U.S. court tosses lawsuit over "In God We Trust"

[JEDIYoda]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_life_atheist_lawsuit

Judge Frank Damrell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held in his opinion that "In God We Trust" is secular in nature and use, and its appearance on coins and currency does not show government coercion on behalf of monotheism.

:thumbsup:

 

[DealMonkey]

Consider how vehement I am about separation of church and state, and even I believe this is a reasonable decision. "God" is a universal term that applies equally to virtually all religions (and I can't think of a religion that doesn't believe in some sort of God).

 

[magomago]

I agree with DealMonkey, although I'm not AS vehement between the seperation of Church and state

Btw DealMonkey...did they really give you a card ?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Consider how vehement I am about separation of church and state, and even I believe this is a reasonable decision. "God" is a universal term that applies equally to virtually all religions (and I can't think of a religion that doesn't believe in some sort of God).

Atheists obviously don't believe in any sort of god or God, but if you want to get more into the intent of your statement, neither do Buddhism or Confucianism.

I disagree with the court's ruling, and my trust in any god or God is only slightly above the absolute negative trust I have in George W. Bush to do anything ethical, moral or just plain right, regardless of how many bibles he swears on.

 

[Mail5398]

Even Deists such as Franklin and Jefferson believed in a God.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
Even Deists such as Franklin and Jefferson believed in a God.

Jefferson may have believed in a god, but he also believed in a solid "wall of separation" between that god and the government.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005:

Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

 

[Mail5398]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Mail5398
Even Deists such as Franklin and Jefferson believed in a God.

Jefferson may have believed in a god, but he also believed in a solid "wall of separation" between that god and the government.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005:

Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

In God we trust does not sponsor any particular religion. That is what that letter is about.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
In God we trust does not sponsor any particular religion. That is what that letter is about.

But it does make a presumption that implies a preferential status for those who believe in some deity. See my first post in this thread:

Atheists obviously don't believe in any sort of god or God, but if you want to get more into the intent of your statement, neither do Buddhism or Confucianism.

Sorry, but reference to any "god" is incompatible with the concept of "equal justice under the law."

:thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown: to the court's ruling and to reference to anyone's alleged deity on our currency.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: magomago
I agree with DealMonkey, although I'm not AS vehement between the seperation of Church and state

Btw DealMonkey...did they really give you a card ?

The ACLU did. The EFF sends a bumper sticker.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not sure I see why people are so worked up about the phrase on money and things like that...but that goes for BOTH sides. I can't see suing to have it removed, but I also can't see pitching the world class hissy fit about it I see from the people who want to keep it there.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Mail5398
In God we trust does not sponsor any particular religion. That is what that letter is about.

But it does make a presumption that implies a preferential status for those who believe in some deity. See my first post in this thread:

Atheists obviously don't believe in any sort of god or God, but if you want to get more into the intent of your statement, neither do Buddhism or Confucianism.

Sorry, but reference to any "god" is incompatible with the concept of "equal justice under the law."

:thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown: to the court's ruling and to reference to anyone's alleged deity on our currency.

For many, god is just wearing a name tag.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I'd rather have a government I could trust.

I do not trust in any god, and I don't need it on my money. In fact, I do kind of resent it. Not in a huge way I suppose, but it is an irritation. But as an athiest, I guess I am just part of a group of outsiders, like homosexuals and scientists, that don't deserve any consideration.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'd rather have a government I could trust.

I do not trust in any god, and I don't need it on my money. In fact, I do kind of resent it. Not in a huge way I suppose, but it is an irritation. But as an athiest, I guess I am just part of a group of outsiders, like homosexuals and scientists, that don't deserve any consideration.

I suppose our highway signs should be in english, french, german, spanish, chinese (all variants), japanese, korean, braille, etc.... Just so that everyone is considered.

You just cant accomodate everyone. You also shouldnt penalize everyone else.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'd rather have a government I could trust.

I do not trust in any god, and I don't need it on my money. In fact, I do kind of resent it. Not in a huge way I suppose, but it is an irritation. But as an athiest, I guess I am just part of a group of outsiders, like homosexuals and scientists, that don't deserve any consideration.

I suppose our highway signs should be in english, french, german, spanish, chinese (all variants), japanese, korean, braille, etc.... Just so that everyone is considered.

You just cant accomodate everyone. You also shouldnt penalize everyone else.

so why have the phrase in there in the first place? I think you can "appease" everyone by removing the phrase entirely. It's not a big deal either way though for me.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'd rather have a government I could trust.

I do not trust in any god, and I don't need it on my money. In fact, I do kind of resent it. Not in a huge way I suppose, but it is an irritation. But as an athiest, I guess I am just part of a group of outsiders, like homosexuals and scientists, that don't deserve any consideration.

I suppose our highway signs should be in english, french, german, spanish, chinese (all variants), japanese, korean, braille, etc.... Just so that everyone is considered.

You just cant accomodate everyone. You also shouldnt penalize everyone else.

so why have the phrase in there in the first place? I think you can "appease" everyone by removing the phrase entirely. It's not a big deal either way though for me.

how about we put "Ride the Lightning"

 

[cruzer]

The founders' doctrine of separation of church and state was only intended to prevent the creation of a state run religion like England had at the time. They never intended to create an atheist government.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_life_atheist_lawsuit

Judge Frank Damrell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held in his opinion that "In God We Trust" is secular...

Judge Frank Damrell of the U.S. District Court does not understand the meaning of the term secular.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_life_atheist_lawsuit

Judge Frank Damrell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held in his opinion that "In God We Trust" is secular...

Judge Frank Damrell of the U.S. District Court does not understand the meaning of the term secular.

Def 6. would make the word GOD secular.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: cruzer
The founders' doctrine of separation of church and state was only intended to prevent the creation of a state run religion like England had at the time. They never intended to create an atheist government.

Prohibiting the free exercise of religion is a quite clearly stated intent of our founders, and putting the singular "God" on our currency is an affront to polytheists and atheists. As a monotheist myself, I am ashamed that we continue to force our beliefs on those of other faiths with such close minded arguments. It is absurd to even suggest that God can honored as anything but divine.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Harvey
:thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown: to the court's ruling and to reference to anyone's alleged deity on our currency.

I'm sure you will get your wish, I bet they are drawing up "In Bush We Trust" coins as we speak.

 

[kylebisme]

How about "In Democracy we trust"? It could help keep everyones eye on the ball.

 

[jackschmittusa]

GoPackGo

I suppose our highway signs should be in english, french, german, spanish, chinese (all variants), japanese, korean, braille, etc.... Just so that everyone is considered.

A very weak argument. Highway signs are are part of the safety and security that we demand the government provide. You must also prove your ability to understand them before getting a driver's licence. I also have no problem with them being written in English as it is the defacto standard language in this country, and has served us well. Common sense tells you that you should expect (and respect) that such signage would be in the local language.

Adding "In God We Trust" to our coins serves no useful purpose to the activities of government. It was done as a stupid, childish way to announce that we were better than the godless Soviets.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure I see why people are so worked up about the phrase on money and things like that...but that goes for BOTH sides. I can't see suing to have it removed, but I also can't see pitching the world class hissy fit about it I see from the people who want to keep it there.

It's been part of currency since the civil war and is a standard.

To compare 1 word on a coin to a law "establishing religion" is amusing at best.

 

[kylebisme]

It is prohibiting the free exercise of religion as we are branding our currency with a belief that is contrary to various faiths of our citizenship.

 

[Thump553]

Based soley on that news article (and not upon a reading of the original court opinion) it strikes me that the decision rests upon a very stretched and tenuous redefinition of "secular." Must be a activist judge (g).

The phrase "In God We Trust" has an inescapable religious meaning to me. But frankly whether that violates the establishment clause of the Constitution ranks about as high to me as the question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Our country has a lot more important issues to address, certainly more intrusive efforts to establish conservative christianity as our official religion than this. I'd much rather see the issue of federal funding being paid to "faith-based" charities (and disbursed under said faith's guidelines, rather than secular ones) be addressed legally.