Posted without comment:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf?/news/pd/n26motto.html
Discuss 
Guess they’re not. 
I’ve been arguing this one over at the LBMB this afternoon. They can’t seem to fathom how this infringes on anyone’s free exercise of religion. I asked them how they would like living in a state where the motto was, “There is no God–Get Over It”.
Dr. J
“Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!” -Dr. Nick Riviera
As the folks at Americans United for Separation of Church and State said in their press release (see below), this one was a no-brainer!
http://www.au.org/pr42500.htm
But, it seems there are a few folks with no brains.
I mean, the state actually argued that it’s ok because it didn’t compel anybody to believe anything. Uh huh. And how do they think an atheist feels when their own government is endorsing God? Oh, wait, I forgot – they don’t care about atheists. Only Christians count (and none of this Judeo-Christian BS – this was a NT quote).
::: sigh :::
Just another reminder (if one were needed) of how glad we all are that the 1950’s are over.
Note: I detect signs of an interdenominational squabble here. The one Rev. thinks the other Rev. done a Bad Thing by taking the side of the burning-in-hell-every-man-jack-of-them ACLU, may their she-camels be cursed with infertility.
I’m a Christian, and even I think the thing should come down. What else was going on in 1959 that might explain it? Two years after Sputnik? Four years after Disneyland opened?
I also smell the pungent aroma of pork barrel. Somebody’s brother-in-law owned a tombstone engraving business and business had been a little slack till he got the umpteen thousand dollar contract from the State of Ohio? I’m such a cynic.
On behalf of the Midwest, I’d like to apologize to the rest of the world. We’re sorry, we’re just incorrigible optimists who happen to believe that God always liked us best.
:rolleyes:
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
The quote you’re freaking out at is, "With God all things are possible."
Protesting Ohio’s use of this phrase because it appears in the Sermon on the Mount seems to me like an overreaction. What if scholarly research were to demonstrate that that phrase was not originated by Jesus of Nazareth, but was cribbed by the evangelist “Matthew” from a pagan source, ancient Gnostics, or the Talmud? Would you freak then? It wouldn’t be sectarian then, would it?
Is it a statement of a particular belief? Yep. So is, “Live Free or Die.” So is, “Salus populi lex suprema esto.” (The latter is Missouri’s state motto, which means “Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law.” And yes, that’s a worryingly specific mission statement for a government–just ask an environmentalist.)
Maybe we shouldn’t have mottoes at all, then. But we do, and I don’t think a silly statement like, “With God all things are possible,” is much of a sectarian threat. Of course, I don’t take the Gospel according to Matthew as seriously as some.
The quotes I’d like to see as mottoes?[ul][li]“And I saw that all labor and all achievement spring from man’s envy of his neighbor. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.” --Ecclesiastes 4:4[/li][li]“Do not say ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ for it is not wise to ask such questions.” --Ecclesiastes 7:10[/li][li]“Why were the old days better than these?” ;)[/ul][/li]I’ll try to find some good Taoist & Krishnaist ones too.
I think it’s OK for them to keep it as long as they can back it up. I suspect we can easily think of 3 or 4 different things that, as far as anybody knows, are either actually or practically impossible. If they can do any two of them, employing God’s assistance as required, then maybe it’d be OK to use that as a motto?
–
peas on earth
Maybe Ohio can change its motto to: “At Least We’re Not South Carolina.”
Why did we need a lawsuit about this motto? Who was being hurt this? I didn’t know that Ohio had this for it’s motto. AND I’M FROM OHIO!!!
Doesn’t the ACLU have better things to do? And before anybody chews my head off, I am a member.
Being from Alabama, I may not have any business commenting on this, since our motto used to be, “Buy more brown people.” Or maybe it wasn’t.
Isn’t the issue here, whether or not all the people agree with the motto? In which case, they’ll never find a replacement. However, I might recommend a modification, “With duct tape, all things are possible.” Surely no one would disagree with that. Well, except for those Krazy Glue psychos, but maybe Ohio doesn’t need them anyway.
I guess my question is this: Can we not disagree with something or dislike it, without feeling the need to make it into some kind of legal precedent? Of course, not everybody agrees with this motto. Believe it or not, not everyone agrees with that brown people one, either. This just doesn’t compare with a really bad motto, like “Catholics are cool; Jews suck.”
I say, if you don’t like your state motto, get together with your friends and start a movement (preferably, a political one–I, for one, am not interested in what you do with your friends in the bathroom). Why not save valuable court time for people who can actually show a bruise?
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
With regards to the “unconstitutional” bit (please excuse my ignorance - coming from the UK and all!) but I thought the constitution was about free speech!? (and other stuff - obviously).
The Ohio state defence should have argued that the ‘motto’ was speculative and not a statement meant to cajole citizens into the Faith - which coming from a minister in the first place…?
What a waste of taxpayers money.
“incognuity” should be a word!
Daphy, strictly speaking, “The Constitution” does nothing more than outline the structure and responsibilities of each branch of the U.S. government.
The Amendments, which are of course part of the Constitution upon their ratification, cover a variety of things not mentioned in the original document, or things that were later changed or were not an issue at the time.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law restricting freedom of speech or of the press (subject to certain limits, such as obscenity and libel); it also prohibits Congress (and, by extension via the 14th Amendment, the States) from restricting the free exercise of religion or, more importantly in this case, from establishing religion. What exactly “establishing religion” means is subject to varying interpretations depending on what year it is and who is on the Supreme Court.
I had little hope that this case was going to succeed, and was frankly surprised (although not unpleased) that it did. My mind reels whenever I hear it argued that a phrase such as “In God We Trust” or “With God, All Things Are Possible” is intended to engender some secular message. Not that I’m incapable of understanding metaphor, but it seems to me that a secular message is best expressed in secular language. Anything else amounts to equivocation and, quite probably, pandering. In my opinion.
pldennison Firstly, thankyou for your explanation of the constitution.
Secondly, maybe I’m just tired (end of a hard day at work here in the UK!) but your last paragraph seemed to contradict itself - you’re not displeased by the result, but your mind reels when you hear the argument for the prosecution!? Which side of the fence are you sitting on?
Thirdly and lastly, there is no thirdly and lastly but with a firstly and secondly it would have sounded silly without a thirdly or lastly.
“incognuity” should be a word!
I can’t bring myself to get my panties in a bunch over this. But I noted on the NBC Evening News, Tom Brokaw said the objection to the slogan was that it promoted Christianity, as opposed to some other religions. NOTHING about how ALL religion should keep their grubby little fingers out of government, period!
Daphy, what I meant was that I am firmly on the side of replacing the motto with something nonreligious; but as a realist, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear cases regarding “In God We Trust” on currency, I thought this one was going to get tossed out on its ear. Maybe the fact that it was initiated by a member of the clergy played into its success?
I have often found it interesting to pose the question, “well, why do you want <insert mottoe here> to appear on our currency/buildings/lip tattoos/toiletpaper?” Very rarely have I had a person articulate any reason which dod not reduce to support for a religious view. So, to those of you arguing that the motto should have been left alone, why do you want Ohio to declare officially that “With God all things are possible”?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Personally, I’m ready to see our government drop all the little bits of religious symbolism left over from earlier eras. Would we miss ‘In God We Trust’ on the money? Can’t we do without a Congressional chaplain? Don’t my fellow Christians trust in their ability to convey the Gospel message without a helping hand from Uncle Sam? Or are they addicted to receiving government handouts?
Homepage: www.galacticgovernment.gov
Occupation: Galactic Emperor
Location: Trantor
Interests: Palace intrigue, hereditary successors
–Profile by UncleBeer
I still don’t see the difference between “With God, all things are possible” and “In God We Trust.” Granted, one is from the Bible, and the other isn’t, but I don’t know if that’s sufficient to say that the first statement excludes other gods besides the christian god. I would agree that it excludes polytheists.
Also, in my mind, this seems like a small issue. I could think of plenty of issues more deserving of a challenge, for example, why are Bibles routinely presented for oaths in court? (Assuming they still are, which I believe to be true.)
Foolsguinea said:
Wanting the First Amendment to be properly enforced is an overreaction? Not from where I’m sitting.
Nobody is “freaking” – but it does say something about you that you apparently consider anybody to have an opinion contrary to yours to be “freaking.” And if it came from a pagan source or the Talmud, it would still be religious and not belong as a state motto. Even if it came from nowhere but somebody’s brain, the reference to God means it should not be there (and, yes, this means “In God We Trust” should not be on our money, either).
But those are not statements of religious belief. The First Amendment is very specific about religion.
And you’re certainly welcome to hold that opinion. Others differ and thought it important enough to take to court. The court agreed with them.
Arnold: In my opinion, there isn’t much difference between the slogans – both should be removed. But while “In God We Trust” was made up by politicians, the Ohio line comes specifically out of the Bible. That, I think, is why the courts saw it differently.
And maybe it is a small issue, overall. But then, if you were a nonbeliever living in Ohio and saw your government having such a motto, you might feel differently (or you might not – who knows?). The point is that it is a violation of the First Amendment and should not be allowed to stand. Are there greater violations out there? Probably. Does that mean we should ignore this one? Probably not.