Roberts? You've Been Served

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mr.Moto

They say what they say - but they don’t constitute any kind of establishment of religion or interference of free exercise.

So use of the word “God” does not, in fact, invoke God.

Good grief.

[Mr.Moto]

Look, I said before you need to justify your views somehow. Your posts are awfully thin on citations, and as your opinion isn’t the one currently held by controlling law, it is up to you to justify it better than you have until now.

Until you do so, you might want to cut the snark - it isn’t becoming of someone who understands this subject so little. Not that I’m any kind of constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer, but at least I did some legwork here to understand the topic better.

[villa]

Come on. We know Ceremonial Deism is the law at the moment, but it is pretty much logically indefensible. Establishment/free exercise jurisprudence is tough, I’ll be the first to admit it - the two parts often seem in opposition to one another. But there are logically consistent ways to rationalize things such as “In God We Trust” on the currency. For example, you can claim that the purpose of the establishment clause is to prevent a single, state church.

But Ceremonial Deism really doesn’t work. It strikes me as a cop out - a hand waving to avoid making difficult choices. And that is why it is popular on both sides of the fence. Christmas being a federally recognized holiday, for example, would be very tough to justify under a strict interpretation that prevented the marking of the currency. So would chaplains in the military.

The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of people want things like Christmas to carry on being recognized, including those who want a strict interpretation of the religious clauses. And Ceremonial Deism allows courts to pretend there isn’t a problem there. But that doesn’t make it any better law.

[Guinastasia]

So Help Me Obi-Wan Kenobi? (You’re Our Only Hope?)

[Gfactor]

@Bricker

Well, this waste of judicial resources will undoubtedly appeal the denial of his injunction, and his appeal will undoubtedly be dismissed as well, and then he may try to move forward on the merits, and THAT will be denied, and…

…I hearken back to what I said in the OP: I don’t believe this is a good use of our limited judicial resources, especially for what amounts to an absurd and settled question. Newdow should cut it out.

He did: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/01/newdow-wont-challenge-denial-of-injunction-on-inaugural-oath.html

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mr.Moto

Look, I said before you need to justify your views somehow.

What part of “‘God’ refers to God” needs justification? :dubious: What part of the First Amendment do you think doesn’t mean what it says?:dubious:

Until you do so, you might want to cut the snark - it isn’t becoming of someone who understands this subject so little.

When you can support your claim that invocations of religion are not, in fact, invocations of religion with something more than simple repetitive assertion, then they’ll be deserving of something more than snark. It’s that simple.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@mswas

Yeah, since we speak English here, it would be an odd statement to say four words, three in English and one in Arabic. I would certainly wonder what his motivation to say the word, “god”, in Arabic rather than English might be.

So help me baal then.