Given that Islam is more monotheistic that Christianity, why is monotheism even an issue in trhis discussion?
(And Prager is still an idiot bigot.)
Never confuse the founding of a nation with the founding of a state. The American ethnocultural nation existed before independence – and was predominantly Christian but religiously diverse. And while the non-Christian Indians were emphatically not part of it at the time, we must perforce consider them so now – by adoption, as it were. Furthermore, a nation can change its religion and remain the same nation. Persia did not cease to be Persia when it converted to Islam. IOW, whatever essentially defines us as a nation, Christianity/monotheism is not necessarily a part of it.
But “In God We Trust” and such-like is specifically declared to be something called “ceremonial deism”, which is explicitly excluded from establishing any religion. In other words, the only reason it’s permissible is because everyone has agreed that it effectively means nothing. If it did mean anything—e.g., if it was considered as some kind of binding affirmation of theistic belief, so that people who could be shown to hold atheistic or agnostic beliefs would be guilty of fraud or something if they handled US money—then it would be unconstitutional.
Personally, I think that “ceremonial deism” is more insulting to religious beliefs than 100% rigorous religious neutrality would be. It’s basically saying “Here, we’re going to put this little religious symbol/statement as a decoration on our government paraphernalia because it makes some people feel better, but we will not permit it to be legally interpreted as though it actually meant something.” How condescending can you get?
If people do start trying to treat ceremonial-deist symbology as though it actually meant something, that will be the beginning of the end of ceremonial deism. I wouldn’t be surprised if that actually started happening in a decade or so. Say, if some Christian Reconstructionist wingnut types started refusing to give change to non-theists, or requiring customers to state that they believed in God before giving them change, on the grounds that they don’t want to be accessories to the “fraud” of non-believers carrying “official government documents” that declare them to be believers.
Then there would be lawsuits, and the courts would slap down such practices, and the wingnuts would get all hysterical about how the evil atheistic government is trying to suppress religion, and finally the Supreme Court would just have to make ceremonial deism explicitly unconstitutional, because it could no longer take refuge in being meaningless.
Where’d you get the idea that the “founding document” in this context is the DoI? It isn’t; it’s the Constitution, which does not mention God. The DoI simply declares the states to be independent and free of political allegiance or subjection to the British Crown. It does not in any way establish a governmental structure for the United States as a nation, and religious neutrality in the governmental structure is what we’re talking about here.
magellan01 is throwing out points at random now, seeing if any of them stick to the wall.
The “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” line was inserted by the Congressional chaplain, anyway. Jefferson’s document underwent a great deal of changes before being approved by the Continental Congress, and that part wasn’t written by him.
Kimstu, ceremonial deism doesn’t seem like it would work in this. Having “In God We Trust” can easily seem to an outsider like me as being an endorsement of monotheism if we don’t know that “hey, we don’t really mean it!!”. The only way it could be used and not be an endorsement would be to actually state that every time the motto was brought up, which doesn’t happen and would be pretty silly anyway.
Notice, by the way, the relative roles of God and humans in what the Declaration of Independence is actually declaring:
See that? Independence is declared not in the name or on the authority of the Deity, but “in the name and by authority of the PEOPLE”. And the pledge to support the Declaration is made not to the Deity, but to EACH OTHER.
God is being appealed to here merely as a divine witness of the Declarers’ “rectitude”, and as a divine protector in the dangers to come. What is actually considered to give the Declaration its essential validity is not the sanction or decree of God, but the will and deliberate choice of the people and their representatives. Think about that a bit.
True, but since the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that “we don’t really mean it”, nobody is allowed to formally treat it as if we did mean it. Yes, I agree with you that the symbology can unofficially have a somewhat chilling effect on religious expression of non-theistic beliefs, but SCOTUS has declared that it’s not enough to matter. If it were enough to matter—that is, if anybody did take “IGWT” seriously enough that it began to interfere noticeably with non-theist religious expression—then SCOTUS would have to give it the axe.
As I said, if I were a theist I’d be a lot more offended by ceremonial deism than I am as an atheist. Ceremonial deism in a government that forbids government establishment of religion has to be either insignificant or impermissible, and I wouldn’t want the government trivializing my religious beliefs that way just in order to advertise them on the currency.
Nobody is allowed, or nobody can do so and be correct with regards to the SC’s decision? Is there a punishment for representing the motto as being an establishment of monotheism? And even if there was, it’s still only limited to U.S. residents. As a British citizen, I could find the motto to be an establishment of monotheism (which I do) very easily.
The decision makes no sense to me. If you’re going to say that a statement you endorse actually means the opposite of what it says, then you have to actually *tell * people that it means the opposite, not just expose them to the statement alone. The SC’s decision should be explained whenever the motto is used.
You do have a point with this, though. It probably doesn’t have a huge effect on people (and I as an athiest am not offended, I just think they’re wrong ;)). It just seems pretty silly, I guess.
I thought you implied a belief that The Establishment Clause only referred to endorsements of a specific “church” but not to endorsements of more general religious beliefs like monotheism.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal relevance. The US was not founded on any religious prinicples whatever.
Yepper, if you treat it as actually establishing monotheism: e.g., if you pass a law saying that atheists may not handle currency because it means they are falsely declaring a belief in God. Your punishment for that is getting your law struck down as unconstitutional.
Sure, you’re allowed to say that “IGWT” really means government endorsement of belief in God, as, e.g., the [Christian Law Association](www.christianlaw.org/newsletter/ articles/in_god_we_trust.html) claims. But even they admit that the courts don’t agree with them:
There you have it. Ceremonial deism is fine and dandy as long as it’s not specifically, genuinely or meaningfully religious.
Oh, I totally agree that it’s silly. But as long as the courts are clear about not using it to justify any meaningful governmental establishment or endorsement of religion, I can live with its being silly. It’s not my beliefs that they’re making a hollow mockery of, after all.
Alright. Thanks for the explanation, Kimstu.
So I was in court today as a witness to a Fisheries offence. First time in court for over 10 years.
Iwas asked by the clerk:
A. If I wanted to swear with my hand on the bible.
B. If I wanted to affirm.
I soooo wanted to blurt out that I wished to swear on the Koran.
But I didn’t.
Wuss.
Makes sense to me.
So, would a law requiring public officeholders to profess some form of monotheism violate the religious tests clause of the Constitution or not?
I agree with most of your post. I would however, clarify a couple of things.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
But our nation/country does not have, and never has had, a Christian government, or even a monotheistic one. The government is very clearly specified to be religiously neutral. No religious test may be applied to office holders in the government: not a Christian one, not even a monotheistic one. No matter how monotheistic or Christian our country or or culture may be, we cannot insert Christian or monotheistic bias into our treatment of government office holders PE.RI.OD.
[QUOTE]
My claim was that that it’s founding was monothestic. It was. I have stated that there should not be a religious test. Since the philosophical reasons for the founding of the new country were based on Natural Law and a monotheistic God, that does leave a bit of a philosophical conumdrum.
This unfortunate last bit takes a bit of the polish of an otherwise thoughtful, excellent post. Of course, YMMV.
Let’s assume that you are 100% correct about the passages you cite, that still leaves the rest of the document. And that shows that the reasons they thought they had a right to break with England were the natural rights imbued in each of them through the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. It seems rather unambiguous to me.
I don’t know the particular wording of the text, but “Nature’s God” leaves it pretty open for there to be other gods.
There is little debate that the nation is a predominantly Christian nation. And I don’t think anyone would disagree that it has to remain that way. But it is another thing to deny the facts of history as some attempt to do. And I maintain that the foundation of this country is based on a monotheistic god (small “g”) and the natural rights that that god instilled in man.
Now, while there is no reason that the country can’t change it’s religious leanings, as in your Persian example, those of us who think that the founders were correct concerning the inalienable rights we enjoy—and from where they come—are free to advocate as we see fit. Are we not?
Right above the sentence you typed you quoted me saying “a founding document”. I think you must have misread what I typed and you quoted.
I disagree. Why does the U.S. have to remain a predominantly Christian nation?