Should we take God out of America?

[_EAllusion]

Maybe you should pay closer attention. I am referring to the Acts of Congress that passed in 1864 and 1865, which resulted in the inscription on our currency. I am saying that if these Acts were illegal (i.e. unconstituational), they probably would not have passed.

Do you know what probably means?

Yes, I know what probably means. When repeating your argument, I used the word probably. You are arguing, seriously it would seem, that one should not say a given law is illegal (i.e. unconstitional), because it is unlikely a given that Congress has passed is unconstitutional. Nevermind that Congress has a lengthy history of unconstitutional actions.

This is your exactly quote, "And it is wrong to say it was illegal, because if it were, it probably would have never been passed."

The fun thing about this inane argument is we can easily plug in just about any law and use this argument.

Do you agree with this ruling? If not, then why not? Do you you know the constitution better than our current Supreme Court Justices?

Well, some of our current Supreme Court Justices. I'm sure Ginsburg agrees with me, for instance. If Democrats won the presidency in 2000/2004, I'm pretty sure my side on this issue would have a slim majority. We can discuss the current reasoning if you like, after we get done discussing yours. After all, it's not like the Supreme Court would dare use your approach.

I didn't say it was wrong to call it illegal because the public never passes unconstitutional laws.

No, you said it was wrong to call it illegal because the public isn't likely to pass an unlawful law.

I'm saying it isn't illegal because it isn't. Who knows the constitution better, those who wrote it or modern secularists?

James Madison wrote the establishment clause. There is virtually no doubt he would've opposed those two phrases as violates of the establishment clause. He was a very strict separationist. There's some historical ignorance here that makes this question odd. I think my understanding of the clause fits in nicely with the views of framers like Madison and Jefferson.

Now you're using your lack of comprehension to further a race-bait red herring. There's definately an idiot behind that straw man.

I can't help it if you use such shoddy arguments that they can be used to defend all manner of bad things. The latter argument is especially rich. Yes, in a democracy the majority ultimately decides things. That has nothing to do with discussing what it is right for the majority to decide and/or if majority decisions were proper.

[_EAllusion]

I understand the history just fine.

Wonderful. Then you agree that the author of this clause would never support the atheist's case.

By "clause" I was referring to "under God" in the pledge. I think you are referring to the establishment clause. Madison would almost certainly agree with "the atheist" on this case. Are you familiar with his views on the matter? He wrote a fair amount about them. His actions, like opposing congressional chaplains, and the reasoning for them made it clear where he stood.

So then the clause would never have passed today, and atheists wouldn't have anything to appeal to. What's your point?

I'm pretty sure something like adding the phrase "under God" in order to distinguish ourselves from our godless enemies still could pass today. It would be more easily struck down, however, as the reasoning for its existence would be blatantly to endorse religious belief.

It's accepted for reasons that have nothing to do with the reason it was initially put in.

And what do you think those reasons are?[/quote]

Under God? I guess I'll quote this website as this is the basic gist of it:

In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3

The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

That would be unconstitutional. It differs from the argument that protects it, which is that the phrase is so ceremonial and generic that it really doesn't contain any meaningful religious content.

[_dartagnan]

Yes, I know what probably means. When repeating your argument, I used the word probably.

And yet its meaning escaped you on both occassions.

You are arguing, seriously it would seem, that one should not say a given law is illegal (i.e. unconstitional), because it is unlikely a given that Congress has passed is unconstitutional.

No, that is not what I said, let alone "argued." It is simply a fact that most acts of Congress are not violations of the constitution.

Atheists argue that these Acts are a violation, and so the burden of proof is on them. This has gone to the Supreme Court and you guys lost. So what's left? Howl at the moon and argue that the Supreme Court is full of idiots. I mean anti-religion atheists know everything don't they? Or at least, that is how they like to present themselves on the internet.

Nevermind that Congress has a lengthy history of unconstitutional actions.

And Brazil has a lengthy history of senseless murder, but that doesn't mean I would be wrong to say I will "probably" make it home alive tonight. Talk about shoddy argumentation!

Well, some of our current Supreme Court Justices.

You heard it here first folks. EA really does believe he knows the constitution better than scholars of the constitution. Sorry, but this is something I'd expect from Tradd.

I'm sure Ginsburg agrees with me, for instance.

He agrees with what? You haven't made an argument. You've only been pissing and moaning about a straw man. What do you believe? I don't want to assume, I want to hear it from you. And does Ginsberg agree with you or are you simply assuming he would?

If Democrats won the presidency in 2000/2004, I'm pretty sure my side on this issue would have a slim majority.

Ah, I get it now. So there really is no objective meaning in judicial review anyway, by your own logic and argument. It all boils down to the preferred bias of the justices. So all it takes is for Obama to appoint a few radical liberal justices - like the one in San Francisco who got this nonsense started to begin with! - and the constitution is finally understood "properly."

But wait! All it takes is for a religious nut to make the same argument. He can follow your line of reasoning and say that the Constitution will be properly understood as soon as a the court is full of conservatives judges again.

Round and round we go, where does it stop?

We can discuss the current reasoning if you like, after we get done discussing yours. After all, it's not like the Supreme Court would dare use your approach.

You haven't managed to understand what my approach is (have I even suggested an "approach") because you're still stumbling over the word "probably."

No, you said it was wrong to call it illegal because the public isn't likely to pass an unlawful law.

Here is another hint for you: Probable and likely are synonyms. So make that three times the meaning managed to escaped you. I think you were just too anxious to slam dunk on a straw man, that you hit the rim too hard and the ball smacked you in the face. Just don't go claiming I fouled you.

James Madison wrote the establishment clause. There is virtually no doubt he would've opposed those two phrases as violates of the establishment clause. He was a very strict separationist. There's some historical ignorance here that makes this question odd. I think my understanding of the clause fits in nicely with the views of framers like Madison and Jefferson.

Well, what is your understanding?

I can't help it if you use such shoddy arguments that they can be used to defend all manner of bad things.

But you should be expected to acknolwedge your own misunderstanding upon correction. So you still haven't managed to comprehend exactly what I was saying?

Really?

What else do I need to do, mail you a dictionary? Well, this is the best I can do for now: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probably

The latter argument is especially rich. Yes, in a democracy the majority ultimately decides things. That has nothing to do with discussing what it is right for the majority to decide and/or if majority decisions were proper.

So are you arguing that the majority does not have the right to elect its leaders? Remember, I said this in reference to frequent complaints that aspiring politicians don't stand a chance during elections unless they profess a religious belief. Atheists can cry about this all they want, but ultimately they have no legal recourse. That is simply the nature of the beast.

[_dartagnan]

By "clause" I was referring to "under God" in the pledge. I think you are referring to the establishment clause.

I was.

Well, thanks for trying to avoid ambiguity. ;)

Madison would almost certainly agree with "the atheist" on this case. Are you familiar with his views on the matter? He wrote a fair amount about them. His actions, like opposing congressional chaplains, and the reasoning for them made it clear where he stood.

I think he vetoed a bill or two using the EC as his chopping block, but I don't have the details tucked under my pillow.
I'll look into this more when I return tonight.

[_EAllusion]

If my brief, very brief, summary of the argument isn't clear, let me add to it a bit here. Imagine how the average American uses phrases like "God bless you" when someone sneezes or "God damn it" when they are upset. While their etymology lies in religious belief, we can reasonably understand the speaker using those phrases to not necessarily acknowledging any religious belief. These statements are only nominally religious and have for all intents and purposes become non-religious through customary use. At this point, they're just expressions, as the expression goes. "In God We Trust" on the money, when it was upheld, was argued to be an expresssion like that, thus not violating the Constitution. It's really only if it is viewed in that manner is it going to escape standard tests for violation of the establishment clause, like the Lemon and endorsement tests.

I personally do not think that phrase is at all like "God bless you" and cite the reaction of the religious to proposals to remove it as proof of that.

[_dartagnan]

"In God We Trust" on the money, when it was upheld, was argued to be an expresssion like that, thus not violating the Constitution.

Are you sure you are not misrepresenting the court's decision? I'll look into this again later tonight, but I'd be surprised if that was the argument it made.

[_The Nehor]

Well, since the only higher power I can think of *is* money, and is the only god I trust, it doesn't seem like that big a deal.

Honesty......how refreshing :)

[Guest]

And yet its meaning escaped you on both occassions.

No it didn't. 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.

Atheists argue that these Acts are a violation, and so the burden of proof is on them. This has gone to the Supreme Court and you guys lost. So what's left?

It's not just atheists who argue this. It's a fair number of religious people along with atheists. The current director of the powerful group American United for Separation of Church and State is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ.

What's left to do is to persuade others to hold our views, wait until more favorable justices are appointed to the relevant courts, and try again. It's no different than what opponents of Roe vs. Wade ought to do.

Howl at the moon and argue that the Supreme Court is full of idiots.

There are people on the Supreme Court that already agree with me. 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 heard it here first folks. EA really does believe he knows the constitution better than scholars of the constitution.

Lots of constitutional scholars agree with my position on this matter. Heck, Newdow won his case in the 9th circuit. If you are trying to assert that my views are on the lunatic fringe of constitutional intepretation, by all means say so directly so I can trivially refute that nonsense.

But yes, 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.

You haven't made an argument. You've only been pissing and moaning about a straw man. What do you believe? I don't want to assume, I want to hear it from you. And does Ginsberg agree with you or are you simply assuming he would?

You're the one who kept pointing out that the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Newdow lost his case on the grounds he lacked proper standing to bring it. 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.

Ruth Ginsburg has expressed views that indicates she would agree with me and it would be consistent with her other establishment case decisions. 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.

Ah, I get it now. So there really is no objective meaning in judicial review anyway, by your own logic and argument.

Um, no. I'm suggesting that lording over me the fact that my side lost in the Supreme Court as proof of the wrongness of my views is silly when you consider my side likely would have almost certainly won any number of cases like this if Gore got a few more votes in Florida. 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, when the Supreme Court by majority probably easily would agree with me if we had a Democrat in the whitehouse the last 8 years.

But you should be expected to acknolwedge your own misunderstanding upon correction. So you still haven't managed to comprehend exactly what I was saying?

Here's what you were saying, "And it is wrong to say it ["In God We Trust" on the coinage] was illegal, because if it were, it probably would have never been passed."

So are you arguing that the majority does not have the right to elect its leaders?

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."

[_EAllusion]

Are you sure you are not misrepresenting the court's decision? I'll look into this again later tonight, but I'd be surprised if that was the argument it made.

Lol. You do that. For what it is worth, that was also Sandra Day O'Connor's reasoning when she offered her opinion that "under God" was constitutional.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, since the only higher power I can think of *is* money, and is the only god I trust, it doesn't seem like that big a deal.

Honesty......how refreshing :)

When have I ever lied to you?

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