Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any political group/movement has x amount of credibility and political capital with which to work. When atheists/agnostics invest any of that capital and credibility in a cause, because they are a minority, the cause should be selected very carefully. The majority will extend x amount of toleration for the demands of a minority, but if too much is being asked, their attitudes will harden and they will question why a handful gets to dictate to the hundreds. They will fight back.
Consequently it is a counter productive mistake for the non believers to place a lot of effort behind a cause which is actually inconsequential. Allowing creationists a peer place in science classrooms.....that is an issue worth fighting. Compulsory prayer in public schools...another issue worth resisting. When religion leads the opposition to social and cultural progress on issues such as assisted suicide or the right to an abortion..those are good times to make a stand and invest political capital. Your rights are at stake.
When religion does something which is essentially decorative....the "In God We Trust" motto, Congress being opened with a prayer, people saying "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays", City Hall has a manger scene at Christmas..these are the inconsequential trappings of religion. It isn't worth throwing away political credibility resisting these because you are tossing capital you will need for the substantial struggles.
In practical terms, it is important to target the important, and important to ignore that which does no harm.
"In God We Trust" may be annoying, but it is not harmful.
This one has already been through the courts. The Federal ruling was that "In God We Trust" is simply a motto, a slogan, and as such does not constitute a government endorsement of religion. Since that makes no sense at all, I think we are safe in assuming that the actual ruling of the court was...."This is such a trivial matter and we would catch so much crap if we bounced the motto, we're just gonna punt on this one and issue any old thing which gets rid of this with the least amount of controversy."
I suspect that if it was tried again, the courts would react the same way...."The old silly ruling is affirmed."
This. It's considered a "de minimis" violation. I personally think there are bigger things to worry about at the moment, such as the fact that Ten Commandments displays on courthouse properties often pass constitutional muster. As far as both credibility and success go, we're much better off focusing on the big and glaring issues first. That way, it will be easier to dismantle the remaining vestiges like "In God We Trust" at the end.
I suspect that if it was tried again, the courts would react the same way...."The old silly ruling is affirmed."
Actually, it's never been through the Supreme Court at all and I sincerely doubt it would survive if it did (look at the gymnastics they went through to get out of it last time). Not because I feel there is inherently anything wrong with the "generic-ness" of the motto itself (besides the fact that it replaced a perfectly good inclusive motto that applied to everyone with one that excludes about a fifth of the population now). The problem is that it was added (or "mandated" to be precise) by law in 1956 and I don't see the SCOTUS being able to resolve that with the wording of the first amendment (even if the lower courts have been willing to overlook that pesky detail).
Although I don't personally see the harm in it (and feel it's probably a battle for another day), it most definitely does imply that the government endorses deism over atheism.
Problem is it should not have been allowed to be implanted on our currency in the first place. It reeks of spiritual favoritism and therefore of highly selective determination of a singular theistic interpretation. The FSM does not threaten anything, except that it certainly points out the frivolous and illiterate components of the continuing attempts to dominate that political and fiscal scene by a one-off hysterical but glaringly ignorance-dominated monoculture (as in an unforgiving western Christianity replete with wild stories of the supernatural... ).
I don't see the SCOTUS being able to resolve that with the wording of the first amendment (even if the lower courts have been willing to overlook that pesky detail).
.
Ah, but we already know how our current Supreme Court would handle it. The atheist Michael Newdow, who has made a career out of filing lawsuits against what he perceives as first amendment violations, made it all the way through the Federal 9th Circuit Appeals in 2007 with a suit against "In God We Trust" appearing on coins. Then the Supremes shot him down on governmental appeal with a technical ruling...that Newdow had no standing to represent the plaintiffs he claimed to be representing. So....ole! They ducked having to rule on the actual issue.
Not discouraged, Newdow plowed ahead and found a proper plaintiff to represent, refiled the lawsuit and fought his way back to the Federal appeals level. But in 2011, the appeals court simply trotted out a rewrite of the muddled nonsense the court had used back in the 1970 lawsuit. The motto was okay because
Quote:
"under God" was a historic, nonreligious recognition of the faith of the nation's founders in a higher power as the source of all rights.
Newdow tried to appeal this to the Supreme Court, but they punted it away quickly, refusing to hear the case and offering no comment of any sort.
So the courts have been fairly consistent. The liberal 9th Circuit giving it a thumbs up and all other courts simply wishing it would go away, radiating the message..."If you quit filing nonsense lawsuits, then we won't have to issue nonsense opinions."
Ah, but we already know how our current Supreme Court would handle it. The atheist Michael Newdow, who has made a career out of filing lawsuits against what he perceives as first amendment violations, made it all the way through the Federal 9th Circuit Appeals in 2007 with a suit against "In God We Trust" appearing on coins. Then the Supremes shot him down on governmental appeal with a technical ruling...that Newdow had no standing to represent the plaintiffs he claimed to be representing. So....ole! They ducked having to rule on the actual issue.
Correct ...they said that since he didn't have full custody of his daughter, he couldn't file on her behalf. Also, the merits of the man putting forth the case have no bearing on the case itself (that's why a person's previous record isn't admissible). I do agree the guy appears to have an axe to grind, but this says nothing about how the SCOTUS would handle it except by dodging the issue completely. You may not agree with me (and I may not agree if they ruled your way), but you have to admit that adding something by law vs "congress shall make no law" is pretty obvious; "ducking having to rule" isn't the same as "we already know how they'd rule." I suspect the "ducking" the case has more to do with political expediency rather than over the merits of the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Not discouraged, Newdow plowed ahead and found a proper plaintiff to represent, refiled the lawsuit and fought his way back to the Federal appeals level. But in 2011, the appeals court simply trotted out a rewrite of the muddled nonsense the court had used back in the 1970 lawsuit. The motto was okay because
Newdow tried to appeal this to the Supreme Court, but they punted it away quickly, refusing to hear the case and offering no comment of any sort.
So the courts have been fairly consistent. The liberal 9th Circuit giving it a thumbs up and all other courts simply wishing it would go away, radiating the message..."If you quit filing nonsense lawsuits, then we won't have to issue nonsense opinions."
Good job at putting words in their mouth ("nonsense lawsuit" was nowhere in there that I could find, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion); given that it was upheld all the way to the appeals court would seem to say different. I do agree with you 100% that the courts wish he would just go away; I'm pretty sure a SCOTUS ruling on this would be a powderkeg in an already polarized nation and I'm not sure now is the time for it either.
I do agree the guy appears to have an axe to grind, but this says nothing about how the SCOTUS would handle it except by dodging the issue completely.
Well, that is how they have handled it, so I would think it says a great deal about how they would handle it. It does not establish how they would rule if they were compelled to address the issue, but it does tell us that they will go to lengths to avoid having to make any such ruling. I never wrote that we know how they would rule, I wrote we know how they would handle it, but despite this you put that "rule" phrase into quotations as if I had. I only wish to be responsible for what I write.
They don't want to be known as the court which told America we don't trust in god, but in order to avoid that they would have to make another one of those inexplicable "the cat isn't really a cat" style rulings such as the ones which the Federal appeals courts have had to do twice.
And the SCOTUS has the power to do this, they can reject any case they wish and are not required to provide an explanation as to why...and there is no higher court to which one might appeal against that rejection.
BTW..speaking of the SCOTUS, did you know that Justice Clarence Thomas spoke in an open session the other day....for the first time in more than seven years?
This. It's considered a "de minimis" violation. I personally think there are bigger things to worry about at the moment, such as the fact that Ten Commandments displays on courthouse properties often pass constitutional muster. As far as both credibility and success go, we're much better off focusing on the big and glaring issues first. That way, it will be easier to dismantle the remaining vestiges like "In God We Trust" at the end.
Yes, agree, like the blaring elephant in the room. The presidents are Christian, deists included. Until that big one changes good luck with the little dollar bill. When there comes a day when religion doesn't influence our vote, things might change. It's still a Christians world when it comes to politics, which is the sad representation of America. IMO, of course, obviously it's just great for the majority.
To all other nations we are a Christian nation, we represent it as such in our pick for president, and as added our choice of decorations. Our freedom extends a religious arm to this day.
Hopefully someone in the future runs without assuming a Christian roll as a prerequisite to running like checking off the presidential requirements checklist. Although hard to enter a race knowing your chances without being a specific religion are pretty limp.
Money, check
ability, check
Christian, check
lol
That said, I think it's pretty ironic we have anything about a God on our money. We are an odd mix of Capitalism and Godism. For sure, make's me laugh a bit inside.
Capitalism + Christianity, it's like Satan and God procreating, that child is America. lol
Last edited by PoppySead; 01-17-2013 at 08:49 AM..
I never wrote that we know how they would rule, I wrote we know how they would handle it, but despite this you put that "rule" phrase into quotations as if I had. I only wish to be responsible for what I write.
They don't want to be known as the court which told America we don't trust in god, but in order to avoid that they would have to make another one of those inexplicable "the cat isn't really a cat" style rulings such as the ones which the Federal appeals courts have had to do twice.
BTW..speaking of the SCOTUS, did you know that Justice Clarence Thomas spoke in an open session the other day....for the first time in more than seven years?
I apologize for the mis-step on the quote; it seems we probably agree on a bit more than I "assumed."
I heard that about Thomas on the news the other night ...made me think of the "Boston Legal" episode where Spader got him to speak in court by accusing him of hiding a girly magazine.
Problem is it should not have been allowed to be implanted on our currency in the first place. It reeks of spiritual favoritism and therefore of highly selective determination of a singular theistic interpretation. The FSM does not threaten anything, except that it certainly points out the frivolous and illiterate components of the continuing attempts to dominate that political and fiscal scene by a one-off hysterical but glaringly ignorance-dominated monoculture (as in an unforgiving western Christianity replete with wild stories of the supernatural... ).
Give us a break, rifle . . . the FSM is represented in the phrase too . . . since it is someone's God . . . as is your "Nature" God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our freedom extends a religious arm to this day. 
...made me think of the "Boston Legal" episode where Spader got him to speak in court by accusing him of hiding a girly magazine.
