Should we take God out of America?

[_dartagnan]

Maybe you need to learn to write more effectively. You said, unambiguously, it would be wrong to say law X is illegal because the public probably wouldn't have passed the law if it was. That's laughable.

Sticking with my analogy, if you said Brazil has a long history of crime, therefore I will be killed on my way home tonight, I would respond accordingly: "It is wrong for you to say I will be killed because I probably won't." You try to deduce what can only be induced. You cannot argue via assertion that I will be killed anymore than you can argue via assertion that the courts are acting illegally, just because they have in the past; it isn't enough to say they have, therefore they are. That's a non sequitur.

In both cases the burden of proof is on you. You have to make a valid argument as to why you think I will definately be killed. And more to the point, you can't just say the Supreme Court is making illegal decisions and expect us to just take that for granted.

Crying about religious bias in the courts is just a cop out. And as I said before, if the tables were turned, any religious nut could use your own line of reasoning and say the courts are acting illegally, and that this would be proved whenever they managed to get the "right" justices in the court.

There are people on the Supreme Court that already agree with me.

I asked you for specifics but you continue to evade. Who agrees with you, and on what exactly?

If Obama holds the presidency for 8 years, there might be a clear majority. Why you feel the need to rhetorically imply that I disagree with the entire court is beyond me. Do you not feel suitably comfortable without that knife?

You are the one who made the illicit wise crack about my contempt for judicial review. Well, it seems you only like it when and if it eventually comes around to agreeing with you. In all other cases, its just something for you to ridicule.

Lots of constitutional scholars agree with my position on this matter. Heck, Newdow won his case in the 9th circuit.

Requiring children to pledge allegiance to God and country in public schools, is another issue altogether. The question is whether or not the national motto belongs on our currency. You said the justices made the absurd argument that "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with God and it is just a catch phrase like "God bless you." So far I have found no evidence for this. The conclusions I have read have more to do with the fact that no reasonable person would read this phrase and think the government is promoting religion.

I am capable of reasonably disagreeing with Justice Scalia on all manner of his decisions, as his reasoning is often quite accessible. It seems that you are necessarily disagree with the justices who oppose your views.

Do you have a link to the individual rulings by the court on this matter? I've read pieces of them from a couple of justices in various articles, but I would assume the official decision would be accessible online somewhere.

You're the one who kept pointing out that the Supreme Court disagrees with me.

And you're the one who implied I had no respect for judicial review. I'm just pointing out that the system you have been relying on has failed you and I am not the one complaining about judicial review. So now you're left with nothing but a hope that someday, radical judges might be appointed and eventually give you want you want.

Newdow lost his case on the grounds he lacked proper standing to bring it.

You're conflating two different things. We are not discussing the pledge of allegiance in public schools. We are discussing the national motto "In God We Trust" on our currency.

Since it's not really the Supreme Court as a whole that disagrees with me so much as specific justices, I thought it would be worth pointing out that specific justices are likely to agree with me.

You're still beating about the bush, and not providing specifics. What exactly would they agree with?

Ruth Ginsburg has expressed views that indicates she would agree with me

Again I ask, agree with what? You're rambling and conflating two different issues. I want you to be clear what it is you think the justices would agree with, regarding the national motto on our currency.

Kennedy developed the reasoning that led to it 9th circuit striking down the phrase. Breyer probably would be in the bag. Souter and Stevens would be on the fence. They didn't rule on the issue. Thomas, Scalia, Rhenquist, and O'Connor were the only ones who expressed their views that it was constitutional.

So let me get this straight. You assume Ginsberg would agree with you. You assume Kennedy and Breyer would agree with you. But you don't really know any of this do you?

You want to make a huge deal out of the fact that the Supreme Court disagrees with me, insinuating my views aren't respectable legal opinion

No, I am simply pointing out that you are the one with the burden of proof here with regards to the legality of "In God We Trust." You have nothing but wishful assumptions that some of the justices "would" agree with you (on some mysterious points you've yet to reveal to us).

No. But if the public passes a law calling for the execution of all people named Kevin Graham and someone starts a discussion about this arguing that is unethical, it is rather wrong-headed to reply, "Well, that's the nature of democracy. I've heard people complain that's not fair. Well, that's because most Americans are want Kevin Grahams dead. That's life in a democracy. You can't complain because most people don't think like you do."

That is an idiotic analogy and I think you know this. There is nothing unethical about voting for people who share your own values. Just how in the hell would you remedy this without removing democracy? EvVen if you could prove that voting along religious lines was unethical, it isn't like you can scan everyone's brain and determine whether or not their vote was religiously motivated. It amounts to nothing more than pissing and moaning over something meaningless.

I was responding to a specific complaint made by atheists who whine that atheists today are not easily elected to office. I said it was the nature of democracy, and the only way they will feel compensated is if they remove democracy. That's it. If you have a better way of addressing the so-called "problem," then let's hear your brilliant suggestions. Until you do, we still have you on record saying this "has nothing to do with discussing what it is right for the majority to decide and/or if majority decisions were proper."

You're essentially avoiding my point. And I think it is reasonable to deduce from your comments that it isn't "right for the majority to decide" who gets into office. And when I try to clarify your unambiguous statement to that effect, you pull this crap of an analogy out of your ass as a diversion.

Hows that effective writing coming along?

[_EAllusion]

Kevin - you are clearly replying to people who think that those phrases as used are unethical. I think that. I said so. Why? Because they imply that lack of belief in God is unamerican, which is needlessly exclusionary towards atheists. That's why they were added, and I maintain that is their continued effect. Your reply to this being said is to say, "Hey. It's a democracy. You can't complain with people not agree with you." That's just a crude expression of majoritarianism as a reply to posts prior to yours, and my analogies put that in its proper light.

As for your murder analogy, that can work just fine. People have reasons for why they think these phrases are unconstitutional. Your reply to this situation was your statement. That's like people thinking you are going to be killed if you go out for a walk because they think there is ample evidence someone is going to murder you, and you replying, "It is wrong to say I'll be murdered. People rarely are killed on walks, so I probably won't be." Brilliant case, Holmes. It's as if you think those who oppose those phrases on the grounds of constitutionality have no real reason for doing what they do, which would mean you are entirely ignorant of what the debate is over.

The is especially fun, because when "In God We Trust" was added to the coinage, it was done as part of a broader movement to transform our government institutions into a more explicitly Christian enterprise. The stated purpose of adding "In God We Trust" was to create a public expression of the people's trust in God so that he may ensure the country is strong and secure. In short, when it was passed, it was more obviously a violation of the establishment clause. But hey, the public probably wouldn't pass an illegal law, right?

You said the justices made the absurd argument that "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with God and it is just a catch phrase like "God bless you."

It's absurd? I glad you agree that it's not a good defense if you do. Does that mean you think you are better than a constitutional authority like Sandra Day O'Conner?

I'm not saying the argument calls it a catch phrase. It says it is a nominally religious phrase that, through customary use, has lost its religious meaning such that its presence doesn't constitute an expression of a religious view. The best possible analogy I can think of is saying, "God Bless You" after someone sneezes. Initially, that expressed a literal hopeful blessing for fear that a sneeze portended a serious illness. It's origins are in the era of the black plague. Through longstanding use, it lost its literalness and now just is an customary well-wishing.

That was the main argument that allowed it escape the effect prong of the Lemon test. The other argument for the purpose prong was that the phrase is a mere reference to the religious belief of the founders. Yes, I contend this, in addition to obviously not being the purpose for the motto's original existence on our money, also contradicts the purpose it serves in our government. When people complain about atheists and others opposing this because the government has right to make religious expressions like trusting in God, they aren't invoking the reasoning that actually has protected it thus far.

So far I have found no evidence for this. The conclusions I have read have more to do with the fact that no reasonable person would read this phrase and think the government is promoting religion.

Well, yeah, because the phrase is of ceremonial character. Did you read the major cases on this?

Will this help your research project?
http://www.clsnet.org/clrfPages/pubs/religMotto.php

The application of the Lemon test to the national motto is most controversial in relation to the first two prongs5. Gaylor contends that the secular purposes underlying the national motto include symbolizing the historical role of religion in our society, formalizing our medium of exchange, and expressing confidence in the future. 74 F.3d at 216 (citations omitted). O'Hair adds, "Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." 426 F.Supp. at 20 (citing, inter alia, Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970)). Aronow goes further and states the motto "has no theological or ritualistic impact." Aronow, 432 F.2d at 243 (the court did not employ the Lemon test).

Regarding the national motto's primary effect, Gaylor followed dicta in Supreme Court decisions stating that the motto is "a form of ceremonial deism,' which through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government approval of religious belief." Gaylor, 74 F.3d at 216 (referring to the dicta as binding "almost as firmly" as an outright holding) (citing County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 603 (1989) (citing Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 693 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring); id at 716-17 (Brennan, J. dissenting) ("[S]uch practices as the designation of 'In God We Trust' as our national motto, or the reference to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form of 'ceremonial deism,' protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."))6.

[_The Nehor]

Honesty......how refreshing :)

When have I ever lied to you?

(Well... that you knew about...)

Well, you told me I'm deluded. I'm pretty sure that was a lie but it might have just been an honest error.