Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr. Palau]

The supreme court is wrong in its interpretation of the constitution. The endorsement of god is a violation of the first amendment.

Ah but the Supreme Court is the interpretor of the constitution. The constitution is therefore what the Supreme Court says it is. With the current constitution the Supreme Court says In God We Trust is not a violation of the first amendment.

Supreme Court ruled that it was in keeping with the Constitution, which embodies our founding principles, to address a supreme being with phrases far more religious than in god we trust, and that acknowledging a supreme being in a school prayer, by the state of NY, does not violate the constitution.

Who is “we” in “In God we trust,” do you think? How is the supposition that the citizens are Judeo-Christians not in violation of the founding principals?

(snip for space)

No one is saying that this is as bad as racism. I can only suppose that you are willfully misinterpreting the message, as the point is “The public’s feelings do not matter, as they do not always reflect the public good.”

Yeah I got the point that was trying to be delivered. The difrence is in civil rights the public opinion was clearly against discrimination and for the public good, since it was repealed, and the majority of people are happy we don't live with Jim Crow laws, aren't you? Where as in this case the majority doesn't care, and a greater preportion of American's believe strongly in God then disbelieve strongly or are not of the Juedo-Christian-Islamic faith (since it is thier god), therefore fi we are to judge the majority opinion in this case as in civil rights then we should still have the motto on the money.

Actually now isn't it still insulting to the communists, Ie. the people we want to improve relations with (China, North Korea, yaddi yadda)

The Chinese don't care and the North Koreans are largely a nusance. No government really cares that the motto is on our money.

Supreme Court ruled that it was in keeping with the Constitution, which embodies our founding principles, to address a supreme being with phrases far more religious than in god we trust, and that acknowledging a supreme being in a school prayer, by the state of NY, does not violate the constitution.

If you actually read your own link you would see that the ruling you are referring to was rendered by the New York Court of Appeals, and that said ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court 6-1, as is stated a page or two down from where your link starts. Engal et al v. Vitale was the case that established that schools could not endorse prayer under any circumstances, in keeping with the Seperation of Church and State in the US as declared by the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Emphasis mine. That is some of the single strongest language in the Constitution. No ambiguity, an outright ban.

*cough direct opinion quote cough*

"The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals  to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." (P 342-344 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/306/case.html , page number and spaces exempted)

They are much more persusive then I am.

(wow quintuple ninja'd, took me a while to find the actual opinion after I found out the hard way the Supreme Court only has online records of recent cases.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

*cough direct opinion quote cough*
-snip-
They are much more persusive then I am.

The opinion you are quoting is from Zorach v. Clauson, not Engal et al v. Vitale. The former was about allowing students to take one hour's leave per week for out-of-school religious services, involving no public funding and only at a parent's explicit request. And has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Mr. Palau]

I quoted Zorach v Clauson before, and read the opinion, thats what sets the precedent and defines the 1st amendment.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It doesn't set any precedent, and even if you were quoting something containing it before your previous link goes straight to Engal et al v. Vitale, and is the case you mentioned in your previous post.

[Fenrir]

Ah but the Supreme Court is the interpretor of the constitution. The constitution is therefore what the Supreme Court says it is. With the current constitution the Supreme Court says In God We Trust is not a violation of the first amendment.

You are conflating government and religion. The Supreme Court, as potent as the name sounds, is not the Catholic Church, and the Constitution is not the Bible. We do not simply accept their interpretation just because it is the Supreme Court interpreting it.

Yeah I got the point that was trying to be delivered. The difrence is in civil rights the public opinion was clearly against discrimination and for the public good, since it was repealed, and the majority of people are happy we don't live with Jim Crow laws, aren't you? Where as in this case the majority doesn't care, and a greater preportion of American's believe strongly in God then disbelieve strongly or are not of the Juedo-Christian-Islamic faith (since it is thier god), therefore fi we are to judge the majority opinion in this case as in civil rights then we should still have the motto on the money.

If you understand the message, why do you continue to appeal to God’s public popularity? The majority opinion does not change the fact. Federal endorsment of a particular religion is in opposition to fair government.

Also, I do believe that the Islamic god is called “Allah”.

[Mr. Palau]

Ah but the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the constitution. The constitution is therefore what the Supreme Court says it is. With the current constitution the Supreme Court says In God We Trust is not a violation of the first amendment.

You are conflating government and religion. The Supreme Court, as potent as the name sounds, is not the Catholic Church, and the Constitution is not the Bible. We do not simply accept their interpretation just because it is the Supreme Court interpreting it.

Yeah I got the point that was trying to be delivered. The difference is in civil rights the public opinion was clearly against discrimination and for the public good, since it was repealed, and the majority of people are happy we don't live with Jim Crow laws, aren't you? Where as in this case the majority doesn't care, and a greater proportion of American's believe strongly in God then disbelieve strongly or are not of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith (since it is their god), therefore fi we are to judge the majority opinion in this case as in civil rights then we should still have the motto on the money.

If you understand the message, why do you continue to appeal to God’s public popularity? The majority opinion does not change the fact. Federal endorsement of a particular religion is in opposition to fair government.

Also, I do believe that the Islamic god is called “Allah”.

I never said you need to accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution as correct, and Catholics can disagree with their church. To more elegantly explain the position I was trying to get across simply in the post you quoted, for all intents and purposes concerning law in the United States the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the constitutionality of a law and interpreter of the constitution for all legal purposes.

And I just acknowledged that I knew what you were trying to say, not that it was right. Last time I checked this was a Democratic Republic, it doesn't matter if it is fair or not if the majority wants fairness than the majority will have it, if the majority want the "In God We Trust" on our money it shall be.

[G-Flex]

Yeah I got the point that was trying to be delivered. The difrence is in civil rights the public opinion was clearly against discrimination and for the public good, since it was repealed, and the majority of people are happy we don't live with Jim Crow laws, aren't you? Where as in this case the majority doesn't care, and a greater preportion of American's believe strongly in God then disbelieve strongly or are not of the Juedo-Christian-Islamic faith (since it is thier god), therefore fi we are to judge the majority opinion in this case as in civil rights then we should still have the motto on the money.

I would like to very firmly reiterate that issues of civil rights ideally have absolutely nothing to do with majority opinion. Much of their purpose is to protect minorities. If you seriously think that matters of civil rights are determined by what is popular or the majority opinion, then you have no idea how the courts, Constitution, or rights in general function. Issues regarding constitutionality and civil rights are not, and have never been intended to be, a matter of public opinion. That's why they're decided by courts instead of put to a vote by congress or citizens.

[Fenrir]

I never said you need to accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution as correct, and Catholics can disagree with their church. To more elegantly explain the position I was trying to get across simply in the post you quoted, for all intents and purposes concerning law in the United States the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the constitutionality of a law and interpreter of the constitution for all legal purposes.

I know that the government makes and enforces the law. That is not what you said, not what I was contesting, and not the subject of debate.

YOU HATH SAID:

The constitution is therefore what the Supreme Court says it is.

You have told me that the Supreme Court is always correct about the Constitution, because the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. This is not true.

And I just acknowledged that I knew what you were trying to say, not that it was right. Last time I checked this was a Democratic Republic, it doesn't matter if it is fair or not if the majority wants fairness than the majority will have it, if the majority want the "In God We Trust" on our money it shall be.

No, it does not. All a democratic republic means is that the people can elect representatives. That is it. They do not vote on policies and laws directly. They vote politicians to do it for them.

Unfortunately, none of the above matters.

We are not debating how the government does work, or who will have their way in the end. This entire thread has been about whether “In God we trust,” should be on the money. I say “No,” because it is Federal endorsement of religion. You said “Yes,” because people would have their feelings hurt if it was removed.

[PTTG??]

It brings a mediocre casus beli.

It Makes a group of people happy.

It may help in discussion with heavily monotheistic nations, showing that we have similar interests.

Uh let me think.

What does this have to do with war? There's plenty of things that could make a group of people happy that don't exclude others, and as a diplomatic tool, outward monotheism isn't really all that great...

Also, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all have the same god, by occasionally different names, in the same way that Catholicism and Christianity have the same god.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

I was responding to the post above mine. The casus beli is the usual "Because god wants it" or however.

Don't attack me, I'm on your side. The point is the reasons aren't very good.

[Leafsnail]

It's not "the side of the atheists".  It's the side of people who think that church should be separated from state.  That viewpoint really should not be incompatible with being religious.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

It's not "the side of the atheists".  It's the side of people who think that church should be separated from state.  That viewpoint really should not be incompatible with being religious.

I modified my statement.

[Mr. Palau]

I never said you need to accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution as correct, and Catholics can disagree with their church. To more elegantly explain the position I was trying to get across simply in the post you quoted, for all intents and purposes concerning law in the United States the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the constitutionality of a law and interpreter of the constitution for all legal purposes.

I know that the government makes and enforces the law. That is not what you said, not what I was contesting, and not the subject of debate.

YOU HATH SAID:

The constitution is therefore what the Supreme Court says it is.

You have told me that the Supreme Court is always correct about the Constitution, because the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. This is not true.

[What I was trying, and apparently failing to explain above is that the statement you quoted should have been written, on my part, as "The constitution is therefore what the Supreme Court says it is legally" which is true because the Court interprets what the Constitution says about a given law in a legal manner.

And I just acknowledged that I knew what you were trying to say, not that it was right. Last time I checked this was a Democratic Republic, it doesn't matter if it is fair or not if the majority wants fairness than the majority will have it, if the majority want the "In God We Trust" on our money it shall be.

No, it does not. All a democratic republic means is that the people can elect representatives. That is it. They do not vote on policies and laws directly. They vote politicians to do it for them.
 
[Yes because a Democratic Republic isn't a direct Democracy but in a Representative Democracy, our house and senate in terms of parts of the republic, are elected to represent the feelings of the majority in their district's which would lead, in aggregate to a majority of Reps (including the senators) voting for it.]

Unfortunately, none of the above matters.

We are not debating how the government does work, or who will have their way in the end. This entire thread has been about whether “In God we trust,” should be on the money. I say “No,” because it is Federal endorsement of religion. You said “Yes,” because people would have their feelings hurt if it was removed.

That’s not my only reason; here are my reasons for supporting "In God We Trust" on Dollar bills.
-The opinion of the majority should be taken into account in a discussion of a policy matter in any form of democracy. The majority would likely rather it not be changed.
-The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
- A greater minority would be happy with it being kept as is then another minority would be, respectively those who are religious, and those who are of non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion and Atheists.

Just to make sure everyone knows that I put my comments in the quote contained with brackets [].

*cough direct opinion quote cough*
-snip-
They are much more persusive then I am.

The opinion you are quoting is from Zorach v. Clauson, not Engal et al v. Vitale. The former was about allowing students to take one hour's leave per week for out-of-school religious services, involving no public funding and only at a parent's explicit request. And has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Sorry I thought people would see it but on the left side of the quote and on the pages above is Zorach v. Clauson. I apoligize for this misunderstanding  . You are right the other case is unrelated and wouldn't really help my argument would it  , being about school prayer and all. Oh and every Supreme Court case sets a precednt, which is defined and explained in the opinion. That is why in the up coming Obamacare decision if it looks like the court is going to pass it many people think Chief Justice Roberts will switch sides so he can write the opinion for the majority, one of the powers given to a Chief Justice is the ability to decide who writes opinions if they are on the majority so he will just select himself to write the opinion, and keep it very narrow so as not to set a precedent for excessive use of the commerce clause. Don't worry everyone, you won't have to eat Broccoli  !

[Leafsnail]

Personally I feel like even if it is allowable under the constitution (in spite of directly contradicting it) it's still really a poor motto that should really be changed (note that "allowable" wouldn't mean "mandated" anyway).  Simply because it's so inherently divisive, and essentially there to pander to people who think that other citizens aren't worthy of being true citizens.  As GlyphGryph pointed out its historical roots are also horrible.  I really don't see what merits it has over the inherently unifying and more historically established alternative.

[Fenrir]

Yes, I am sure that religious people would be happy if government endorsed their chosen faith. That does not make it fair, that does not make it conducive to a more tolerant and open-minded society, and that does not make the motto an accurate representation of the American public. All of which are more important than “We would rather you didn’t, because I like God.” The point of democratic republic is not democracy—the point is developing an effective and fair government, and this is the system our ancestors picked for the task, so government should not do things just because the public wants it that way.

The public was not consulted when the motto was changed to “In God we trust,” so I do not see why it is so important now.