God in the singular implies to me a reference to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.” To talk of God to me implies whatever your personal iteration of God might be. That is up to you, not to me.
I’m not sure I disagree, but I don’t believe that mention of a “broadly monotheistic” God constitutes the establishment of religion.
Whether the phrase is used in common speech is irrelevant to whether or not it is constitutional.
This is also largely irrelevant to the effect of the motto today.
Yes, that also could be on the bills – provided it had a secular purpose unrelated to the establishment of religion. As I have already said, I don’t think the analysis changes just because you change the phrase in question to a hypothetical one that you imagine might be offensive to me personally.
Me too.
TRACER, I stand corrected, but if you found that historical detail you surely observed the Sixth Circuit directly afterward quoting the Ninth Circuit as saying:
In fact, you also surely noticed that the Sixth Circuit exhaustively reviewed the history and usage of IGWT, in an opinion running some thirty pages, and found the motto constitutional.
MEBRUCKNER – I apologize for misleading you; when I asked for a citation, I meant a legal one, since this is a legal question. The hoi polloi, as you see fit to call them, have a host of opinions on how the constitution should be interpreted, from the sound to the truly bizarre. If you doubt this, try a Google search on the constitutionality of income tax – a settled matter as far as the courts are concerned – and you will be able to come up with a host of “cites” on its unconstitutionality. What some people – or even a lot of people – think ought to be constitutional (or un-) is not particularly persuasive of what is constitutional. This thread exemplifies that.
SPIRITUS –
Not so you’d notice. But then, to my knowledge he doesn’t care that IGWT is on currency, either.
Yup, it appears that we’re at an impasse. If the bills merely mentioned the word God, as in “Some believe God exists, others don’t”, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. However, you (along with certain members of the judiciary) seem to imply that “In God We Trust” is the functional equivalent of “(God) Bless You”, a phrase that I would agree lacks religious content when preceded by a sneeze.
(Luckily nobody seems to care too much about this. )
Repeating an old Argument
Part of the point of separating church and state is to avoid contaminating either. Religion is compromised to an extent when petitioners are forced to argue that the phrase, “In God We Trust”, is one which is devoid of religious substance. I’d say that it is an elegant statement of faith that is broadly ecumenical within Monotheistic traditions. To pretend otherwise is unfortunate, IMHO.
[sub]Oh, and I think my 5th point generated more heat than light.[/sub]
Yes, I know those weren’t legal opinions. My initial point–the one for which you asked for cites–had more to do with how a “reasonable observer” would perceive IGWT. As I understand it, it’s been crucial to the federal courts’ finding that IGWT does not violate SOCAS that a “reasonable observer” would not find the use of the phrase to constitute an endorsement of religion. I’m not sure how the honorable judges determine how a “reasonable observer” would view something. To quote Gaylor v. United States :
Perhaps the judges ask their clerks:
JUDGE: Say, Bob, what do you think of when you think of our national motto being “In God We Trust”?
CLERK: Why, ceremonial deism, sir.
JUDGE: Doesn’t make you think the government’s endorsing religion or anything like that?
CLERK: Oh, no, sir.
JUDGE: Doesn’t make you think this is a Christian nation?
CLERK: Of course not, sir.
JUDGE: How 'bout school prayer?
CLERK: Oh, that’s entirely different, sir. Organized school prayer isn’t ceremonial deism at all. Why, the two subjects have nothing in common with each other, sir.
JUDGE: And you definitely don’t think of the precious blood shed by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
CLERK: Oh, no, sir. Not at all.
JUDGE: Okey-dokey, then.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, who knows how many Americans look at the words “In God We Trust” on their money (or the walls of the courthouse) and naively think it has something to do with God and the Bible and religion and stuff, blissfully unaware that they are “unreasonable observers”. Some of those people are elected to high political office. I have a sneaking suspicion that quite of few of the people who voted to make IGWT the national motto back in 1956 probably held “unreasonable” views on just what it was they were approving; they might even have believed they were “endorsing religion”. Fortunately, we have wise and learned judges to straighten us out on these matters.
See, Jodi? Another poor deluded non-lawyer who thinks “In God We Trust” has something to do with being a good Christian and going to church on Sunday and, you know, religion and stuff.
So as long as the only relevant belief (in the singular, as you insist) the government is promoting or endorsing is “the existence of some godlike higher power somewhere,” then it isn’t religion, right?
That is, from my p.o.v., ridiculous. If that were the case, the feds could require belief in a higher power as a prerequisite to federal employment or benefits. Or maybe just call out the federal marshals to force every citizen to affirm his or her belief in the existence of some godlike higher power somewhere.
After all, if the mere belief in the existence of generalized godlike higher power isn’t religion, then there can be no First Amendment problem with requiring people to believe in that higher power, right? Sorry, all you Buddhists, atheists, Taoists, atheists, and agnostics, but the First Amendment simply doesn’t apply to you guys.
That’s why I think your definition of religion is weird, and that is why I said I doubt I could convince you that much of anything is an establishment problem.
MEBuckner: Your judge-clerk conversation had me laughing out loud. Well done!
)