Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

[FredFlash]

If Congress believed a falsehood to be a true statement - an easily disproved falsehood - then they should be recalled.

I see....... so the final authority on what the minority declares to be its opinion(s) on the question of whether should, or actually do, trust in God - or rather, what Congress, as a body with authority over the religious beliefs of the minority, or at least the authority to determine what the beliefs of the minority are and to then declare the beliefs of the minority - is whatever the majority believes, or rather what it says, since it is the final authority, the minority believes.

Does this policy, of government jurisdiction over the determination and declaration of the minorities religion, apply to all of the religious sentiments, opinions and beliefs of the minority, or does it just apply to their beliefs regarding trust in God?

Shouldn't an individual have absolute and exclusive authority over the determination and declaration of his sentiments, opinions and beliefs regarding trust in God, as well as all other purely spiritual things? Did you know that before it was labeled "Separation of Church and State", it was known as the "right of individual choice in matters of religion?"

 

[FredFlash]

...your point seems to be "what about the minority? Are they're rights being trampled because of the majority?"

I don't think so, because there is not a shred of reasonable interpretation that stating a fact about the majority in any way establishes that the minority must conform.

The statement in question does not restrict its subject to only those who trust in God. Therefore it applies to those within the jurisdiction of Congress. Thus, the analogy fails.

Also, the mere fact that an executive religious recommendation wears the cloak of civil authority was enough, according to James Madison, to exceed the rightful authority to which the U. S. Government is limited by the essential distinction between the things that are Caesar's and those of God established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the non-delegation to Congress, or the President, of any jurisdiction whatsoever over the duty we owe to our Creator. It is also enough to violate the First Amendment's prohibition against any type of legal recognition, support, founding, confirmation, patronization or settlement, by the U. S. Government, of any duty that we owe to our Creator, or any form of such duty, whether permanent or temporary, whether already existing, or to arise in future.

...if it said "we're mostly women"

The statement in question, "In God We Trust", does no restrict its subject to to "most" of those subject to the jurisdiction of Congress. Therefore, the analogy fails.

 

[This_person]

Explain to me why those practices are not religion; or, why, although they are religion, at least to the person performing them, they should be restricted. What rule or principle do we, or rather did the founders intend for us to, use to decide what religious practices are legitimate and which are not, which can be restricted and which cannot?

Are you asking me to do this because my "fire in a crowded theater" comment didn't answer your question, or do you not think there are any limits whatsoever?

First, tell me why.

I don't understand your question - do you not accept that the "Bill of Rights" is not really rights, but limits on government?

What's "a rule of establishment of religion?"

Trade the word "law" for the word "rule". I didn't want to have to explain yet again that I understand the difference between a congressionally initiated law and other forms of government impositions that could reasonably be interpretted as laws, so I just wrote "rules" instead.

Are you saying there are First Amendment rules governing "an establishment of religion", other than "Congress shall make no law respecting" them? If so, what are these rules?

See, this is what I mean. We've gone over several times what else could be considered reasonable when interpretting the phrase "Congress shall make no law...", yet you feel the need to go over it again. I was desperately trying to attempt to not do that.

 

[FredFlash]

Explain to me why those practices are not religion; or, why, although they are religion, at least to the person performing them, they should be restricted. What rule or principle do we, or rather did the founders intend for us to, use to decide what religious practices are legitimate and which are not, which can be restricted and which cannot?

Are you asking me to do this because my "fire in a crowded theater" comment didn't answer your question, or do you not think there are any limits whatsoever?

Actually, the reason is that it can be a difficult problem to draw the line between legitimate and legitimate exercises of religion, unless religion is clearly defined. I wanted to know if you had done some deep thinking on the question.

If "religion", for First Amendment purposes, is "the duty we owe to our Creator", we are obliged, in order to apply the two religion clauses of the First Amendment to legal disputes, to determine what is, and what is not, a duty to our Creator. To do that may require us to more precisely identify which Creator we're talking about and I think we want judges deciding who is the true, and who is the false, Creator.

Without rules or principles to determine what is, and what is not, a duty we owe to our Creator, all we have are the personal views of judge(s) deciding a dispute regarding what is, and what is not, a legitimate exercise of religion, which is, in my view, very dangerous.

Some argue, for example, that the SCOTUS opinion in the case of "Reynolds v. U. S." (1878) established the principle of civil authority over religion, because authority over what is, or is not, legitimate religion, is the same as authority over all religion. In the case, the court had to determine whether an act, claimed by the actor to be a duty to God, but violated a criminal statute, was "religion" for First Amendment purposes.

If the principle is that any act that violates a criminal statute is not religion, then all Congress has to do to prohibit the free exercise of religion in general, or a particular religious duty, such as the duty to trust in God or to consider oneself under God, is to simply make a law prohibiting the practice of religion. Therefore, the mere violation of a criminal statute cannot possibly be the rule or principle that determines what "religion" is.

Like James Madison, I must have a principle or rule for everything, including one to determine what is, and what is not, a duty we owe to our Creator. Thus far, I have not found one.

do you not accept that the "Bill of Rights" is not really rights, but limits on government?

Actually, in my view, they're both. The subject is civil rights. The object is the protection of those rights. The means, to the object, is the limitation of civil jurisdiction.

 

[This_person]

If "religion", for First Amendment purposes, is "the duty we owe to our Creator", we are obliged, in order to apply the two religion clauses of the First Amendment to legal disputes, to determine what is, and what is not, a duty to our Creator.

I don't believe that religion can be so narrowly defined at all. There may be some written justification from the Supreme Court that used that wording many decades ago, but I find it hard to use that as a definition of religion. That definition takes out the atheist, the humanist, any and all religions that have more than one Supreme Being, etc. "Religion" would have to be able to include all of these thoughts.

Actually, in my view, they're both. The subject is civil rights. The object is the protection of those rights. The means, to the object, is the limitation of civil jurisdiction.

I think we're heavily into semantics here. The Bill of Rights is the means.

 

[FredFlash]

The word "cognizance", in the context of "religion is exempt from the cognizance of of civil authority", means "recognition, or jurisdiction; the assumption of jurisdiction in a case."

For Congress to regulate the tax exemption status of non-profit religious corporations differently than secular non-profits would be to take cognizance of religion.

But, by separating it out, isn't the government assuming some sort of control over religion?

Yes, by excluding religion, the duty we owe to our Creator, from the cognizance/jurisdiction of civil authority, the people were establishing/recognizing the duty of every man, as James Madison said, to render such homage to the Creator, and such homage only, as every man believes is acceptable to the Creator. In my view, since the duty of every man to render homage to the Almighty according to conscience and conviction, is clearly a religious duty, the founders, in a sense at least, actually established a national religion, or rather a national duty to the Creator, for the people. That national religion established by the founders was, "worship God accord according to the dictates of your conscience and convictions, not the wishes or suggestions of the federal government."

When I say religion is exempt from the cognizance of civil government, there is actually one caveat. That caveat is the "duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as every man believes to be acceptable to the Creator", which is within the the cognizance of civil government and may be recommended by the government to the people.

Doesn't this bring religion into the jurisdiction of government? At least, the financing of it? And, if you assume control over the financing of religion, aren't you assuming control of an aspect of religion? Thus, if your assuming a role over one aspect of a religion, aren't you assuming control over any aspect of that religion?

Operating as a non-profit is not a duty we owe to the Creator. So, the answer is, no, civil jurisdiction over the tax status of non profits is not jurisdiction over the object/purpose/mission of the non profit.

Or, is this just a BS way of thinking, like thinking a person saying prayer is good is an assumption of civil magistrate's assumption of recommendatory civil authority...

Prayer is a duty we owe our Creator, operating as a non profit isn't.

.....goodness, Fred, isn't this just a bit ridiculous?

Yes, maintaining that that civil jurisdiction over the tax status of non profits is analogous to civil jurisdiction over our duty to trust in God and Christ is ridiculous. The duty of a non profit to operate according the rules established for all other non profits is a social duty, not a religious duty.

 

[FredFlash]

Please explain once again, why trust in God is a duty owed to the Creator, but a law placing a declaration of the people's trust in God on the nation's coins isn't a law that relates, refers to or concerns a settlement, recognition, or support of the people's duty to trust God.

The mere recognition of religion by a law, which is the duty we owe to the Creator - according to an early commentator and very highly respected authority on the meaning of the Constitution, who interpreted the establishment clause according to the actual words of the clause and the common law rules of statutory construction, instead of his personal views of religious liberty - makes the law a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

Doesn't the law made by Congress, that makes it mandatory to place "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins and notes, clearly qualify as a law that recognizes the duty to trust in God?

Clearly, I haven't gotten through. I submit these as helps to you in your quest to get me to "explain once again" this issue with which you struggle so much:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

I hope this helps.

I read you to mean that you can't explain why trust in God is a duty owed to the Creator, but declaring the people's trust in God doesn't concern a duty to trust God.

 

[This_person]

I read you to mean that you can't explain why trust in God is a duty owed to the Creator, but declaring the people's trust in God doesn't concern a duty to trust God.

And..... scene

 

[FredFlash]

The mere recognition of religion by a law ... makes the law a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

Does this mean you've changed your mind, and now agree that by recognizing religions are non-profit organizations the laws are recognizing religion, and therefore these laws are un-Constitutional?

A law establishing the tax status of non profits is not a law establishing religion. There is no duty owed to God that requires us to operate a religious society as a non profit corporation.

 

[FredFlash]

...in the case of the law made by Congress mandating the placement of "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins to declare the people's trust in God, there was a law made by Congress. In your analogy, there is merely the statement of one Senator.

Try and go for the point instead of nitpicking.

That's what cops always say when I expose the lies, or other bull ####, in their sworn statements or testimony.

 

[This_person]

That's what cops always say when I expose the lies, or other bull ####, in their sworn statements or testimony.

Well, that answers my question from about 75 posts ago whether you're trying to have a conversation with me, or you're grilling me on the stand.

You knew what I meant when I said "if I was a senator and I told you..."

Of course, nit picking the pointless details in court may be useful, but in a discussion it's merely one person trying to make themselves feel superior to the other.

 

[FredFlash]

However, in the case of the law made by Congress mandating the placement of "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins to declare the people's trust in God, there was a law made by Congress. In your analogy, there is merely the statement of one Senator.

If Congress were to declare via printed report, in a law that used federal coffers to provide the funding, based upon a study performed, that the majority of cars passing a single point were red - would that then be an assumption of civil authority of a recommendatory authority of a recognition of car color, and therefore be an assumed statement of a required duty to people to have a red car?

If Congress made a law that placed the words "In Red Cars We Travel" on the nations coins, I believe it would be reasonable to conclude that Congress was assuming advisory jurisdiction over the color of cars we drive and suggesting that we drive red cars.

I read the Treasury's website on it too!

I'm proud of you.

Did you happen to notice that the recommendations of what the words should be went from "Our Country, Our God", to "God, Our Trust", to "In God We Trust"? The fact that the words changed so significantly from what appeared to be an endorsement of religion to a statement of fact supports my claim that the law placing the phrase on the nation's coins was merely a statement of fact, not an assumption of civil authority over an imputed duty of every person to declare trust in god.

What makes the term "Our God" an endorsement religion, and the phrase "in God we Trust", not one?

There is no evidence that Congress attempted to determine whether or not most of people trusted in God. I go with the most probable explanation suggested by the evidence that we have.

A declaration, that "In God We Trust", by Congress, on behalf of all persons subject to its authority, required by law, to be placed on the nations coins, is an assumption of civil advisory authority over the subject matter of a duty to declare trust in God. The duty of a man to declare trust in God, if such actually exists, is a duty owed to the Creator, not a social duty owed to other men; because whether a man does, or does not, declare that he trusts in God, does no injury to his fellow man, violates no legitimate social duty, works no ill to his neighbor and does not constitute an overt act against the peace and good order. A man's declaration of his trust, or distrust in God, is a matter that all times and places, like all duties owed to the Creator, lies between God and individuals, and is no business whatsoever of the government.

**************

...in the last two years the conventions at Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The men united there meant to insert God in our constitution, as we have already on our coins, by the inscription,'In God we trust.' They intend to Christianize our country, against the clear and emphatic spirit and letter of the constitution.

--Catholic World (1871)

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/tex...;node=bac8387.0013.077:14;view=image;seq=0698
​

I have always heard, but don't know for sure, that the same movement, the National Reform Movement, that was behind the Christian Amendment to the Constitution and the National Sunday Law was behind the movement to place an acknowledgment of God on the coins of our nation.

 

[FredFlash]

Well, that answers my question from about 75 posts ago whether you're trying to have a conversation with me, or you're grilling me on the stand.

You knew what I meant when I said "if I was a senator and I told you..."

Of course, nit picking the pointless details in court may be useful, but in a discussion it's merely one person trying to make themselves feel superior to the other.

Actually, my nit picking means I have respect for your intellectual abilities and I think I might learn something from your response. I personally don't mind having my comments being nit picked, by someone with integrity and intelligence, because it many times forces me to have to think deeper, than I have before, about an issue.

 

[This_person]

Actually, my nit picking means I have respect for your intellectual abilities and I think I might learn something from your response. I personally don't mind having my comments being nit picked, by someone with integrity and intelligence, because it many times forces me to have to think deeper, than I have before, about an issue.

So, comparing me to "expos(ing) the lies, or other bull ####" was a demonstration of your "respect for my intellectual abilities"? Come on, now.

 

[FredFlash]

So, comparing me to "expos(ing) the lies, or other bull ####" was a demonstration of your "respect for my intellectual abilities"? Come on, now.

Well.....I guess ya gotta point there. I never actually said you were lying or bull ####in, but I guess it was implied. So, I will apologize. I am sorry for implying that you were a liar or posting bull ####.

However, I do believe that you are allowing your personal views influence your analysis of the legislator's will regarding the placing of "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins at the time the law was made; rather than just going with the evidence contained in the prior writings on the subject matter presented in the U. S. Treasury Fact Sheet. It may not be great evidence, but it's all we have, at this point, unless you know of other evidence.

 

[FredFlash]

The meaning of "In God We Trust": We are a Christian people.​

The purpose of the 1908 law restoring “In God We Trust” to the nation’s coins - that had previously borne the inscription "In God We Trust", prior to President Theodore Roosevelt's order that it be stricken - according to the first advocate of restoration to speak during the House of Representative's debate on the bill, U. S. Representative Carlin, representing Virginia, was “to carry the knowledge that we are a Christian people.”

http://www.nonbeliever.org/index.IGWT.html

 

[FredFlash]

The meaning of "In God We Trust": We are a Christian people.​

The purpose of the 1908 law restoring “In God We Trust” to the nation’s coins - that had previously borne the inscription "In God We Trust", prior to President Theodore Roosevelt's order that it be stricken - according to the first advocate of restoration to speak during the House of Representative's debate on the bill, U. S. Representative Carlin, representing Virginia, was “to carry the knowledge that we are a Christian people.”

http://www.nonbeliever.org/index.IGWT.html

The second Representative to speak in favor of restoring “In God We Trust” to the nation’s coins in 1908, U. S. Representative Ollie M. James, representing Kentucky, said that he favored restoration because. “This country is not only a Christian nation, but we are engaged in sending to foreign countries and to distant people our missionaries to preach the religions of Jesus Christ, and we want our money so that when this gold that you say is so good goes across the ocean and is held in the hands of those who do not know of the existence of the Saviour of the world, we can say: " Here are the dollars of the greatest nation on earth, one that does not put its trust in floating navies or In marching armies, but places Its trust in God."

 

[Pete]

The second Representative to speak in favor of restoring “In God We Trust” to the nation’s coins in 1908, U. S. Representative Ollie M. James, representing Kentucky, said that he favored restoration because. “This country is not only a Christian nation, but we are engaged in sending to foreign countries and to distant people our missionaries to preach the religions of Jesus Christ, and we want our money so that when this gold that you say is so good goes across the ocean and is held in the hands of those who do not know of the existence of the Saviour of the world, we can say: " Here are the dollars of the greatest nation on earth, one that does not put its trust in floating navies or In marching armies, but places Its trust in God."

Bless you.

 

[FredFlash]

The second Representative to speak in favor of restoring “In God We Trust” to the nation’s coins in 1908, U. S. Representative Ollie M. James, representing Kentucky, said that he favored restoration because. “This country is not only a Christian nation, but we are engaged in sending to foreign countries and to distant people our missionaries to preach the religions of Jesus Christ, and we want our money so that when this gold that you say is so good goes across the ocean and is held in the hands of those who do not know of the existence of the Saviour of the world, we can say: " Here are the dollars of the greatest nation on earth, one that does not put its trust in floating navies or In marching armies, but places Its trust in God."

Mr. KUSTERMANN: Instead of having that motto on the coins, let the people show through their acts that deeply embedded in their hearts can be found that beautiful motto "In God we trust." [Great applause.]

 

[Pete]

Mr. KUSTERMANN: Instead of having that motto on the coins, let the people show through their acts that deeply embedded in their hearts can be found that beautiful motto "In God we trust." [Great applause.]

You are in my prayers