FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
Does the law that requires "In God We Trust" placed on the nation's coins constitute an "establishment of religion" under the establishment clause, or an assumption by Congress of an authority not granted to it under the Constitution? Namely, authority over the duty to trust God.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You continue to ask questions without answering any. That's very frustrating to someone who wishes a dialogue.FredFlash said:
I believe that the 1864 law that allowed for those words to be put on money was authorized as a "motto" of our country. Since it doesn't particulary declare any one god over any other, and is a "motto", not a declaration of a religion, I think that is neither an "establishment of religion" nor an assumption of Congress that we Americans have an authority over the duty to trust God.
It would probably fall under the "general welfare" clause today, as so cleverly destroyed from it's original intent back in 1935. As a stable society is deemed in the strong best interest of the country, and it can be shown that a unifying effect on the populace of such a motto would be deemed a stabilizing force, I see no problem with that phrase on our currency.
Is that what you see wrong with my original statement, that we have "In God We Trust" on our money?
This_person
Well-Known Member
By that logic, we've established English as our language because all of the founding documents are in English - the taxpayers established it by being all that was paid for - so all documents NOT in English are against the constitution. Makes no sense, does it?FredFlash said:
No, I believe the government hiring people to perform a religios function does not establish a religion (unless someone is forced to follow that particular religion). I don't see that it promotes one religion over another, unless it's law that these are the only religions allowed to be "funded" through paying these individuals. If the particular religions cycle as the population of the Houses cycle, then I see no constitutional challenge.
This_person
Well-Known Member
If the president's declared a particular religion that must be prayed to, or somehow tracked who prayed to what and taxed different beliefs differently, or in some way established this as a religion - or didn't "recommend" prayer, but demanded it through legal proclaimation of law or executive order or something like that - then they were merely practicing free speech and the right to have THEIR beliefs not prohibited.FredFlash said:
We're not going to go through every single action by every single elected person and/or institution throughout our history before we get to your point, are we?
Fred will go around and around this same circular path without proffering anything of worth, so don't waste your time. I have provided quotes from the founders, but he, knucklesack, slotted, Midnight, and some others will pounce on any person who will give them an opportunity to spout their anti-Christian stance.This_person said:
Fred was the first I ever put on ignore. You might consider doing the same.
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
Sorry? What questions did I fail to answer?
I understand you to claim that there's a "motto exception" to the exclusion of religion from the cognizance of the government and the prohibition of an establishment of religion? Am I correct?
What if the motto was "Don't trust God, trust reason?" Would that qualify for the motto exception?
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
What if the government paid all the clergy of the Seventh Day Adventist denomination and the clergy of Roman Catholic Church out of the national taxes but did not force anyone to follow those two religious systems, would that be an establishment of religion?
What words in the Constitution do you interpret to give the government authority to promote religion as long as it shows no preference?
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
I see...... so prayer and fasting are not "religion", as the word is used in the Constitution, and thus not exempt from the cognizance of civil government; and also, prayer and fasting are exempt from the prohibition against "an establishment of religion." Is that what your saying?
That all depends on whether you give me your interpretation of the word "religion" in the establishment clause, or whether I have to sweat it out of you with more questions.
Thus far, We have established that prayer, fasting and trust in God are not "religion", according to your interpretation of the word "religion", as it is used in the First Amendment. What else is not "religion", according to your interpretation?
Last edited:
FredFlash
New Member
2ndAmendment said:
The object, in a common law system of jurisprudence, of interpreting a law is to ascertain the will of the legislator at the time the law was made, by signs most natural and probable. Your quotes, for the most part, have nothing whatsoever to do with "the will of the legislator", regarding the relationship of religion to civil authority, at the time the Constitution and First Amendment were made.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Before I made the statement:FredFlash said:
By your sarcastic tone, I presume you disagree with this well-established assessment?
To what, specifically, in my interpretation do you object? Is it that the government may not establish a particular religion? Or, that an individual's right to practice their religion may not be stifled? Or, do you see some Lemon test that disagrees with my assessment that I don't see?
Is there a point to your disagreement with me, something we can discuss?
The only one you came close to answering was the question on what you object to. You said you primarily objected to my not being objective in seeking the will of the legislature, but you didn't really explain how you came to that conclusion about me.
A motto exception? I didn't say that at all. "The cognizance of the government"? That's an interesting phrase, carrying quite a connotation to it. Are you implying that the government is a cognizant being? I don't see it that way. I see it as an institution of men and women, and - as such - is not a cognizant being at all. I don't see a motto, a unifying bit of words, as an endorsement of religion. As a phrase, I can certainly see how the word "God" in the motto could be seen by a zealous athiest as an endorsement of religion in general. But not even the most radical athiest could tell me what religion that is. So, given that it's not endorsing a particular religion, and clearly not establishing any religion for anyone to follow, I don't see how it even comes close to a "law respecting an establishment of religion".
So, no, you are not correct in the thought that I see a "motto exception". And, no, I don't see this motto in conflict in any real way with the first amendment. Again, if the motto were "America, the land of Christians", that would certainly not be a motto that fit in with the first amendment.
Then it would shift from a motto to advice. If the motto were "In Reason We Trust", I would see no harm in that, no conflict in that at all.
This_person
Well-Known Member
No, it would not be establishing a religion. It would be fiscally foolish, and would stop at the next election (you know, "power of the people" kinda thing), but it wouldn't be establishing a religion.FredFlash said:
Do you not see a difference between employing people to do their jobs for the government, and paying the entire clergy of a particular religion? You do understand that those two concepts are apples and oranges, right?
Article One, Section 8, first clause. The "general welfare" clause was horribly distorted in 1935 (you seemed rather schooled in this, so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining how), and it's very easy now to fit promoting a stabilizing influence like religions in general as promoting the general welfare of the population. Had the Supreme Court not destroyed the intent of the constitution back then, I would be wrong, as would this whole issue be moot. However, we can take the "coulda/shoulda/woulda" route all day, and it won't get us anywhere. They screwed it up, and now it fits.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You do like to put words in people's mouths, don't you?FredFlash said:
While I believe that "prayer and fasting" aren't religion, that's hardly the point. Recommending those things to those that choose to do them isn't establishing religion, and Congress wasn't establishing a religion in presidential recommendations to people who chose to follow his advise. As the leader of the nation's PEOPLE, Each PERSON made recommendations that fit in with the bulk of the populations beliefs. Do you see how that's not a "law respecting an establishment of religion"?
I thought I had given you my thoughts on what religion were. I'll re-quote myself so you can see it again:
By "religion", I include all beliefs - and non-beliefs - in any number of supreme beings or concepts of the supernatural. Yes, non-beliefs fits there also. That means, telling people that the only acceptable public discourse is to keep all concepts of other religions besides lack of religion would favor atheism over other religions.
No, we haven't established that at all. That's your putting your beliefs on my words.
Whether prayer, fasting, and trust in god are religion is not what we were talking about. Whether having a motto on our money that says "In God We Trust" is a "law respecting an establishment of religion", whether a citizen of the United States recommending prayer and fasting to his fellow citizens is somehow a "law respecting an establishment of religion" - these are the things we've been discussing. Were there a law requiring prayer or establishing a trust in god for all citizens, that would violate the words written. As they are, I don't see a conflict at all.
Last edited:
FredFlash
New Member
This_person said:
I am not clear as to what your interpretation of the First Amendment is, because you have not told us what "a particular religion" is.
I came to the conclusion because you apparently did not adhere to the tried and true common law rules of legal interpretation. You claim that knowledge of English is your only rule of interpretation.
You implied it.
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority
-Memorial and Remonstrance (1786) by James Madison
-Memorial and Remonstrance (1786) by James Madison
What do you mean by the word "religion?"
What do you mean by the word "religion?"
I see...you just define the word "religion" not to include the duty to trust God, the duty to pray or the duty to fast. Please tell us what you interpretation of the word "religion" is.
You seem to arbitrarily interpret the word "religion" in the First Amendment to suit your personal preferences, instead of interpreting the word objectively according to the common law rules of legal interpretation.
Why not?
It its not religious advice, what is it?
Motto
1 : a sentence, phrase, or word inscribed on something as appropriate to or indicative of its character or use
1 : a sentence, phrase, or word inscribed on something as appropriate to or indicative of its character or use
For civil authority to state, as objective fact, the content of every American's religious opinions, without actually knowing what those religious beliefs are, is an obvious establishment of the other person's religion.
2 : a short expression of a guiding principle
"In God We Trust" is "an establishment religion", in the sense that it is an establishment of a "guiding principle" of religion. Namely the religious principle that one should "trust in God."
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
I thought I had given you my thoughts on what religion were. I'll re-quote myself so you can see it again:FredFlash said:
By "religion", I include all beliefs - and non-beliefs - in any number of supreme beings or concepts of the supernatural. Yes, non-beliefs fits there also. That means, telling people that the only acceptable public discourse is to keep all concepts of other religions besides lack of religion would favor atheism over other religions.
A "particular" religion would be one subset of the set of religions.
Well, that and I said a few civics courses, and opinions widely held, such as that of a Chief Supreme Court Justice (among others), but, who's counting.....
No, you inferred it. Incorrectly.
I thought I had given you my thoughts on what religion were. I'll re-quote myself so you can see it again:
By "religion", I include all beliefs - and non-beliefs - in any number of supreme beings or concepts of the supernatural. Yes, non-beliefs fits there also. That means, telling people that the only acceptable public discourse is to keep all concepts of other religions besides lack of religion would favor atheism over other religions.
I thought I had given you my thoughts on what religion were. I'll re-quote myself so you can see it again:
By "religion", I include all beliefs - and non-beliefs - in any number of supreme beings or concepts of the supernatural. Yes, non-beliefs fits there also. That means, telling people that the only acceptable public discourse is to keep all concepts of other religions besides lack of religion would favor atheism over other religions.
You repeatedly misinfer what I'm writing. One of us needs to be more careful. I don't see a motto as a duty of the populace. I don't see a speech given by a president as a duty of the populace. Again, just because a president suggests something that most people will take as good advice, there is not congressional law establishing that as a duty. Perhaps you misunderstand what a duty of the populace is?
I thought I had given you my thoughts on what religion were. I'll re-quote myself so you can see it again:
By "religion", I include all beliefs - and non-beliefs - in any number of supreme beings or concepts of the supernatural. Yes, non-beliefs fits there also. That means, telling people that the only acceptable public discourse is to keep all concepts of other religions besides lack of religion would favor atheism over other religions.
(thank God for cut and paste!
)
If you believe I'm changing my understanding of what religion is, please enlighten me as to what it actually is, and only can be considered, in your opinion.
Because that would be declaring the nation a particular religion
It's a characterisation that the majority of the populace has some form of a supreme being in which we trust, whether that is the biblical form for Jews and Christians, the Quran form for Muslims, the wiccan form, or even the Pagan's form. The only one excluded here is the atheist - a distinct minority and not indicitive of the USA's character.
How do you see it as a law that establishes religion?
Would not the absense of some recognition that the majority of Americans have some form of supreme being based religion be an establishment of atheism - another particular religion?
Your own quoted definition of a motto would tend to prove your point here wrong. In what way does an inscribed word, indicitive of or appropriate to the character of a diverse group of people establish "an assumption of authority over people's religion"? How does something which recognizes that character create a "duty to declare a trust in God"? Which God? What law? How is such an imaginary duty enforced?
Where do you see an objective fact of anyone's religion?
I think the key to help you understand would be to have you establish which God is being trusted, and how a motto is creating a duty.
A motto is not a "law respecting the establishment of", it's a recognition of the makeup that actually exists. "In God We Trust" is better defined by your first meaning. It's a statement of fact about the character of our country. Now, no ONE statement could be true for all people within the country. "Don't tread on me" would take out the masochists. "Proud American" would take out the current liberals.
(it's a joke, get over it) However, almost 200 years ago it was established that a little three word motto fit the character of the country, and I don't see how it establishes that anyone must fit into that character to be a citizen, nor does it allow for any discrimination against (in any way at all) any citizen for whom that character does not fit. "E pluribus unum" (did I spell that correctly?) could just as easily be seen as discriminatory to anarchists.Are you suggesting that we have no national motto?
This_person
Well-Known Member
For the same reason red is not blue. Paying someone to do their job is not an establishment of religion anymore than paying someone welfare is an establishment of unemployment. Look up the word "establish".FredFlash said:
That you see no difference does not mean there is no difference. Neither are establishing a religion.
No, I was speaking to the bigger issue of promoting religion in general. For example, the faith-based initiative of the current administration is a darned good idea. I've yet to see any compelling thoughts that a motto is an establishment of, or even a promotion of, a religion.
FredFlash
New Member
Are you claiming that the will of the legislator, at the time the First Amendment was adopted, was that the word "religion" was to be construed as "all beliefs - and non-beliefs - in any number of supreme beings or concepts of the supernatural?" If so, why?
Is the meaning of "religion" limited to a belief in the existence a supreme belief? What about the duty we owe the supreme being, is that "religion?"