Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:58:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal?  (Read 6134 times)
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 12, 2015, 03:59:18 AM »

I wonder why in God we trust is so common and the official motto of the United States? I remember that Theodore Roosevelt raised the issue, long before it was enacted in 1956, that the phrase is unconstitunal due to the separation of state and church.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2015, 06:33:36 AM »

Teddy's concern wasn't that the phrase was unconstitutional, but that using it on money was sacrilegious.

The Wikipedia article on the phrase pretty well describes the Constitutional controversy and it's treatment by the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2015, 02:53:06 PM »

It doesn't establish a religion, so no.  Civic religion is not unConstitutional.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2015, 10:05:19 PM »

It doesn't establish a religion, so no.  Civic religion is not unConstitutional.

This.  Even if one were a hard-core separation-of-church and state proponent, they would have bigger fish to fry than this.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2015, 05:15:08 AM »

Yes, it obviously is.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2015, 09:08:39 AM »

It doesn't establish a religion, so no.  Civic religion is not unConstitutional.

This.  Even if one were a hard-core separation-of-church and state proponent, they would have bigger fish to fry than this.

I doubt that. Recall the ACLU suing Los Angeles County over a cross in their county seal...
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2015, 10:59:33 AM »


How so?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2015, 02:23:44 PM »


Ever heard of the Establishment Clause?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2015, 03:09:44 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

It is a criminally lame motto though, sadly.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2015, 03:25:29 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2015, 03:27:57 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2015, 04:36:53 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

That's nonsensical. So all it takes not to violate the Establishment Clause is to use religious vocabulary that can be applied to more than one religion? Vagueness shouldn't be an excuse to impose blatantly religious beliefs on the entire country.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2015, 06:19:33 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

That's nonsensical. So all it takes not to violate the Establishment Clause is to use religious vocabulary that can be applied to more than one religion? Vagueness shouldn't be an excuse to impose blatantly religious beliefs on the entire country.

You can howl about what "should" or "shouldn't" be done or what is or isn't fair, but the fact is that YES, it it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause because it doesn't ESTABLISH a state religion.  It also doesn't infringe upon anyone's freedom of religion or expression.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2015, 06:45:43 PM »

I don't particularly like In God We Trust, but it's certainly not unconstitutional. The Establishment Clause prohibits establishing a state religion. In God We Trust isn't doing that.

As much as Antonio says otherwise, a statement of nondenominational faith on God that doesn't endorse any one religion isn't state establishment of a religion in Constitutional terms, and sixty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence hasn't taken issue with it.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2015, 08:14:24 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

That's nonsensical. So all it takes not to violate the Establishment Clause is to use religious vocabulary that can be applied to more than one religion? Vagueness shouldn't be an excuse to impose blatantly religious beliefs on the entire country.
The Bill of Rights never was intended to impose the religion of Secularism on the entire country.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2015, 08:38:37 PM »

This is "Under God" and not "In God We Trust," but there have been efforts against these traditions that take different avenues than using the Establishment Clause; needless to say, the usual verdict was upheld.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/09/under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance-is-constitutional-says-massachusettss-highest-court/
Logged
Randy Bobandy
socialisthoosier
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 438
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2015, 10:46:34 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

That's nonsensical. So all it takes not to violate the Establishment Clause is to use religious vocabulary that can be applied to more than one religion? Vagueness shouldn't be an excuse to impose blatantly religious beliefs on the entire country.
The Bill of Rights never was intended to impose the religion of Secularism on the entire country.
"the religion of secularism"

lol
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2015, 10:50:14 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

That's nonsensical. So all it takes not to violate the Establishment Clause is to use religious vocabulary that can be applied to more than one religion? Vagueness shouldn't be an excuse to impose blatantly religious beliefs on the entire country.
The Bill of Rights never was intended to impose the religion of Secularism on the entire country.
"the religion of secularism"

lol

Even if you disagree with his wording, his point is relevant.  The Establishment Clause does not shield people or even governments from openly expressing their opinions on religious topics if no religion is being pushed on the public, and this slogan most obviously does not push any specific religion on the public.  The vast majority of people in the United States are not atheists, and the US government does not have to tip-toe around their feelings at every turn as long as they don't infringe upon their rights ... which again, this slogan CLEARLY doesn't.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2015, 11:13:33 PM »

RINO Tom is expressing this in a needlessly inflammatory way, but it would be simpler to say that the First Amendment does not guarantee a secular government, it guarantees a government that does not promote one religion over another.

EDIT: Or interfere with the free exercise of whatever religion you practice. That as well.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2015, 03:33:35 AM »

A vague religion is still a religion.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2015, 05:44:05 AM »

A vague religion is still a religion.
That line can be repeated a thousand times over and over and it still doesn't become good reason to claim this motto is unconstitutional.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2015, 04:22:28 PM »

The ACLU would probably think its OK, and their crazy-strict on this topic.

(From oral argument transcripts for Van Orden v. Perry, a Ten Commandments statue case)

 JUSTICE SCALIA: Suppose it didn't have the Ten Commandments, it just had a big thing that says religion is good. It said religion is the foundation of our institutions. Suppose there were something like that. Would that be bad?

MR. CHEMERINSKY: I don't think that would be a problem under the Establishment Clause because it's minimal --

JUSTICE SCALIA: But there are atheists who disagree with that intensely.

MR. CHEMERINSKY: But Your Honor, I'm not arguing for a heckler's veto by atheists.



Chemerinsky is right. Saying that because there are atheists, their right to be atheists is somehow burdened because most people disagree with them, is laughable. It's the same argument the FFRF used when it literally sued the HOLOCAUST MUSEUM for displaying a star of David. What does "in God we trust" harm? It merely describes a prevailing view.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2015, 04:33:31 PM »

Technically yes, because it's a clear reference to the Christian God, especially considering when it was put there and considering its history.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

But there really are bigger fish to catch than that one as far as I'm concerned as a secularist.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2015, 04:37:36 PM »

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

This would be the simple justification if the courts were so inclined to make this interpretation.  But they are a bunch of religiouses, too, usually, so they don't care.  Cathcon is on the right track with this point.  
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2015, 05:15:53 PM »

A vague religion is still a religion.

     A religion would refer to a specific church, which is what the relevant clause is referring to. In no way does the Constitution prohibit promulgation of religion in the abstract.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.