In God We Trust

[BDKJMU]

"In God We Trust" is not a "Christian" message. It is a generic expression of faith acceptable to any religious tradition.

I’d submit people read “In God We Trust” and associate it with Christianity. Same as “Ally Ackbar” and Islam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Da fuq?

[Gil Dobie]

I’d submit people read “In God We Trust” and associate it with Christianity. Same as “Ally Ackbar” and Islam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. And that's exactly how it was intended.

[Ibanez]

I’d submit people read “In God We Trust” and associate it with Christianity. Same as “Ally Ackbar” and Islam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Da fuq?

Obviously it’s a typo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Da fuq?

Obviously it’s a typo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously your autocorrect thought you were searching "Ally McBeal" for the 78th time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

See what I mean? That's some valuable education you learned!

(Lombardi poplars and the hybrid cottonwood/poplars on my course are the same)

Yeah, poplars in general are not dense-wooded trees. Branches break off all the time. They are even a low choice of firewood because they burn too quickly.

Where I was raised in Idaho, poplars would snap and break whenever there was a good wind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Da fuq?

Obviously it’s a typo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, a typo getting you from Allahu Akbar to Ally Ackbar...

[Ibanez]

Obviously it’s a typo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously your autocorrect thought you were searching "Ally McBeal" for the 78th time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And is there anything wrong with Ally McBeal?

Hater

[Ibanez]

Obviously it’s a typo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, a typo getting you from Allahu Akbar to Ally Ackbar...

Yes.

Dick.

[kalm]

Obviously your autocorrect thought you were searching "Ally McBeal" for the 78th time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And is there anything wrong with Ally McBeal?

Hater

She needed someone to make her a sandwich.

[JoltinJoe]

I’d submit people read “In God We Trust” and associate it with Christianity.

That position has been consistently rejected by our courts.

[JoltinJoe]

I addressed the first point more than adequately.

As for your second point, what forbids the government from expressing a general preference in favor of belief? What is your source for that contention?

1). No you didn’t and you continue to shy away from it but that’s ok.

2). The constitution

The constitution? Of which country? Now I get your issues. I've been assuming you live in the United States, and it turns out you don't.

[BlueHen86]

Obviously it’s a typo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, a typo getting you from Allahu Akbar to Ally Ackbar...

[Ibanez]

I’d submit people read “In God We Trust” and associate it with Christianity.

That position has been consistently rejected by our courts.

That doesn't make the public perception any different.

[Chizzang]

I’d submit people read “In God We Trust” and associate it with Christianity.

That position has been consistently rejected by our courts.

Joe,
The cleverness of an argument today doesn't change the original intent of yesterday
(see: Red Scare)

Yes Joe,
People like you have succeeded in shifting the vector and creating ambiguity where there was none
and please don't even start a conversation that implies somehow that's not what lawyers do

[Ibanez]

1). No you didn’t and you continue to shy away from it but that’s ok.

2). The constitution

The constitution? Of which country? Now I get your issues. I've been assuming you live in the United States, and it turns out you don't.

You smug, bastard.


Being i'm not a lawyer, maybe I don't understand what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." means. To me it say, Congress shouldn't legislate anything favoring one religion or another. Nor should they deny a Catholic, a Baptist, a Muslim or an Atheist from practicing what they believe.

Could a religious idea, like trusting God, be favoring religion?

That's an honest question, btw.

[JoltinJoe]

That position has been consistently rejected by our courts.

Joe,
The cleverness of an argument today doesn't change the original intent of yesterday
(see: Red Scare)

Yes Joe,
People like you have succeeded in shifting the vector and creating ambiguity where there was none
and please don't even start a conversation that implies somehow that's not what lawyers do

The first court that held that "In God We Trust" was a generic expression that did not establish religion, or any particular religion, was the 9th Circuit in 1960. And every court subsequently has held the same. In truth, the First Amendment has never been construed to bar generic religious expressions by the government. The First Amendment bars compelled participation in religious expression, yes. The First Amendment bars the government's explicit reference to Christ ("In Christ We Trust" would be unconstitutional). But general expressions favoring "God" have always been upheld and that understanding goes back to the founding of this country.

[Chizzang]

Joe,
The cleverness of an argument today doesn't change the original intent of yesterday
(see: Red Scare)

Yes Joe,
People like you have succeeded in shifting the vector and creating ambiguity where there was none
and please don't even start a conversation that implies somehow that's not what lawyers do

The first court that held that "In God We Trust" was a generic expression that did not establish religion, or any particular religion, was the 9th Circuit in 1960. And every court subsequently has held the same. In truth, the First Amendment has never been construed to bar generic religious expressions by the government. The First Amendment bars compelled participation in religious expression, yes. The First Amendment bars the government's explicit reference to Christ ("In Christ We Trust" would be unconstitutional). But general expressions favoring "God" have always been upheld and that understanding goes back to the founding of this country.

Half a truth is often a great lie...

[dbackjon]

So christians can post their message but other religions can't.

Got it!

"In God We Trust" is not a "Christian" message. It is a generic expression of faith acceptable to any religious tradition.

Except the sponsors of all these are Christians, and the establishment of it as our Motto was based on Christianity being superior to the Godless Commies.

Our Motto used to be, E pluribus unum - out of many, one. The change at the same time to the pledge has the same effect - putting the Christian God ahead of unity. Both should be reversed.

[css75]

1). No you didn’t and you continue to shy away from it but that’s ok.

2). The constitution

The constitution? Of which country? Now I get your issues. I've been assuming you live in the United States, and it turns out you don't.

He lives in a foreign country it is called Washington


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

1). No you didn’t and you continue to shy away from it but that’s ok.

2). The constitution

The constitution? Of which country? Now I get your issues. I've been assuming you live in the United States, and it turns out you don't.

I can see why you refuse to address the first point.

Joe, serious question, and I’d appreciate an intellectually honest answer for once. Does the the 1st amendment say “a religion” or “religion”?

I’m sure you have precedence on your side but I’m asking you to actually apply common sense here which I realize is tough sometimes.

[GannonFan]

The constitution? Of which country? Now I get your issues. I've been assuming you live in the United States, and it turns out you don't.

I can see why you refuse to address the first point.

Joe, serious question, and I’d appreciate an intellectually honest answer for once. Does the the 1st amendment say “a religion” or “religion”?

I’m sure you have precedence on your side but I’m asking you to actually apply common sense here which I realize is tough sometimes.

Not an easy question, per se, as the original draft by Madison did include language that would lean to the "a religion" side, but the draft was considerably edited (Madison's original draft was fairly long) and the final edition was put out with almost no commentary on why they edited it the way they did and why it left itself open to just "religion" interpretation (there was a rush to get the Bill of Rights out since it was a sticking point on some states ratifying the Constitution, . Original intent was likely, based on the first draft and based on other actions at the time, centered around establishing a particular religion, but obviously interpretations over the past two hundred plus years have opened up the debate to be more than that. Not saying that we shouldn't stray from original intent from time to time.

[kalm]

I can see why you refuse to address the first point.

Joe, serious question, and I’d appreciate an intellectually honest answer for once. Does the the 1st amendment say “a religion” or “religion”?

I’m sure you have precedence on your side but I’m asking you to actually apply common sense here which I realize is tough sometimes.

Not an easy question, per se, as the original draft by Madison did include language that would lean to the "a religion" side, but the draft was considerably edited (Madison's original draft was fairly long) and the final edition was put out with almost no commentary on why they edited it the way they did and why it left itself open to just "religion" interpretation (there was a rush to get the Bill of Rights out since it was a sticking point on some states ratifying the Constitution, . Original intent was likely, based on the first draft and based on other actions at the time, centered around establishing a particular religion, but obviously interpretations over the past two hundred plus years have opened up the debate to be more than that. Not saying that we shouldn't stray from original intent from time to time.

Good post, Ganny. Thanks.

[andy7171]

"In God We Trust" is not a "Christian" message. It is a generic expression of faith acceptable to any religious tradition.

Except the sponsors of all these are Christians, and the establishment of it as our Motto was based on Christianity being superior to the Godless Commies.

Our Motto used to be, E pluribus unum - out of many, one. The change at the same time to the pledge has the same effect - putting the Christian God ahead of unity. Both should be reversed.

I don't hear the Jews complaining. Who were the Commies in 1778?

[JoltinJoe]

The constitution? Of which country? Now I get your issues. I've been assuming you live in the United States, and it turns out you don't.

I can see why you refuse to address the first point.

Joe, serious question, and I’d appreciate an intellectually honest answer for once. Does the the 1st amendment say “a religion” or “religion”?

I’m sure you have precedence on your side but I’m asking you to actually apply common sense here which I realize is tough sometimes.

As for the first question, if you don't think that posting "Allahu Akbar" would be construed as "establishing" Islam, I can't help you. You can argue all you want about the term is not really spoken by Muslims, etc. I can assure you that a court would conclude (as I do) that the statement represents an extreme form of Islam but -- equally important -- would not be a "generic" statement of faith accepted by other religious groups. You just can't focus on your position that the statement is not core to Muslims. You must consider whether other religious groups would react to the statement.

As for your second question, I will answer it directly before commenting. The First Amendment does not say "a religion." It says "religion."

However, you have to look at the whole of the First Amendment, in context. So let's quote it, completely:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First thing -- The First Amendment is one sentence, which means that there is an inter-relatedness to each of the clauses forming a part of the sentence.

Second thing -- There are three components of the First Amendment, linked into one sentence by semi-colon.

Third thing -- In assessing the First Amendment, the "inter-relatedness" between the three clauses is formed under the provision that "Congress shall make no law ..." The framers viewed the three subject areas as the core individual freedoms reserved from that delegation of authority to the federal government by "we the people."

Fourth thing -- The clause dealing with religions consists of a guarantee that "congress shall make no law": (i) "respecting an establishment of religion" or (ii) "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both of these concepts are mentioned within the same clause and should be read conjunctively, according to principles of common law familiar to the drafters (indeed, other aspects of the Bill of Rights specifically reference the intention to protect accepted common law rights).

The non-establishment clause and the free exercise clause exist to protect the same core individual right to religious liberty. They go hand in hand. This means that the non-establishment clause intends to protect the individual's right to free exercise (i.e., an "establishment" of religion would restrict the right of some individuals to engage in the free exercise of a religion of their choice).

Therefore, an "establishment" of religion is unconstitutional if it has the affect of restricting free exercise. For this reasons, our courts have long held that "generic" religious expression acceptable to adherents of any faith (as a generic expression of trust in God) do not "establish" religion, because they place no burden on an individual's right to free exercise. This has been the long accepted construction of the First Amendment, and the holdings that generic religious expression does not "establish" religion.

Finally -- A modern trend among groups like the American Atheists and "Freedom From Religion" try to argue that the "Establishment Clause" stands apart from the "Free Exercise" Clause. They have thereby sought to disassociate the two concepts into stand alone concepts, which of course, gives a potentially far broader reach to the "Establishment Clause" -- as acts that "establish" religion would no longer be understood to be those acts which restrict free exercise.

In responding to you, I am trying to be neutral; however, I do not believe that this modern push fully appreciates common law construction of legal drafting (as explained above). The Constitution does not guarantee "freedom from religion" and does not require the government to be neutral on the question of faith. The government may express a preference for faith, or it may express a preference of non-faith, as it sees fit.

[andy7171]

I certainly hope this doesn't turn into a pissing match with JSO.