"In God We Trust" & "under God" are not religious

[bankside]

What a great pile of bullshit! Next they'll be saying that Eye of Newt is not witchcraft. The court's decision is ridiculous.

With any luck, it is a decision designed to fail on appeal, as I most certainly hope it will be.

There is no reason for a citizen to have to proclaim trust in an imaginary god to be a good citizen and to be united with his fellow citizens. It is ludicrous.

 

[bankside]

But 'Eye of Newt' isn't witchcraft; it's herbalism.

Herbalism? Are you one of those people who says "I'm vegetarian, I only eat fish."

As though fish were some kind of vegetable.

 

[construct]

I'm posting only to provide a link to the opinion in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, the Pledge case. I'm still reading it, but it appears from section !V. that whether the phrase 'under God' is constitutional is not an issue in the case. I'll have to read further, and I provide the link so that you all can read with me.

http://undergod.procon.org/sourcefiles/9thcircuitrulingMar_2010.pdf

 

[construct]

This post is to provide a link to the opinion in Newdow v. Lefevre, the money case. Although this case was dismissed for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6), it upholds Aronow v. United States, which held that the national motto is not an establishment of religion.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/06-16344.pdf

I referred to Aronow in a thread yesterday to gleefully support my own cynical position that "In God We Trust" has absolutely no religious significance whatsoever.

 

[construct]

I'm posting only to provide a link to the opinion in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, the Pledge case. I'm still reading it, but it appears from section !V. that whether the phrase 'under God' is constitutional is not an issue in the case. I'll have to read further, and I provide the link so that you all can read with me.

http://undergod.procon.org/sourcefiles/9thcircuitrulingMar_2010.pdf

When I returned to the case, I was surprised to realize that the bulk of the opinion is indeed a detailed application of several establishment clause tests to the Pledge. Here the court finds that the Pledge is a patriotic rather than a religious exercise and that the phrase "under God" does not constitute an endorsement of religious practice. Specifically, the phrase is seen as an acknowledgment of the importance to the Founders of a higher power as the basis for limiting government. Thus, the phrase "under God" is a reference to our historical commitment to limited government.

Perhaps the court is acknowledging a sort of ceremonial deism by which references to such things as "God" merely impart a sense of gravity to an exercise. The court is certainly not finding any particular religious commitment implicit in the phrase "under God."

 

[bankside]

When I returned to the case, I was surprised to realize that the bulk of the opinion is indeed a detailed application of several establishment clause tests to the Pledge. Here the court finds that the Pledge is a patriotic rather than a religious exercise and that the phrase "under God" does not constitute an endorsement of religious practice. Specifically, the phrase is seen as an acknowledgment of the importance to the Founders of a higher power as the basis for limiting government. Thus, the phrase "under God" is a reference to our historical commitment to limited government.

Perhaps the court is acknowledging a sort of ceremonial deism by which references to such things as "God" merely impart a sense of gravity to an exercise. The court is certainly not finding any particular religious commitment implicit in the phrase "under God."

I need to make up a word here. As religion is to deism, the constitution is to "opinionism." The court might as well have found, in a brainwave of opinionism, that the constitution wasn't really a founding document so much as a collection of quaint aspirations and notions peculiar to the founding fathers. Don't worry about the constitution. It was just written to impart a sense of gravity. You want the constitution so you can say you have one. Like dressing up and looking good. They're just part of the pomp, not part of the substance.

 

[Ambrocious]

I pledge allegiance to my GOD, who is the sovereign ruler of the Universe, and to his children, in which they stand, undivided, with Liberty and Salvation for all.



That's my pledge, so sue me.

 

[construct]

I pledge allegiance to my GOD, who is the sovereign ruler of the Universe, and to his children, in which they stand, undivided, with Liberty and Salvation for all.



That's my pledge, so sue me.

You can pledge to anything you like, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the pledge to the flag of the United States as written in the United States Code violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. So, there's no reason to sue you.

 

[Ambrocious]

You can pledge to anything you like, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the pledge to the flag of the United States as written in the United States Code violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. So, there's no reason to sue you.

Well my alligiance doesn't simply go towards the Flag of the USA. It goes to the highest of the high. He has many names but he is the same.

Elohim, Yahwey, Jehovah, Adoni, Yeshua, El Shaddai, Jesus Christ.


The flag of any country is a symbol of mans effort to be dominant over a people in that area. The names of God are eternal which oversea the whole universe. A flag can be destroyed. A city can be taken down. A country can be decimated. Ideas last forever.

 

[construct]

I need to make up a word here. As religion is to deism, the constitution is to "opinionism." The court might as well have found, in a brainwave of opinionism, that the constitution wasn't really a founding document so much as a collection of quaint aspirations and notions peculiar to the founding fathers. Don't worry about the constitution. It was just written to impart a sense of gravity. You want the constitution so you can say you have one. Like dressing up and looking good. They're just part of the pomp, not part of the substance.

I don't see why you would say that. You might take a look at Marbury v. Madison in which the Supreme Court held that it is the responsibility of the federal courts to measure federal laws against the Constitution. If the Constitution should not supersede all other law, then there would be no need for a process of amendment which is more difficult than a simple act of Congress.

Further, I think you ought to take another look at sections VII. through IX. of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District linked above. There, the court explains its reasoning for its ruling by implementing three different tests which the Supreme Court has used in establishment clause cases--the Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, the endorsement test from County of Allegheny v. A.C.L.U., and the coercion test from Lee v. Weisman. The court held that the Pledge passes them all.

To give you a little hope for a different outcome, the case was a 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel. The case can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit en banc, and I kind of expect it will.

 

[construct]

Well my alligiance doesn't simply go towards the Flag of the USA. It goes to the highest of the high. He has many names but he is the same.

Elohim, Yahwey, Jehovah, Adoni, Yeshua, El Shaddai, Jesus Christ.


The flag of any country is a symbol of mans effort to be dominant over a people in that area. The names of God are eternal which oversea the whole universe. A flag can be destroyed. A city can be taken down. A country can be decimated. Ideas last forever.

Fine and dandy. Have fun with your religion. It's protected under the free exercise clause.

 

[construct]

thanks construct for you specialized insight


i think their ruling gives credence to my constitutional rights flow from the founders' deity idea

Does it, now? I thought their ruling gave credence to the idea that the Founders believed that inalienable rights were grounded in natural law upheld by some sort of deity (seeing as how the Founders were not in agreement about what that deity was). I don't think it is necessary to believe in any deity of any sort to assert that persons have rights. In this way, I differ with the Founders in my rejection of natural law theory.

 

[Ambrocious]

No, no, no .... I can assure you I'm a vegetarian vegetarian ... the sort that eats vegetables ... of plant-based vegetable origin ... not animals (inluding fish) ..no Sirreee... no dead-animal-corpse stuff for me thank you very much.

As for the herbalsim reference, what do you think 'Eye of Newt' really means?

One of these two for sure...

 

[JB3]

What a great pile of bullshit! Next they'll be saying that Eye of Newt is not witchcraft. The court's decision is ridiculous.

With any luck, it is a decision designed to fail on appeal, as I most certainly hope it will be.

There is no reason for a citizen to have to proclaim trust in an imaginary god to be a good citizen and to be united with his fellow citizens. It is ludicrous.

No it isn't. If you have paid any attention at all to the history of both of those statements, as well as the court cases challenging them, you'd know that they're about as religiously related as the chair I'm sitting on. Both were inserted into the public sphere largely as a response to the rise of the 'godless' communists, not out of any desire to push religion on citizens. Further, they have become a part of the common American heritage, so to speak, and have taken on a symbolic, non religious meaning in the process.

Both of these decisions are in line with the law, and will definitely stand the test of any further appeal.

 

[Willie Boy]

What a great pile of bullshit! Next they'll be saying that Eye of Newt is not witchcraft. The court's decision is ridiculous.

With any luck, it is a decision designed to fail on appeal, as I most certainly hope it will be.

There is no reason for a citizen to have to proclaim trust in an imaginary god to be a good citizen and to be united with his fellow citizens. It is ludicrous.

I knew a guy named Newt once. He had very beautiful eyes. But no, his eyes were not stolen by witches to be used in any nefarious deeds.

But on to the point of the thread. I believe in God and am a Christian. I would personally prefer to see those phrases removed. We are not one nation "under God". To use the phrase is therefore a lie and using his name in vain. On a similar note, "In God we trust" is also the same thing, nothing but a lie. This nation does not trust in God, and should therefore not claim to.

 

[opinterph]

… Both were inserted into the public sphere largely as a response to the rise of the 'godless' communists, not out of any desire to push religion on citizens.

Were communists considered a problem during the Civil War period?

I don’t necessarily disagree with the evolution and ongoing non-religious usage of the terms; however, “In God We Trust” clearly had its origins in religious sentiment and acknowledgment of the Deity.

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. [US Treasury]

 

[JB3]

Were communists considered a problem during the Civil War period?

I don’t necessarily disagree with the evolution and ongoing non-religious usage of the terms; however, “In God We Trust” clearly had its origins in religious sentiment and acknowledgment of the Deity.

My apologies. I misread a statement in another thread, and mixed up the reasoning behind that specific statement. Under god was, however, a response to communism.

 

[construct]

My apologies. I misread a statement in another thread, and mixed up the reasoning behind that specific statement. Under god was, however, a response to communism.

You may have misunderstood some of my statements about "In God We Trust." Opinterph is right that it was a civil was era creation. I motto related to trust in God was suggested by a preacher and was championed by Salmon P. Chase, an extremely religious man. Lincoln apparently figured it couldn't hurt, and several different mottos were considered. Once the final wording was settled on, the motto was placed on the two-cent piece in 1864. Congress in 1865 or 66 passed a bill requiring it on all coins where it wouldn't interfere with the design. The mint in 1866 placed it on the quarter, half, silver dollar, half eagle, eagle, and double eagle. It had already been placed on the five cent nickle in 1865. It left the five-cent piece in 1883.

In 1908, it was required to be placed on the eagle and double eagle by act of Congress. It was also placed on the quarter eagle in 1908. It was placed on the cent in 1909, and it returned to the nickel in 1938. The requirement that it be phased in on paper money was enacted in 1955 to distinguish us from the Communists, and that phase-in began in 1957. However since 1908, it has largely shed what religious significance it had.

As to whether the Pledge case might be overturned, it is very possible that the full Ninth Circuit might do exactly that. I'm not so sure that the Supreme Court would affirm such a ruling; I kind of doubt it.

 

[bankside]

No it isn't. If you have paid any attention at all to the history of both of those statements, as well as the court cases challenging them, you'd know that they're about as religiously related as the chair I'm sitting on. Both were inserted into the public sphere largely as a response to the rise of the 'godless' communists, not out of any desire to push religion on citizens. Further, they have become a part of the common American heritage, so to speak, and have taken on a symbolic, non religious meaning in the process.

Both of these decisions are in line with the law, and will definitely stand the test of any further appeal.

No, there is no way that god can be non-religious. It just isn't possible. If your historical narrative were correct about "godless communists" they would have chosen to promote "godless capitalists" instead. Or at least "agnostic capitalists." It was clearly a move to define the States as being the opposite of communism, and also as a nation of believers. That's a step too far in a country that has freedom. The mirror image of communism, intended by that phrase, is also tyranny.

By the way, if you were right about a meaningless god that is only the "Prince of American Heritage" instead of "King of Heaven and all Creation," then christians and other believers should band together to demand the removal of such a heretical reference from all American symbols.

 

[construct]

By the way, if you were right about a meaningless god that is only the "Prince of American Heritage" instead of "King of Heaven and all Creation," then christians and other believers should band together to demand the removal of such a heretical reference from all American symbols.

Indeed they should. In Aronow, the Ninth Circuit gave them a victory that should have made them hopping mad, and this Pledge case did essentially the same thing.