In God We Trust’ signs going up at public schools all over South Dakota

[Curious George]

SCOTUS declined to take up a Motto, on the USD, challenge this year. It let the lower court ruling of "No" stand. The Motto on the currency is backed by a 95 law that has never been overturned. The activists will lose due to that, and other case precedents, as government can endorse the motto.

This isn't necessarily true. Religion in schools is distinguished from religion in the general public. So it would be a mistake to assume they would decline the case on the basis that you have stated here.

I do however agree that the motto will stay, unless overwhelming evidence of christians using it to proclaim religion surfaces. Let us not pretend that many Christians do not see this as a way to get "God" into schools in a "gotcha" manner.

 

[Earthtank]

I want an Islamic person to sue for In Allah We Trust or a Native person to sue for In the Great Spirit We Trust or a scientist to sue for In Atoms We Trust or an atheist to sue for In Nothing We Trust, etc. The "Christians" are trying to be dictators. And they don't even know what Jesus said. I'm so sick of it. I'm so angry. Ok, love my enemies. I'll try but no guarantees.

Why would a Muslim or Native sue? God = Allah/Great Spirit.

Scientists have no basis to sue as science does NOT go against religion as science doe not prove nor disprove god.

Atheists have no basis to sue as everything in their world is subjective and strictly tied to the natural world therefore, you can't sue based off your personal subjective experience.

 

[Curious George]

The IRS process is not "due" in the constitutional sense.

What does this even mean?

I used the term "crime" in the sense that whether the taxpayer
is guilty or innocent, one is treated as guilty by the IRS until
one can prove one's innocence.

I am not sure i understand your gripe. If you are being investigated for fraud authorities have a pretty large amount of power. If you are being investigated for murder, the same applies. What exactly is the issue? Abuse of authority? Yeah that undoubtedly happens. But that is separate.

 

[Revoltingest]

What does this even mean?

Ruining my attempt to be clever, eh?
The IRS process is not due process as we'd find in court, ie, the presumption of innocence.

I am not sure i understand your gripe. If you are being investigated for fraud authorities have a pretty large amount of power. If you are being investigated for murder, the same applies. What exactly is the issue? Abuse of authority? Yeah that undoubtedly happens. But that is separate.

Some background on the problem....
How An Obscure Banking Law Let The IRS Seize Bank Accounts From Innocent Americans

 

[Sand Dancer]

Radical atheists are fools standing on each others feet.
America was founded with a secular government. Yes, the Constitution pertains to the secular, however its first unalienable guarantee is freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion. Rad A's hate that.

Nonbelief is only viewed as a religion to get the same benefits as religion does.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nonbelief is only viewed as a religion to get the same benefits as religion does.

Actually, it's government which makes that conflation
(in the law). And it was instituted by Christians....the
ones who like us heathens I bet.

 

[SugarOcean]

Actually, it's government which makes that conflation
(in the law). And it was instituted by Christians....the
ones who like us heathens I bet.

You'd win your bet. Otherwise, America would have been a Christian theocracy and those "dwellers on the heath" would have been in a lot of trouble.

 

[SugarOcean]

This isn't necessarily true. Religion in schools is distinguished from religion in the general public. So it would be a mistake to assume they would decline the case on the basis that you have stated here.

I do however agree that the motto will stay, unless overwhelming evidence of Christians using it to proclaim religion surfaces. Let us not pretend that many Christians do not see this as a way to get "God" into schools in a "gotcha" manner.

Even if they do, so what?
God has always been in school. Religious children don't leave their faith at the door.
There are public schools in America that have students who gather in religious group meetings after school. That it occurs after school hours is irrelevant in that the gatherings are on public school property.

The Separation Clause, as it is referred to, is abused by anti-religious people and anti-religious activist groups.
Religious subjects and clubs can exist in government funded public school under the unalienable civil right of the first amendment. It is not a legislative act that makes one religion the religion of the nation to do that. And that is the actual foundation of the so called separation clause.

 

[Curious George]

Ruining my attempt to be clever, eh?
The IRS process is not due process as we'd find in court, ie, the presumption of innocence.

Some background on the problem....
How An Obscure Banking Law Let The IRS Seize Bank Accounts From Innocent Americans

Civil forfeiture abuses/misuse are a problem not just with the IRS but also with the police. Again this is abuse of authority. Civil forfeiture can be challenged by the way. So I am failing to see the boogeyman lurking behind the corner here.

Abuse of authority? No arguments from me. The executive branches are full of these. IRS bad man? No more than police bad man. People should know their rights and have easy access to the legal system. I wonder if you think loser should pay legal fees in challenges to government authority.

 

[SugarOcean]

Civil forfeiture abuses/misuse are a problem not just with the IRS but also with the police. Again this is abuse of authority. Civil forfeiture can be challenged by the way. So I am failing to see the boogeyman lurking behind the corner here.

Abuse of authority? No arguments from me. The executive branches are full of these. IRS bad man? No more than police bad man. People should know their rights and have easy access to the legal system. I wonder if you think loser should pay legal fees in challenges to government authority.

In the case of police one rule of thumb , the first, if brought in for questioning is ask for a lawyer. And then hire a private attorney. Do not get a public defender. They're paid by the same state that is prosecuting the defendant and their budget to that end is limited. In many states it is controlled by the presiding judge.

Furthermore, sign nothing. Ever! If arrested. And in the case of moving violations if you want to fight it, print your name on the ticket. Do not sign it. If you can remember this also write beneath that signature line, without prejudice.
That says you're not acknowledging by that printed name that you concede to guilt to the charges listed.

Many innocent people have been put in prison for murder after confessing to the crime because they were interrogated by detectives for countless hours. And since police can lie in interrogations and this is perfectly legal, they will often say, if you just confess and tell us what happened you can go home.
That's a lie.
They handcuff you and put you in jail to await arraignment. And the DA (prosecutor) uses that video taped confession as evidence not just in the trial but also at that hearing so as to deny you bail if they're of a mood. Bail is a constitutional right.

In America ignorance of the law can put you away for years.

 

[Curious George]

Even if they do, so what?
God has always been in school. Religious children don't leave their faith at the door.
There are public schools in America that have students who gather in religious group meetings after school. That it occurs after school hours is irrelevant in that the gatherings are on public school property.

The Separation Clause, as it is referred to, is abused by anti-religious people and anti-religious activist groups.
Religious subjects and clubs can exist in government funded public school under the unalienable civil right of the first amendment. It is not a legislative act that makes one religion the religion of the nation to do that. And that is the actual foundation of the so called separation clause.

This sounds defensive.

Here is the deal: We do not want authorities of the government endorsing religion on behalf of the government. Children praying, or partaking in religious expression is not a worry. It never has been.

Publishing the national motto is not a problem either. It is our national motto and schools should teach national symbols and mottos. If people take issue with that, they are welcome to try and change our national motto. It has been done before now, it can be done again if people so choose.

I imagine The Court would not find a problem in legislation requiring the public schools to display the national motto. This is because the national motto is just that. However, when you add the intent of authorities to post the national motto in an effort to insert religion into schools, you run into a problem. Now it is no longer just a national motto. No longer is it just a symbol of patriotism.

Schools are a captive audience of impressionable minds. The Court has been more protective of schools because of the type of setting. Money is passed without much care or reverence. In fact some Christian groups opposed the words "In God We Trust" on currency because it devalued "God."

My point was simply that the two are not the same, so it is wrong thinking to state that The Court will decline hearing a case based on the previous decision.

That said, this new phenomenon of legislation requiring the posting of the national motto seems to be occurring throughout the country. I am not aware of a split in the lower courts on the issue, so I doubt The Court will likely hear a case unless it is seriously entertaining stopping this legislation.

I am an atheist, but am not too bothered by the motto. I think if there is a will to change it it should be changed. If not c'est la vie. However as I see more an more Christians celebrate this legislation, I am wondering if they are shooting themselves in the foot. It is kind of hard to argue that there is "no significant religious sentiment in 'In God We Trust'" when so many seem to put religious significance in it.

 

[Curious George]

In the case of police one rule of thumb , the first, if brought in for questioning is ask for a lawyer. And then hire a private attorney. Do not get a public defender. They're paid by the same state that is prosecuting the defendant and their budget to that end is limited. In many states it is controlled by the presiding judge.

Furthermore, sign nothing. Ever! If arrested. And in the case of moving violations if you want to fight it, print your name on the ticket. Do not sign it. If you can remember this also write beneath that signature line, without prejudice.
That says you're not acknowledging by that printed name that you concede to guilt to the charges listed.

Many innocent people have been put in prison for murder after confessing to the crime because they were interrogated by detectives for countless hours. And since police can lie in interrogations and this is perfectly legal, they will often say, if you just confess and tell us what happened you can go home.
That's a lie.
They handcuff you and put you in jail to await arraignment. And the DA (prosecutor) uses that video taped confession as evidence not just in the trial but also at that hearing so as to deny you bail if they're of a mood. Bail is a constitutional right.

In America ignorance of the law can put you away for years.

While I disagree with the disparagement of public defenders, I agree that one needs to ask for a lawyer when dealing with the police. If there was one rule of thumb it would be to say nothing except that you will say nothing (it is important to declare that you do not want to talk).

And don't worry so much about traffic violations. You are not admitting guilt by signing a traffic violation (you are admitting that you received notice).

 

[SugarOcean]

While I disagree with the disparagement of public defenders, I agree that one needs to ask for a lawyer when dealing with the police. If there was one rule of thumb it would be to say nothing except that you will say nothing (it is important to declare that you do not want to talk).

And don't worry so much about traffic violations. You are not admitting guilt by signing a traffic violation (you are admitting that you received notice).

In one state I know of on their traffic citations there is a box near the top that a driver has the option to check. The language there states that by signing the citation that driver admits guilt and agrees to pay all fines and fee's.
The standard policy for police is they check that box prior to handing the citation to the driver. When that driver is unaware of that box being checked and sign, they're admitting guilt to the charge(s).

 

[Revoltingest]

You'd win your bet. Otherwise, America would have been a Christian theocracy and those "dwellers on the heath" would have been in a lot of trouble.

I don't know what that means but it sounds good.

 

[Revoltingest]

Civil forfeiture abuses/misuse are a problem not just with the IRS but also with the police.

I agree, & find that worth pointing out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder if you think loser should pay legal fees in challenges to government authority.

Interesting question.
I say no it is in the unique position to dismiss suits which lack merit.
This is a power no private entity has, ie, a unique asymmetry.
But the reverse should be "loser pay" because it would be a
powerful tool to keep government in check.

You're on a roll today.
Have you been eating brain food?

 

[SugarOcean]

This sounds defensive.

Wasn't meant that way.

Here is the deal: We do not want authorities of the government endorsing religion on behalf of the government. Children praying, or partaking in religious expression is not a worry. It never has been.

"Never" is a stretch. Research the activities of the FFRF & ACLU as regards religious expression in public schools. You'll find it has been an issue for quite a time.

Publishing the national motto is not a problem either. It is our national motto and schools should teach national symbols and mottos. If people take issue with that, they are welcome to try and change our national motto. It has been done before now, it can be done again if people so choose.

I imagine The Court would not find a problem in legislation requiring the public schools to display the national motto. This is because the national motto is just that. However, when you add the intent of authorities to post the national motto in an effort to insert religion into schools, you run into a problem. Now it is no longer just a national motto. No longer is it just a symbol of patriotism.

One has to prove intent. Inference is not proof. While the national motto is not promotion of religion itself and is therefore perfectly legal to display in schools.

Schools are a captive audience of impressionable minds. The Court has been more protective of schools because of the type of setting. Money is passed without much care or reverence. In fact some Christian groups opposed the words "In God We Trust" on currency because it devalued "God."

My point was simply that the two are not the same, so it is wrong thinking to state that The Court will decline hearing a case based on the previous decision.

That said, this new phenomenon of legislation requiring the posting of the national motto seems to be occurring throughout the country. I am not aware of a split in the lower courts on the issue, so I doubt The Court will likely hear a case unless it is seriously entertaining stopping this legislation.

Indeed.

I am an atheist, but am not too bothered by the motto. I think if there is a will to change it it should be changed. If not c'est la vie. However as I see more an more Christians celebrate this legislation, I am wondering if they are shooting themselves in the foot. It is kind of hard to argue that there is "no significant religious sentiment in 'In God We Trust'" when so many seem to put religious significance in it.

Individuals are entitled to feel a certain way about this latest event. Furthermore, it is wrong thinking to imagine the precedent set by prior courts on the matter of the national motto do not and would not apply to a new case pending concerning the national motto on display in public schools.
American's are entitled to freedom of thought. Thinking that there can be a valid claim in a court case wherein a claimant would argue people in South Dakota are taking this new policy as a win for espousing religion in public schools and as such the motto should come down isn't a valid cause for action.
People are free to think that, people are free to think it is just a motto, people are free to get fired up and be mad "God" exists at all anywhere in a public school setting. That's freedom of thought that can never be legislated in America.

However, the precedent set forth by numerous courts concerning the motto, the national motto, the historic context therein of, In God We Trust, insures that a government property, which is a public school, is entitled to display the national motto that appears on government property currently.
The chambers of Congress and SCOTUS, as well as in state courtrooms.
If someone thought to try to bring a case to remove the motto from this South Dakota school based on how people think it brings God into the government public school setting, they'd have to realize if they won there would be a challenge to remove the motto from all government properties.


As noted prior Utah public schools have displayed this motto for 17 years. If there was going to be an issue over this display in itself it would have happened already in that 17 year period. Unless someone would argue, well it is Utah after all and there are a lot of religious people there, like Mormons, so who would object?
Which is wrong thinking again.

 

[tytlyf]

Yes, the Constitution pertains to the secular, however its first unalienable guarantee is freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion.

Correct, you're free to believe whatever you want in America. You do not have the right to insert your religion into the secular system. And "god" is religion. Religion invented god.

 

[Curious George]

Wasn't meant that way.

"Never" is a stretch. Research the activities of the FFRF & ACLU as regards religious expression in public schools. You'll find it has been an issue for quite a time.

One has to prove intent. Inference is not proof. While the national motto is not promotion of religion itself and is therefore perfectly legal to display in schools.

Indeed.

Individuals are entitled to feel a certain way about this latest event. Furthermore, it is wrong thinking to imagine the precedent set by prior courts on the matter of the national motto do not and would not apply to a new case pending concerning the national motto on display in public schools.
American's are entitled to freedom of thought. Thinking that there can be a valid claim in a court case wherein a claimant would argue people in South Dakota are taking this new policy as a win for espousing religion in public schools and as such the motto should come down isn't a valid cause for action.
People are free to think that, people are free to think it is just a motto, people are free to get fired up and be mad "God" exists at all anywhere in a public school setting. That's freedom of thought that can never be legislated in America.

However, the precedent set forth by numerous courts concerning the motto, the national motto, the historic context therein of, In God We Trust, insures that a government property, which is a public school, is entitled to display the national motto that appears on government property currently.
The chambers of Congress and SCOTUS, as well as in state courtrooms.
If someone thought to try to bring a case to remove the motto from this South Dakota school based on how people think it brings God into the government public school setting, they'd have to realize if they won there would be a challenge to remove the motto from all government properties.


As noted prior Utah public schools have displayed this motto for 17 years. If there was going to be an issue over this display in itself it would have happened already in that 17 year period. Unless someone would argue, well it is Utah after all and there are a lot of religious people there, like Mormons, so who would object?
Which is wrong thinking again.

You are mistaken in thinking perception of the phrase lacks significance. Rather, it is the most significant.

 

[SugarOcean]

Correct, you're free to believe whatever you want in America. You do not have the right to insert your religion into the secular system.

Oh, but God has been inserted into the secular system since the inception of this country.

And "god" is religion. Religion invented god.

God preceded religion.
And Autotheists would disagree with you as well.

As per your comments pertaining to the national motto and the OP, you're arrived a little late in this discussion. The issue of God as far as the motto is concerned has already been discussed and decided in the courts.