Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (52775)	7/9/2002 12:53:02 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Here is an article on the last attack on the motto "In God We Trust", once more upholding the constitutionality of the motto, which, incidentally, was adopted by Congress as the national motto in 1956 under much the same circumstances as the amendment to the Pledge: "In God We Trust" Appealed to High Court The Freedom From Religion Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review its "In God We Trust" case. Robert Tiernan, Foundation counsel, filed the appeal on April 19, 1996. The Foundation's lawsuit challenges the religious motto which now appears on all coins and paper currency. "The District Court dismissed our complaint without trial," Tiernan said. "That court said that 'In God We Trust' is a form of 'ceremonial deism,' that it does not constitute prohibited government endorsement of religion. We're maintaining that it was wrong for the plaintiffs to be denied a trial in this important constitutional challenge." The Federal Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision. "Our appeal will ask that the U.S. Supreme Court remand the case for trial and give the parties a full opportunity to present their evidence," Tiernan said. Prior to filing the lawsuit the Foundation had a national survey conducted which showed that the motto is regarded as religious by an overwhelming number of U.S. citizens. "The motto obviously is an enhancement of religion," said Anne Nicol Gaylor, Foundation president. "And its lack of accuracy should bother any court. To be accurate the motto would have to say 'In God some of us trust.' All of us could subscribe to the old motto which we never should have given up. E pluribus unum--from many come one--is what the United States is all about. It is a fact. "In addition we are believed to be the only country in the world with a religious exhortation on money. And yet we are the democracy with a commitment to separation of church and state. "Perhaps the Supreme Court will see the inconsistencies or at least recognize that we should have our day in court." In February a federal judge in Chicago ruled that a sign on an Illinois county courthouse reading "The World Needs God" violated the First Amendment. "Putting 'God' on money that all of us must use certainly seems like a more pervasive violation," Gaylor said. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In the same vein, I would say that the "under God" phrasing was not violative, because it did not amount to establishment of a particular set of beliefs, but was an instance of ceremonial deism, too amorphous to do anyone harm.

To: Lane3 who wrote (52775)	7/9/2002 12:54:02 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

Here is an article on the last attack on the motto "In God We Trust", once more upholding the constitutionality of the motto, which, incidentally, was adopted by Congress as the national motto in 1956 under much the same circumstances as the amendment to the Pledge: ffrf.org "In God We Trust" Appealed to High Court The Freedom From Religion Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review its "In God We Trust" case. Robert Tiernan, Foundation counsel, filed the appeal on April 19, 1996. The Foundation's lawsuit challenges the religious motto which now appears on all coins and paper currency. "The District Court dismissed our complaint without trial," Tiernan said. "That court said that 'In God We Trust' is a form of 'ceremonial deism,' that it does not constitute prohibited government endorsement of religion. We're maintaining that it was wrong for the plaintiffs to be denied a trial in this important constitutional challenge." The Federal Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision. "Our appeal will ask that the U.S. Supreme Court remand the case for trial and give the parties a full opportunity to present their evidence," Tiernan said. Prior to filing the lawsuit the Foundation had a national survey conducted which showed that the motto is regarded as religious by an overwhelming number of U.S. citizens. "The motto obviously is an enhancement of religion," said Anne Nicol Gaylor, Foundation president. "And its lack of accuracy should bother any court. To be accurate the motto would have to say 'In God some of us trust.' All of us could subscribe to the old motto which we never should have given up. E pluribus unum--from many come one--is what the United States is all about. It is a fact. "In addition we are believed to be the only country in the world with a religious exhortation on money. And yet we are the democracy with a commitment to separation of church and state. "Perhaps the Supreme Court will see the inconsistencies or at least recognize that we should have our day in court." In February a federal judge in Chicago ruled that a sign on an Illinois county courthouse reading "The World Needs God" violated the First Amendment. "Putting 'God' on money that all of us must use certainly seems like a more pervasive violation," Gaylor said. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In the same vein, I would say that the "under God" phrasing was not violative, because it did not amount to establishment of a particular set of beliefs, but was an instance of ceremonial deism, too amorphous to do anyone harm.

To: Lane3 who wrote (52775)	7/9/2002 12:58:57 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"It would have been better had the issue never been raised at all" I disagree. It was an intrusion into everything that makes the United States a harbour for freedom and rights. The moment that a particular mystical dogma becomes a State initiative is the moment that ALL individual freedom is usurped. When you lose the right to think...you lose the right to BE. I don't want to go to a mosque every day to avoid suffering ostracism or a slit throat. But if the State is anything but neutral to religion (and that includes the right to NOT be a mystic), then the right to dissent may not be justified on a rational basis. You will then believe and act as you are required to by those who command the boys who carry the guns. People take the Constitution and Bill of Rights for granted. They think you can fuck with it. They are wrong.