Curious George
Veteran Member
Hopefully her vocal opinions on the matter make it easy for any court to see the intent of the law. This will make it harder to say "I just wanted to put the motto, it is pure patriotism/honoring history.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Separation of Religion and Education
- Thread starter Onyx
- Start date
Did you totally misread what I wrote?
Otherwise, you are trying to deny my point that religion needs to be taught in some fashion to understand history by asking a rhetorical question that makes no sense at all to me.
And as one of the "we who attended school in the past 150 years can attest", when I was in school, we learned about the Puritans and at least a tiny bit about their religious reason for settling in North America.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I see both sides to it. However a school is an educational system, so it should explain the motto "In God We Trust" rather than just putting up posters with the words alone.
Students should be allowed to wear or carry some religious artifacts, but I'm a proponent for school uniforms or standardized dress code in order to keep the focus more on education.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Only to the extent particular beliefs have played in historical events, or have a significant role in the structure and functioning of society. No more, no less.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I guess it depends on when you feel Christians were finally forced to abide by the Constitution and stop using public property to promote their religion? When was that?
.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
American school shootings have certainly gone up since “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance that American school kids say every morning.
I wish to briefly note some of the relevant case law. Interestingly, it's difficult to know where to begin, and the holdings one begins with determine which direction an argument goes. So I will try to avoid suggesting an argument here (but I won't be successful).
In O'Hair v. Blumenthal (1978), federal district court dismissed a challenge to the federal statutes that established “In God We Trust” as the national motto, mandated that the motto be imprinted on currency, and prescribed criminal penalties for removal of the motto from currency. The district court, of course, cited the Ninth Circuit ruling in Aronow v. United States (1970), which had
With this language denying that the use on the motto on currency “a primary effect of advancing religion,” this district court, and the Ninth Circuit before it, indicated that the challenged laws that require the motto be imprinted on currency pass the Lemon Test.
A Fifth Circuit Per Curiam affirmed the district court's holding. The Supreme Court did not grant cert.
The Lemon Test, which has come to be employed for determining whether a statute violates the Establishment Clause, consists of 3 prongs: (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) the primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) the statute must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion (e.g., with internal disputes within a religion or denomination). To fail in any one of these prongs renders the statute unconstitutional. (I disagree that the statutes challenged in O'Hair pass the first prong of the Lemon Test. I believe these statutes should be held unconstitutional. But my opinion means nothing.)
In any event, preceding Lemon were the rulings in Abington School District v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale, where the Court found, respectively, that school-sponsored Bible readings and recitation of state-composed prayer violate the Establishment Clause. Note that these cases involve a direct government sponsorship or mandate. It certainly seems to me that it can be readily argued that a state law requiring the government-composed phrase “In God We Trust” to be plastered on school classroom walls runs afoul of the Establishment Clause in the same way as did the school-sponsored Bible readings and subjection to state-composed prayers. But, more than that, WTF is the “secular legislative purpose” of such a law, as required by prong (1) of the Lemon Test?
The Court has also formulated the “coercion test” and the “endorsement test” for purposes of determining Establishment Clause violations. In Newdow v. Congress (2002) (Newdow I, the last decision to rule on the merits), the Ninth Circuit availed itself of all 3 tests in analyzing the constitutionality of the 1954 law that added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, finding this law to violate the Establishment Clause. Again, it would seem readily argued that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is no more coercive than the same captive students being subjected to the phrase “In God We Trust” in every classroom. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit opinion on grounds of Newdow's lack of standing (Newdow, suing in the capacity of next friend of his child, was the non-custodial parent of his child, and therefore lacked standing).
So that is the briefest rundown of the case law. In all of the above decisions, one can find further avenues of inquiry with regard to the constitutionality of this state law.
In O'Hair v. Blumenthal (1978), federal district court dismissed a challenge to the federal statutes that established “In God We Trust” as the national motto, mandated that the motto be imprinted on currency, and prescribed criminal penalties for removal of the motto from currency. The district court, of course, cited the Ninth Circuit ruling in Aronow v. United States (1970), which had
. . . held that the "national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." 432 F.2d at 243. From this it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the primary purpose of the slogan was secular; it served a secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously secular function of providing a medium of exchange. As such it is equally clear that the use of the motto on the currency or otherwise does not have a primary effect of advancing religion.
With this language denying that the use on the motto on currency “a primary effect of advancing religion,” this district court, and the Ninth Circuit before it, indicated that the challenged laws that require the motto be imprinted on currency pass the Lemon Test.
A Fifth Circuit Per Curiam affirmed the district court's holding. The Supreme Court did not grant cert.
The Lemon Test, which has come to be employed for determining whether a statute violates the Establishment Clause, consists of 3 prongs: (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) the primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) the statute must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion (e.g., with internal disputes within a religion or denomination). To fail in any one of these prongs renders the statute unconstitutional. (I disagree that the statutes challenged in O'Hair pass the first prong of the Lemon Test. I believe these statutes should be held unconstitutional. But my opinion means nothing.)
In any event, preceding Lemon were the rulings in Abington School District v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale, where the Court found, respectively, that school-sponsored Bible readings and recitation of state-composed prayer violate the Establishment Clause. Note that these cases involve a direct government sponsorship or mandate. It certainly seems to me that it can be readily argued that a state law requiring the government-composed phrase “In God We Trust” to be plastered on school classroom walls runs afoul of the Establishment Clause in the same way as did the school-sponsored Bible readings and subjection to state-composed prayers. But, more than that, WTF is the “secular legislative purpose” of such a law, as required by prong (1) of the Lemon Test?
The Court has also formulated the “coercion test” and the “endorsement test” for purposes of determining Establishment Clause violations. In Newdow v. Congress (2002) (Newdow I, the last decision to rule on the merits), the Ninth Circuit availed itself of all 3 tests in analyzing the constitutionality of the 1954 law that added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, finding this law to violate the Establishment Clause. Again, it would seem readily argued that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is no more coercive than the same captive students being subjected to the phrase “In God We Trust” in every classroom. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit opinion on grounds of Newdow's lack of standing (Newdow, suing in the capacity of next friend of his child, was the non-custodial parent of his child, and therefore lacked standing).
So that is the briefest rundown of the case law. In all of the above decisions, one can find further avenues of inquiry with regard to the constitutionality of this state law.
tytlyf
Not Religious
That isn't unconstitutional. Unlike the religious dominionists. Never elect someone who wears their religion on their sleeve. They will not put the constitution before the bible.
Anti-American.