And how does the federal and Mississippi state governments’ official promotion of monotheism not favor monotheistic religions over polytheistic ones? Or “atheistic religions”, assuming that there can be such a thing? In the case of Mississippi’s promotion of monotheism, we’re even talking about the government promoting the beliefs of some religions over others to a captive audience of schoolchildren.
FriendofGod: You already believe that Christians are subject to widespread persecution in this country, but you wouldn’t have any problems with it at all if the government started putting up big signs in all the schools that said “There Is No God”?
How did they take away their right to not recognize God? So there’s a sign there that says “In God We Trust”. They can walk by the sign and say to themselves, “Hmmm, someone put up a sign that says ‘In God We Trust’” and be on their merry way, continuing to not recognize God. Not one right has been violated.
I didn’t say I wouldn’t have a problem with it, I just said it wouldn’t violate my rights if they chose to do it.
**
Well we print it on our cash. So it doesn’t appear to violate seperation of church and state.
**
I agree that the whole thing is rather silly.
**
Why would it be ok on money but not in schools? I’d rather not have it on either but I can’t say this pushes any of my hot topic buttons.
Marc
It violates your rights, oh FoGgy one, because this is your government doing it. Or, in this case, it violates the rights of Mississippians because it is their government doing it.
Some of us do not trust in God. Thus, having a government stating that “we” do makes us second-class citizens. So, what right has been taken away? For one, the right to freedom of and from religion. Why should an atheist high schooler be told by his school, every day, that “we” trust in God?
I think it’s likely that, quite the contrary of those who claim this will somehow magically reduce school violence, it may actually increase it. Those who have caused most of the violence are the outcasts. Now the state will be creating more such outcasts. Not a terribly smart thing to do.
Incidentally, as DSYoung indicated, the courts sometimes do not agree with what I think is unConstitutional. What can I say? Sometimes they’re just plain wrong.
And no sooner do I post my message than I see that very issue come up in a message that was posted while I was merrily typing away.
MGibson said:
According to the courts, it does not. According to me, it does. I think the courts have merely wimped out of ruling on what appears to be a fairly obvious breach of church/state separation.
But, yes, according to U.S. law, having it on money is not a Constitutional violation.
And that’s what starts the slippery slope. This provided a loophole for those who want to force their “God” statements on others. And, as we see, they’ve taken that opportunity.
So, why would the court rule that it’s okay on money but not in school? I’m sure they could come up with some reason. For example, school is an educational institution filled with impressionable kids. By posting such a statement, it appears to be a direct government advocacy of belief in God. Sure, the same thing is true of money, but forcing it on school kids might somehow be viewed differently. I don’t pretend to know how they’d weasel their way into such a distinction – but I do think they will make one. That’s just my gut feeling.
How?
Whoa! You’ve just invented a right. The constitution clearly protects freedom of religion. Where does it protect freedom from religion? And, in fact, how on earth can you have a country with both? If freedom from religion is a “right”, aren’t your rights being violated DB each time you channel surf past a religious TV station or see a church?
**
I’m sorry. PLEASE PLEASE DON’T BEAT ME!!
**
Yeah, what stinks is that it doesn’t always matter what you or I as individuals think. I think sometimes the anti-religious crowd displays a tendancy for knee-jerked reactions just as much as the religious crowd.
**
When I was in public schools I got all sorts of ideas forced down my throat. Drugs are bad and shouldn’t be legalized, guns are bad, we were meant to be a two party system, etc, etc… Through the government I’m “forced” to provide funds to art which I may or may not like or agree with.
**
Most people appear to believe in God. Those of us who don’t are obviously in the minority. I can’t actually say that “In God We Trust” is offensive to me, I’m not offended by prayers before football games or during graduation, or holiday music or decorations.
I don’t see the big difference. But then I’m one of those jerks who doesn’t think that children deserve more consideration then adults.
David, I think you have some decent points. This is just one of those issues I’ve got next to nothing intellectually or emotionally invested into. But we’re suppose to be living in an age of “multi-culturalism” but it doesn’t seem like most people practice what they preach.
Marc
I asked you a similar question in another thread, and you didn’t respond… so I’ll try again. Suppose the saying was changed from “In God We Trust” to “In Allah We Trust.” Does this infringe on anyone’s rights? Would you object to it?
Quix
Easy. There’s actual constitutional doctrine that if a government endorsement of religion is basically meaningless and has been that way since the dawn of the time, there’s no violation of the establishment clause. That’s how Nebraska got away with having a Christian chaplain on the payroll to open each legislative day. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).
“IGWT” has been on our money for a long time. (Spare me the history lesson–I know it’s a 20th century invention.) “IGWT” has not been posted on our school walls since time immemorial, and would almost certainly not get the Marsh treatment.
BTW, DSYoung got the principles of law right, but the application of Lemon is always arguable. I personally think he goes wrong from the very first prong, since the purpose of the “IGWT” signs is not just to promote good behavior, but to promote good morals through Judeo-Christian doctrine. My best guess is that if (big if) this goes to the Supreme Court, we’d have another 5-4 decision along the lines of last term’s Santa Fe Independent School District prayer-before-football games decision. But that’s only a guess.
I said:
FoG wondered “How?”
I’m afraid that if you can’t see it, I doubt I can explain it to you. But let’s try one more time.
We have a government that is supposed to be neutral when it comes to matters of religion. That government decides to state that “We” trust in God. There are citizens of that government who do not even believe in God, let alone trust in Him. These citizens are now being told that they are not really represented by the government, because the government trusts in God. Thus, they are second-class citizens.
I also said:
FoG responded:
Freedom of religion is, by necessity, also freedom from religion.
Don’t play dumb, FoG. We’re talking about government, not the church on the corner. If it was the First Church of the U.S., then it would apply. Otherwise, it doesn’t, and it’s just a silly straw man.
MGibson said:
I don’t disagree. I’ve seen such instances and I shake my head at what they do to the public image of atheists. But this is not one such instance.
None of which are addressed in the Constitution. Freedom of religion is.
Yes, and that’s why we have a Constitution – to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.
Well, to each his own. But just because one particular person isn’t offended by something doesn’t make it alright, of course.
I never saw this question in another thread, sorry I missed it.
Answers to your 2 questions:
- No
- Yes
My dear FoG:
You are strongly mistaking what the First Amendment, as construed through the Fourteenth, says, by that little excursion into “Fundy-speak” (I recognize that line about “freedom from religion” as a favorite of Jerry Falwell and other Christian Reconstructionists.)
You, I, David, and everybody else has the right to believe precisely whatever we choose, as regards matters religious. Including nothing at all. That is our right as American citizens.
To abrogate that right in any way whatsoever is step one towards establishing a mandatory line of belief, to which everyone must adhere or suffer the consequences. I do not need to tell you, of all people, who is supposed, according to Scripture, to impose such a line of belief, do I? (Hint: think of a three-digit number using only one symbol repeated.)
Think about it. Seriously.
**
You’re stretching quite a bit to come up with that one. I hope you did some warm ups before hand to avoid straining anything. The Congress opens up with a prayer, the pledge of alligence mentions god, and the president traditionally ends his swearing in oath with “so help me god.” I certainly don’t feel like anyone is saying I’m a second class citizen. Are my rights protected any less?
**
It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to not be exposed to religion. I can see a cross or hear a prayer without it violating my freedom of religion.
**
Freedom of association isn’t addressed in the Constitution? By giving tax money to the National Endowment for the Arts I am being associated with an organization I may or may not agree with. Damn, I should have done some warm ups because I think I just strained something with that stretching.
**
Well if you think this comes anywhere near the tyranny of the majority then we’ve got different ideas of what tyranny is.
Well, to each his own. But just because one particular person isn’t offended by something doesn’t make it alright, of course. **
[/QUOTE]
I agree. But then just because a minority is offended doesn’t mean it really matters.
But it would be nice if folks in the state and federal legislature could come up with more constructive things then putting mottos on school walls and expecting a change. Maybe they could spend all that money on those cute posters of kittens hanging off the branch with the words “Hang in There” on the bottom.
Marc
MGibson said:
I love the “two wrongs make a right” argument. :rolleyes:
As I said to you before, to each his own. Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean it’s untrue. When we’ve had presidents saying that atheists are not real Americans (hint: the father of our current pres.), yes, it does make one kind of feel second-class. When we’ve had politicians pushing their religious viewpoint on us from all sides, yes, it does rather seem that our rights are protected less. This particular discussion only covers one of many symptoms of this disease.
I had said:
You responded:
Which is pretty much what I said immediately following my statement above. Did you somehow miss it?
Not in the way you are stretching it, no.
As I said, this is but one symptom. But when the majority forces their religious beliefs on the minority, yes, I do call that a form of tyranny.
There you go. But, see, their point really isn’t to help the schools. That’s just their shield. Their point is actually to push their religious viewpoint. And therein lies the problem.
**
You’re being a bit unfair to me by breaking apart my paragraph and choosing one statement out of context to reply to. I didn’t acknowledge any of those things as being right and wrong. I simply said that these things happen and I don’t feel like a second class citizen.
**
And just because you, or the majority, happen to think it violates your rights doesn’t make it true.
**
I find it offensive. But I didn’t feel like a second class citizen.
**
Well gee, it seems that folks from every walk of life are trying to push their viewpoints on the rest of us. Why should I be more afraid of religious viewpoints then other viewpoints?
**
This is the pot calling the kettle black. Yes I read your statement about this not being a church on some street corner. But I guess I should have made myself more clear. If I heard a prayer before a football game or high school graduation it didn’t get my panties in a bunch. It didn’t make me feel like a second class citizen.
**
And it SOCAS is addressed in a court case not in the US Constitution. And if it is addressed so well then why do we have IGWT on our money? Of course it says “Congress shall make no law…” so it seems to me that by making it a law that schools need to have these things up is an establishment of religion and clearly a violation. However if schools put them up on their own?
**
And if they’re not religious beliefs is it still tyranny? See I get annoyed when religious and non religious folks try to pass laws based on their own values which don’t coincide with mine. So while there may be a legal basis for distinction between the two I don’t notice the results being any different. Either way someone is forcing their beliefs down my throat. The fact that it might not have religious origins doesn’t make me feel better.
See that’s what upsets more me then anything else. Talking a lot and coming up with some sort of half assed solution that will acomplish nothing in the long term. Although I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they probably believe that this is a good thing that’ll help.
Marc
FriendofGod, your right to freedom of religion–that is, your right to be a Christian–necessarily entails your right to be free from all those other religions which conflict with the teachings of Christianity. In other words, the state does not have the right to force you to convert to Shintoism, or to make you pay a special Christian Tax to finance the construction of mosques, or to force you to burn incense before the idol of George Washington. “…And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name” (Revelation 13:17). In a sense, this is what we atheists have to put up with–every dollar bill and every thin dime has what is, to us, “the mark of the beast” on it. Of course, we atheists are at a disadvantage in these matters. We don’t get irrationally upset about things like this; we don’t fear we’ll be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented for ever and ever if we deny the tenets of atheism. We just get peeved. You can count on it that if every red cent in the United States had a formal renunciation of Christianity stamped on it Christians would be martyring themselves right and left rather than use such wicked and evil money–those of them that weren’t taking to the hills in armed rebellion against the government.
DavidB responded to my “How?” with this (emphasis mine):
I understand you until the line I italicized. Again I’ll switch it around … if on every coin I saw the phrase “In Man We Trust”, it would irritate me and that’s about it. How does this phrase, or “In God We Trust”, or “In IRA’s We Trust”, or ANY such phrase, say that people who disagree are ‘not really represented by the government?’ Unless something drastic has changed DB, you can still vote. You still have a representative and two Senators in Congress.
It sounds to me that you are saying that some people who don’t believe in God FEEL like second class citizens because of this phrase. Okay, granted that’s not a pleasant feeling, but how did it take a single right away from you? You have the right to protest the phrase and tell people publically that you feel like a second class citizen because of it. I still don’t see a single right being taken away. All I see is that some people who disagree with the phrase might have a bad feeling because of it.
I disagree, but see my comments on MGibson’s reply later as to why, who explained it better than I did.
Polycarp … don’t worry. I agree with the phrase “You, I, David, and everybody else has the right to believe precisely whatever we choose, as regards matters religious. Including nothing at all.” MGibson explained better what I was getting at (to be quoted here in a sec).
MGibson said:
EXACTLY. That was my point. The application DB seems to be making is that he should be able to be free from being exposed to religion on a coin or a school building. DB, if by ‘freedom from religion’ you simply mean ‘freedom to not be religious’, I agree 100%. I know you responded to MG about this later, I’ll get to that in a sec.
Also:
Exactly. Being offended is being offended … no rights have been violated.
Back to DavidB, who responded (emphasis mine):
Again, all I’m hearing so far is it ‘feels’ a certain way, ‘seems’ a certain way. No rights violated.
MGibson later said:
Exactly. Do you realize that many Christians feel like tons of viewpoints are being pushed on us constantly? The pro-choice thing, the gay-is-ok thing, the sexual-revolution thing, etc. Viewpoints are always being pushed out there. If you disagree, do something about it, and push your own view out there! There is a battle of ideas constantly brewing out there in society, both religious and non-religious. Every law passed is someone’s view of what the law should be, imposed on those who don’t think it should be the law. That’s the way life is.
Again, MGibson said it even better:
Exactly. All laws will feel like something’s being ‘forced down your throat’ if you disagree with the law, regardless of it’s origin.
MEBuckner wrote:
Not if “White people are superior” appeared in one of the seldom-sung verses of The Star-Spangled Banner, it wouldn’t. :rolleyes:
(Seriously. That’s the logic the Supreme Court used when they decided that “In God We Trust” doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause: because the words “In God is our trust” happen to appear in verse 4 of The Star-Spangled Banner, which happened to have been voted our National Anthem in 1931. No one in 1931 thought to challenge the new National Anthem as being in violation of the Establishment Clause at the time. Therefore, we can have “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Under that logic, it should be Unconstitutional to ban fireworks!)