Print

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

[G-Flex]

It's possible for Supreme Court decisions to disagree with prior Supreme Court decisions. Just saying. And the 1950s weren't exactly a bastion of religious freedom in the US.

Also, the only SCOTUS decision I can see is the one regarding a different issue, which concerned time set aside from school for students to attend religious programs/education.

[RedKing]

If we were considering truth in advertising, we'd change it to "In This We Trust" (meaning the dollar bill itself). Because seriously, that's about all we hold sacred.

Tangentially related, the Dollar ReDe$ign Project is a rather interesting experiment in design and an exploration of what our money says to us. Some of it is snarky, some of it is just plain bad, but quite a few are interesting. Lots of Euro-styled multicolored/multisized bills, and a lot less dead presidents.

[Fenrir]

Representative Democracy not Direct Democracy, but the representatives represent the will of the people, and they passed it and the people made no issue of it so it was clearly in their will then, and now any appeal would be wrong because it would go against the will of the people to do so.

Even if the people didn’t know or care that the motto was changed their representatives would still have been acting out the will of the greater proportion of the people as the percentage of very religious Americans is higher than the percentage of Americans who are Atheists or of a non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith.

To presume that, because most people believe in an invisible man the sky, they want him mentioned on their money is a leap that would betray your entire point. The people were not consulted. Their will was not done. As was previously mentioned, it was not motivated by the public good. By that same reasoning, it would be acting out the will of the people to put “We are white and heterosexual,” on the money, as most people in the United States are, and I trust you understand why that is a bad thing, and probably not something that the public wants—even the white and heterosexual ones. Again, I am not saying that this is as bad as racism; I am demonstrating that it is a little discrimination—largely unimportant compared to other issues, but it is discrimination, it is still Federal endorsement of a particular faith, and it should be removed. I can be no clearer.

[RedKing]

Representative Democracy not Direct Democracy, but the representatives represent the will of the people, and they passed it and the people made no issue of it so it was clearly in their will then, and now any appeal would be wrong because it would go against the will of the people to do so.
Even if the people didn’t know or care that the motto was changed their representatives would still have been acting out the will of the greater proportion of the people as the percentage of very religious Americans is higher than the percentage of Americans who are Atheists or of a non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith.

Estimates are that "non-religious", agnostics and atheists constitute 15-16% of the American population. Add another 2.4% or so for the combined Hindu, Buddhist, and other (non-Abrahamic religions). Now compare that to the 2008 Barna Research poll that found only 9% answered that "religion" was of the highest importance in their lives, down from 16% in 2006.

Add to that the fact that over the last 20 years or so, Christianity as a segment of the population dropped 10.2% (-9% among all Protestants, -1.2% among Catholics), while the only significant growth groups were among non-denominational Christians and non-religious/atheists.

"In God We Trust" may have been a majority opinion at the time it was enacted, but it's rapidly becoming a minority opinion, so I don't see the problem with changing to match changing demographics.

[Nadaka]

It wasn't even a majority opinion in the beginning, but rather as part of an deliberate movement to Christianize America under reactionary McCarthyism. Prior to WW2 less than 20% of Americans were members of churches. The Christianization of America was explicitly a response to set the people of the US apart from godless soviet communists. You didn't go to church? You might be a godless soviet communist traitor! What would your neighbors think? You don't want to get black listed. Conform. Convert. Submit.

[RedKing]

I'd want to see statistics re: that. Maybe it's just my background but my family, in its various and geographically disparate branches, were all pretty church-going, even back into the 19th century.

That said, I'll agree that this revisionist notion that "America was founded as a Christian nation" is a lark. People like to point to Plymouth and tout its strong emphasis on religion and religious freedom, but they forget that as the Pilgrims came ashore, there was already another colony a few hundred miles to the south (Jamestown) that had been in operation for a generation. And it was founded with the REAL American virtue in mind: trying to make a buck. Plymouth was the exception, not the rule.

[SethCreiyd]

Prior to WW2 less than 20% of Americans were members of churches.

Citation needed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/questions-answers-about-americans-religion.aspx

In the late 1940s, when Gallup began summarizing these data, a very small percentage explicitly told interviewers they did not identify with any religion. But of those who did have a religion, Gallup classified -- in 1948, for example -- 69% as Protestant and 22% as Roman Catholic, or about 91% Christian.

...

In the 1937 Gallup Poll, for example, 73% of Americans said they were church members. That number stayed in the 70% range in polls conducted in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. By the 1970s, however, the number began to slip below 70% in some polls, although as recently as 1999, 70% said they were church members. Since 2002, self-reported church membership has been between 63% and 65%.

Search says this stuff hasn't been linked yet, so for those who don't or want to know:

36 USC § 302 is the law in question, stating simply:

“In God we trust” is the national motto.

The motto itself has been unsuccessfully challenged.  From Aronow v. United States (an interesting read for interested parties, whatever your stance):

While "ceremonial" and "patriotic" may not be particularly apt words to describe the category of the national motto, it is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact.  As stated by the Congressional report, it has "spiritual and psychological value" and "inspirational quality."

The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.

A new law could change the motto, but as Sheb's link indicated, the current legislature is extremely unlikely to pursue this.

Representative Democracy not Direct Democracy, but the representatives represent the will of the people, and they passed it and the people made no issue of it so it was clearly in their will then, and now any appeal would be wrong because it would go against the will of the people to do so.

Even if the people didn’t know or care that the motto was changed their representatives would still have been acting out the will of the greater proportion of the people as the percentage of very religious Americans is higher than the percentage of Americans who are Atheists or of a non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith.

To presume that, because most people believe in an invisible man the sky, they want him mentioned on their money is a leap that would betray your entire point. The people were not consulted. Their will was not done. As was previously mentioned, it was not motivated by the public good. By that same reasoning, it would be acting out the will of the people to put “We are white and heterosexual,” on the money, as most people in the United States are, and I trust you understand why that is a bad thing, and probably not something that the public wants—even the white and heterosexual ones. Again, I am not saying that this is as bad as racism; I am demonstrating that it is a little discrimination—largely unimportant compared to other issues, but it is discrimination, it is still Federal endorsement of a particular faith, and it should be removed. I can be no clearer.

As was mentioned before, there are plenty of people who believe in God (who needn't be a man, nor abide in any particular sky, in fact many Christians hold God to be genderless) that find it an offense to see the deity's name imprinted on money.

The OP's petition doesn't address coinage, but one Act of May 18, 1908, mandates the phrase "In God We Trust" on all coins that have carried the phrase in the past.  This was after Teddy Roosevelt dropped the phrase entirely, calling it irreverent and 'close to sacrilege.'  From my understanding, this 1908 bill was indeed the result of public demand, much like the Prohibition against alcohol would be.  Public, agitated for, but not necessarily popular.

The motto has pretty much always been a cause of controversy.

_{edited for sensitivities}

[Mr. Palau]

Representative Democracy not Direct Democracy, but the representatives represent the will of the people, and they passed it and the people made no issue of it so it was clearly in their will then, and now any appeal would be wrong because it would go against the will of the people to do so.
Even if the people didn’t know or care that the motto was changed their representatives would still have been acting out the will of the greater proportion of the people as the percentage of very religious Americans is higher than the percentage of Americans who are Atheists or of a non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith.

Estimates are that "non-religious", agnostics and atheists constitute 15-16% of the American population. Add another 2.4% or so for the combined Hindu, Buddhist, and other (non-Abrahamic religions). Now compare that to the 2008 Barna Research poll that found only 9% answered that "religion" was of the highest importance in their lives, down from 16% in 2006.

Add to that the fact that over the last 20 years or so, Christianity as a segment of the population dropped 10.2% (-9% among all Protestants, -1.2% among Catholics), while the only significant growth groups were among non-denominational Christians and non-religious/atheists.

"In God We Trust" may have been a majority opinion at the time it was enacted, but it's rapidly becoming a minority opinion, so I don't see the problem with changing to match changing demographics.

agnostic just means no affiliation not unbelieving, I don't identify with a church but I believe in god
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx
90% believe in god

It wasn't even a majority opinion in the beginning, but rather as part of an deliberate movement to Christianize America under reactionary McCarthyism. Prior to WW2 less than 20% of Americans were members of churches. The Christianization of America was explicitly a response to set the people of the US apart from godless soviet communists. You didn't go to church? You might be a godless soviet communist traitor! What would your neighbors think? You don't want to get black listed. Conform. Convert. Submit.

Doesn't matter why the legislature did it, matters why people didn't react. If they liked the old motto so much there would have been a reaction. They would ahve argued that the motto be kept. Also as SethCreiyd pointed out you are incorrect in terms of the 20%. 

Representative Democracy not Direct Democracy, but the representatives represent the will of the people, and they passed it and the people made no issue of it so it was clearly in their will then, and now any appeal would be wrong because it would go against the will of the people to do so.

Even if the people didn’t know or care that the motto was changed their representatives would still have been acting out the will of the greater proportion of the people as the percentage of very religious Americans is higher than the percentage of Americans who are Atheists or of a non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith.

To presume that, because most people believe in an invisible man the sky, they want him mentioned on their money is a leap that would betray your entire point. The people were not consulted. Their will was not done. As was previously mentioned, it was not motivated by the public good. By that same reasoning, it would be acting out the will of the people to put “We are white and heterosexual,” on the money, as most people in the United States are, and I trust you understand why that is a bad thing, and probably not something that the public wants—even the white and heterosexual ones. Again, I am not saying that this is as bad as racism; I am demonstrating that it is a little discrimination—largely unimportant compared to other issues, but it is discrimination, it is still Federal endorsement of a particular faith, and it should be removed. I can be no clearer.

Well it couldn't really be motivated by the public good because this is incredibly minor. It's true that just because people believe in god they might not want him mentioned on their money but polls show they do. Here are some websites talking about a REAL MSNBC poll that people have been circulating in hoax emails . Greater than 80% said they wanted it on their money, or at least keeping it as the national motto not necesseraly on the money but still the motto.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/godpoll.asp
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/msnbcpolltrust.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/nbc_poll_god.htm
heres the actual poll page, can't see the results for some reason though
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/ns/us_news-life/t/live-vote-should-god-we-trust-be-yanked/

It's possible for Supreme Court decisions to disagree with prior Supreme Court decisions. Just saying. And the 1950s weren't exactly a bastion of religious freedom in the US.

Also, the only SCOTUS decision I can see is the one regarding a different issue, which concerned time set aside from school for students to attend religious programs/education.

true and the first link I provided, the case I meant is on the left side of the page, and the importance in that decision is not the ruling but the opinion, as I pointed out before, here's a link 4 u.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/306/case.html
Also Michael Newdow tried the same "This is unconstitutional" argument against the motto, he even toke it to court, and the 9th ciruit dismissed him on the grounds that it is a secular phrase and Aronow is constrolling precedent.

[Mr. Palau]

Representative Democracy not Direct Democracy, but the representatives represent the will of the people, and they passed it and the people made no issue of it so it was clearly in their will then, and now any appeal would be wrong because it would go against the will of the people to do so.
Even if the people didn’t know or care that the motto was changed their representatives would still have been acting out the will of the greater proportion of the people as the percentage of very religious Americans is higher than the percentage of Americans who are Atheists or of a non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith.

Estimates are that "non-religious", agnostics and atheists constitute 15-16% of the American population. Add another 2.4% or so for the combined Hindu, Buddhist, and other (non-Abrahamic religions). Now compare that to the 2008 Barna Research poll that found only 9% answered that "religion" was of the highest importance in their lives, down from 16% in 2006.

Add to that the fact that over the last 20 years or so, Christianity as a segment of the population dropped 10.2% (-9% among all Protestants, -1.2% among Catholics), while the only significant growth groups were among non-denominational Christians and non-religious/atheists.

"In God We Trust" may have been a majority opinion at the time it was enacted, but it's rapidly becoming a minority opinion, so I don't see the problem with changing to match changing demographics.

[Frumple]

agnostic just means no affiliation not unbelieving, I don't identify with a church but I believe in god

Snipe post to get this out of the way; that's not  representative of most agnostic beliefs. The closest you've got there is agnostic theism. Agnosticism is only tangentially related to church affiliation (There's plenty of non-religious or non-spiritual reasons to attend church, natch); it's primarily a position on the nature of truth or knowledge. It means without knowledge. Knowledge =/= belief, etc., so forth, so on.

So the second bit, not unbelieving, is accurate, but the first isn't. Be careful with that, heh.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Let's not get into defining agnosticism. The last time we tried that it lasted something like 80 pages and nearly got the thread locked.

[Nadaka]

I don't have my original source handy to cite quickly, but the under 20% church membership figure was from the 20s I believe. And it would not mean that under 20% were Christians, only that under 20% found religion to be important enough to be a member of a church.

[Bauglir]

Let's not get into defining agnosticism. The last time we tried that it lasted something like 80 pages and nearly got the thread locked.

What do you mean, "nearly"?

[G-Flex]

Also Michael Newdow tried the same "This is unconstitutional" argument against the motto, he even toke it to court, and the 9th ciruit dismissed him on the grounds that it is a secular phrase and Aronow is constrolling precedent.

I would definitely like to see a citation that a phrase invoking "God" was secular in nature.


EDIT: Yeah, turns out you were completely wrong.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf, nor did he meet the Court's prudential standing requirements to bring the suit on behalf of himself.

The Ninth Circuit court ruled in his favor, and it was overturned on a procedural technicality.



WHOOPS: Okay, that was referring to another case, regarding "under God" in the Pledge. You seem to be right about the other case, but that never reached the SCOTUS.

[kaijyuu]

I've always liked Encyclopedia Dramatica's Agnosticism article. Not linking it since it's NSFW, but as an agnostic, I find it hilarious with plenty truth underneath the mocking.

Ain't nothing wrong with fence sitting when both sides are brambly thorn patches~ Except when the fence is one of those ones with spikes on the top; those fences hurt to sit on.