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

[Curious George]

Not so far.

Yes, so far.

 

[SugarOcean]

Yes, so far.

OK. Cite the case.

 

[ecco]

Three public schools in Detroit have Allāhu Akbar inscribed over the entrance.

 

[tytlyf]

Three public schools in Detroit have Allāhu Akbar inscribed over the entrance.

Sure there are! Look at all your proof!?
If so, it needs to be removed. But I highly doubt you're not trolling.

 

[Curious George]

OK. Cite the case.

"In the course of adjudicating specific cases, this Court has come to understand the Establishment Clause to mean that the government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religions." See County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).

"First, the law must have a Secular purpose." See Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 U.S. (1971).

"What is crucial is that a government practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion. It is only practices having that effect, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that make religion relevant, in reality or public perception, to status in the political community." See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984] [O'Connor joining opinion].

"Under this Court's rulings, however, such an "avowed" secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment....The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature." See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).

When the government acts with an ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government's ostensible object is to take sides. See Mccreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).

As we indicated in Agostini, and have indicated elsewhere, the question whether government aid to religious schools results in governmental indoctrination is ultimately a question whether any religious indoctrination that occurs in those schools could reasonably be attributed to governmental action." See Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000).



You asked what case. Here are a few. But what I was discussing is a common thread throughout all Establishment cases. As the intent and the effect move towards "putting God in schools" then the likelihood of running afoul of the constitution increases. If the intent and effect stay secular, then there is no problem. Hell, the with the pledge kids are/were saying God every day. The word God is honestly not the problem (though many like to make it an issue). The problem, if there is to be one, comes from the intent and the the reasonable interpretation of what it means to post the motto in schools.

And just in case you also questioned whether schools are, in fact, more protected than general public exposure, I included this:

"As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools." See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

 

[Curious George]

Aye, it's a good thing to put all us evil heathens
on notice that it's not our school or country.
They should force us to pray too.
It gives us morals, which we otherwise wouldn't have.

Most Christians don't trust in him either.
They buy home insurance, see a doctor for injuries, wear
seatbelts, & buy extended warranties on their motorhomes.
It seems that they're trying to convince themselves of his
grace even more than us reprobates.

At least our ranks are growing.
Some day the money motto will be....
"God? Homey don't play that."

A cashless society is one wherein government can monitor all activity.
You really want that?

One where government sees all.

Who is more obsessed....the atheist who honors the Constitution, & abhors affirming
someone else's religion?
Or the Christian, who violates the Constitution by demanding that others fete their faith?
They fight tooth & nail to keep it, even though the original mottoes were better and they
comported with the Constitution.

The USSC is predominantly Christian.
They obsess with imposing their faith upon the unwilling.
But the ranks of heathens grows.
Things change.

See what I've been doing?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I mock using the word "obsess" to denigrate those who disagree about an issue.

And don't forget that they replaced the original models with the current Christian one.
They don't complain about that "replacement of the US currency", eh.

Their God hates capitalism?
Oh, he's a bad one.

That doesn't really speak to capitalism.
Such sins can afflict any system.

The Jesus economy seems a doomed model.

Things look much better to me than they've been in years past.
While there might be some disagreement about what constitutes
progress, I see....
- Elimination of Jim Crow.
- Legal abortion.
- Legal gay marriage.
- No more forced prayer in public school (which I endured).
- Due process returning to universities.
- Stronger gun rights.
But I don't give the rise of atheism credit for these.
People of faith (not all, of course) have also advanced progress.

Why do we care about the motto?
It's for the same reason Christians would care if the motto were....
"God is a myth"

I'm not aware of any movement to prevent believers from trusting in their god.
The question at hand is different, ie, should the Christian motto be the
government's motto, despite the country having non-faith & many other faiths?

Note also there's history at work here.
In public school, my teachers led us all in Christian prayer. This was both
legal & widespread. Schools were Christian, & no other beliefs were voiced.
And later, they tried to draft me to go kill godless commies. Their religion was
potentially deadly to me. So I favor stopping creeping theocracy in its tracks.

Aye, and I was careful to note that believers like you get credit.

Liberals must bristle at the idea that Trump is the civil libertarian in this area, & they are not.

Justice will always be messy, inexact, & frequently failing.
All we can do is the best we systematically can.

Prayer in school is fine with me.
I just don't want government & its employees leading it.

"God" is the proper name of the Christian god.
Tis no coincidence that Christians were the ones who added "God" in 1954.
Would you be OK with changing "God" to "Allah", "Krom", "Odin", or "Cthulhu",
& then striving for the same broad monotheistic inferrance?
But what of multi-god theists, non-god theists, & atheists....are we all just
chopped liver? Living in a country for monotheists only?

I find all religious expression creepy.
But hey....we must be tolerant of people doing so while minding their own business.

Many of my Christian friends would disagree.
Bibles would too.

I note that they refer not to "a god" but to "God".
There is no prefix article denoting a category.
The 1st letter is capitalized as is convention for a proper name.
To be singular is another clue, clearly eliminating Hindu & other gods.

If we examine the Constitution, it isn't based upon Christianity either.
Compare the Bill Of Rights with the 10 Commandments....some conflict.

Christianity is very popular here.
But we have a secular constitution.
Afghanistan, however....
Constitution of Afghanistan - Wikipedia
Excerpted....
"The Constitution describes Islam as its sacred law and the most
commonly practiced faith throughout Afghanistan's vast country."

I've never read it.
I go only by what Christians tell me.
It seems that even they cannot agree on what they believe.

I've heard heard preachers speak.
Never is it "a god" or "the god".
It's always "God", often followed by an exclamation point.
This has all the earmarks of a proper name.

?

There is no doubt some Christian influence.
But I'm correct about the conflict.
1st Amendment vs Commandments 2, 3, 4, & 5
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia

There's no conflict.
"Basis" & "influence" are different.
But I have a solution....
One could say that the influence of Christianity if one of the bases of the Constitution.
Christians persecution Christians no doubt steered things in a secular direction.
But as I pointed out the 1st Amendment flies in the face of several of the 10 Commandments.

I appreciate the offer, but I'll pass.

I'm patient...having all the time in the world for change.

We'll bide our time, & when we take over the motto might be...
In Darwin we trust
That'll stick in their craw, eh.

Nah.
Think of influence as being part of a basis.
But to say Christianity is the basis for the Constitution would be to ignore the other influences.
And remember....I gave Christian persecution of Christians credit for inspiring the 1st Amendment.

Rather than read extensive linked tomes, I prefer
that posters put arguments in their own words.

I never thought he was an atheist or agnostic.
He became part of the motto for the purpose of nose tweaking.
(Evolution is the theme.)

But we pushy obnoxious people are increasing in number.

I can speak only for us pushy obnoxious atheists.

Lifelong atheist here.
I must've been confused about your meaning.

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.

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

I agree, & find that worth pointing out.

We've had to modify the system over the centuries.
Slavery got the boot.
Women got the vote.
And we still need to get rid of the state religion.
Progress doesn't end.

And that is pretty much this thread. I still do not see an argument on how the motto or the use of the word "God" violates the Establishment Clause.

 

[metis]

And that is pretty much this thread. I still do not see an argument on how the motto or the use of the word "God" violates the Establishment Clause.

What if it said "Gods" instead, would you still agree? or how about "the Buddha"?

 

[Revoltingest]

What if it said "Gods" instead, would you still agree? or how about "the Buddha"?

Oh, you theists....always ignoring us godless heathens.
You'd make establishment of religion so broad as to allow
every quantity of gods but zero.

 

[Curious George]

What if it said "Gods" instead, would you still agree? or how about "the Buddha"?

Yes. I think? Agree to what?

If it the motto said Gods or Buddha, i would not say that it violates the establishment clause.

 

[SugarOcean]

One that's very easy to bypass. Just change your digital money into bullion
View attachment 31365

Don't forget silver. Much more buyer friendly. If you need to buy food for example and it would cost you a piece of silver but all you have is gold....