Another Court Loss for Liberals

[stu]

The problem here is the Supreme Court has mangled the religion clauses of the First Amendment. I believe the original intent of the Establishment clause was to prevent establishment of an "official" federal church. Several states did in fact have official state churches and that practice was not disturbed, at least initially, by the First Amendment. Similarly, the Free Exercise clause was intended to prevent the government from banning religions.

Activist courts couldn't leave well enough alone however, and eventually elevated the subjective feelings of atheists and assorted malcontents into constitutional proportions. No longer did the Establishment clause bar an official state church. It also barred the government from endorsing or promoting religion or one religion over another, a completely different issue than the one addressed in the First Amendment and one the Founders would have had violent disagreement with.

This slogan on currency dispute is one entirely of the Court's own creation. Properly interpreted, the Establishment clause would not be remotely implicated. No one is being forced to observe a religion, any more than they are pledging fealty to the party or policies of various notables whose pictures appear on the same bill.

I think it certainly was required and may always be needed for the Courts to maintain and confirm to those concerned that when the state prints the word God on currency by passing law, it has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause which forbids passing law respecting an establishment of religion, as it is not an establishment of religion, not the state endorsing religion, not the Christian religion, not religion in general, nor is it expressing any heritage connected to this nation's religious and non-religious beliefs . I for one am grateful to the Courts for being willing to point this out 'cause otherwise many folks including myself I'm sure, would naturally not interpret "In God We Trust" to be a secular expression as they now say it is.
So what was wrong with E Pluribus Unum anyway. Uncontroversial and not even a suggestion of religion to make a case out of. Served well for a couple hundred years without any Court needing to get involved.. An actual example of 1950's politicians meddling - a real assault on hundreds of years of traditional American motto and belief.

 

[futurecurrents]

I am not a religious guy, but humans are not developed enough to guide themselves based on whatever 'liberals' believe should be moral d'jour.

To wit:

“Remember the quote from Forrest Gump, “stupid is as stupid does”?

It is not Biblical but is sure displays the lack of wisdom of doing things that seems to make sense and not changing when the results are consistently bad. Persisting in behavior when all the facts show that you are wrong is the definition of irrationality.

Has anyone bothered to take inventory of removing prayer and the Bible as a standard for morality? Someone eloquently said the philosophy of the school room in one generation will become the philosophy of government in the next.http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0124_When_America_stopped.html

It is beyond a coincidence that every social indicator took a nose dive once prayer and the Bible were removed from our standard. Add in the fact that relativism was added and the gray area of no absolute right or wrong became individual standards of vacillation, and it should not surprise anyone of the following results;

Criminal arrest of teens is up 150% according to the US Bureau of Census; teen suicides in ages 15-19 years up 450% according to the National Center of Health Services; illegal drug activity is up 6000% according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse; child abuse cases up 2300% according to the US Department of Health and Human Services; divorce up 350% according to the US Department of Commerce, and SAT scores fell 10% even though the SAT questions have been revamped to be easier to answer.

Violent crime has risen 350%, national morality figures have plummeted, and teen pregnancy escalated dramatically after prayer and the Bible were removed from the schools.

One of the most damning statistics is to follow sex education in the schools. As the school’s involvement in sex education increased from grade level to grade level, promiscuity followed and the increase of premarital sex increased. Without any firm foundation to discourage sexual experimentation, unplanned pregnancies exploded. When right or wrong becomes relative to the individual, a natural consequence is to self-approve immoral behavior.


More at..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cpcfou...r-and-the-bible-from-the-schools-in-1962/amp/

Complete horsehit. This is why we have deluded religious nuts all around. There is no critical thought with them. Wouldn't be so bad, but they also vote.

The societies with the highest levels of atheism also have the best standards of living and least violent crime.

 

[Max E.]

 

[Cuddles]

How much of the population is represented by atheists/Buddhists/Scientologists? You're always going to find a group that wants to overturn something.

As for it not being a religious symbol, I'm betting the majority of the 80% or so Christians in the country disagree.

Electoral college and the tyranny of the majority?

And I implied that the religious aspect is precisely why people are getting their panties in a bunch (not the "historical"). As such, there is no excuse for it to be anywhere in government.

And yes, people will always want to overturn shit, but not always will have legal standing to do so as is the case here.... Even if petty

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I for one am grateful to the Courts for being willing to point this out 'cause otherwise many folks including myself I'm sure, would naturally not interpret "In God We Trust" to be a secular expression as they now say it is.

I agree with you that the Court has created a big problem, as "In God We Trust" is the antithesis of a secular statement. It is clearly religious. But no one is being forced to do or say anything, to affirm any sort of belief or anything else. This is a political, not a constitutional, issue, the sort that federal courts once wisely made a practice of avoiding.

I contrast this lack of coercion with mandated diversity training, which does require one's agreement to a state-sponsored set of beliefs.

 

[Optionpro007]

Complete horsehit. This is why we have deluded religious nuts all around. There is no critical thought with them. Wouldn't be so bad, but they also vote.

The societies with the highest levels of atheism also have the best standards of living and least violent crime.

I am not a religious person, but believe that if you take away a moral compass from society then you have to replace it with something else. Poor parenting leaves kids with the options of whatever they see in society and the MSM and Hollywood have done a pretty poor job as moral compasses.

If atheist's and liberals also succeed in removing '"In God We Trust" from society's frame of mind, it must be replaced with something else and "In Reason We Trust" wouldn't come close, as this forum clearly shows...

 

[Tsing Tao]

Yes. It's stupid. It's equivalent to "In Made Up BS We Trust". It's offensive to those of us who think that the US is better than that.

How would you feel if it actually said "In Irrational BS We Trust" ? Or "In the figment of our imagination we trust." ?

Or "In some thing we have no proof exists and is highly unlikely to be real we trust"?

Everything is offensive to you.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Electoral college and the tyranny of the majority?

Exactly. There are an estimated 25,000 scientologists in the US if I remember correctly. Should we just let the next President chosen by 25,000 people somewhere randomly in the country no matter what the rest of us say?

And I implied that the religious aspect is precisely why people are getting their panties in a bunch (not the "historical"). As such, there is no excuse for it to be anywhere in government.

Other than the fact that it was how the country was founded. There's even less excuse for it not to be there.

 

[stu]

I am not a religious person, but believe that if you take away a moral compass from society then you have to replace it with something else.
If atheist's and liberals also succeed in removing '"In God We Trust" from society's frame of mind, it must be replaced with something else

"Do No Evil" is as good a moral compass as anything. Certainly has more to do with morality than a jealous vengeful God concept designed to frighten children and people who should know better into doing whatever they are being told is right or good.
Morality comes before God or religion otherwise you couldn't even know if religion or God was moral or not.
Good is good and right for its own sake, so if you can't do good without religion, then you just ain't doing good properly.

 

[Poindexter]

That doesn't read like you're trying to be funny.

Oh look... another leftist can't admit when he's wrong. My shocked face

As the saying goes: the essence of liberalism is the spoiled child...