Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"In god we trust"

TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:36:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wanted to make this a debate topic, but then I couldn't decide which side of the issue I agreed with, so I thought I would put it up for discussion.
In my paralegal studies call at college, we were discussing an issue that has recently been submitted to the supreme court on several occasions.

The issue is "whether the American dollar bill" should say "In god we trust" on it, seeing as their are many people who don't believe in or agree with God.

Another one was whether the pledge of alliegance should say "One nation, under god"

What are your thoughts and opinions on the matter?

I mean I myself am not religous, but I don't seemed to be bother by those things being included on our money and in our national pledge. Do you think the supreme court rule for or against permitting these phrases?

Discuss.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:36:43 PM, TUF wrote:
I wanted to make this a debate topic, but then I couldn't decide which side of the issue I agreed with, so I thought I would put it up for discussion.
In my paralegal studies call at college, we were discussing an issue that has recently been submitted to the supreme court on several occasions.

The issue is "whether the American dollar bill" should say "In god we trust" on it, seeing as their are many people who don't believe in or agree with God.

Another one was whether the pledge of alliegance should say "One nation, under god"

What are your thoughts and opinions on the matter?

I mean I myself am not religous, but I don't seemed to be bother by those things being included on our money and in our national pledge. Do you think the supreme court rule for or against permitting these phrases?

Discuss.

Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:44:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The government must not show favoritism or partiality to any particular theology because it transitively subjects the non-religious of that nation to political alienation. The Constitution also famously and explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion."

"In god we trust" and "one nation under god" are BOTH unlawful inventions of the religious zealotism of the 50s that never existed before then. They are transgressions on the necessary separatism of the state and the church, and violations of the right to be governed by religiously impartial laws.

Children should not be forced to say "God" when saying the pledge of allegiance. ...Heck, children should not be forced to say the pledge of allegiance at all.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:50:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

A. It is a reference to a diety, which is a part of a religion. I understand that it is not indoctrination, but it is still not permissible under the First Amendment.

b. I was punished once in third grade for not saying the pledge . . . schools can, and do, force students to say the pledge.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:50:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

Prove to me how the government has established a state religion with four words on currency. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

Most atheists I talk to don't even care. It means nothing to them.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:54:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:50:28 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

A. It is a reference to a diety, which is a part of a religion. I understand that it is not indoctrination, but it is still not permissible under the First Amendment.

b. I was punished once in third grade for not saying the pledge . . . schools can, and do, force students to say the pledge.

a) Interesting, because in 2011 an appeal against a ruling that it was constitutional was denied by the USSC. Meaning that it IS, in effect, constitutional.

b) Then that school has violated your right to Freedom of Expression--because it isn't legal to force you to say it in a public school. If it was more recent I would have suggested contacting the ACLU.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:54:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:50:51 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

Prove to me how the government has established a state religion with four words on currency. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

Most atheists I talk to don't even care. It means nothing to them.

This is the standard established in the Lemon case.

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1.The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Putting those words on money does not have a secular legislative purpose, so it violates the first prong. In addition, it promotes religion by portraying the nation as a religious nation. Finally, it is an excessive entanglement with religion because the government is not supposed to explicitly promote a deity.

Most people are apathetic. Your anecdotal evidence does not matter because it is ancedotal and because it does not matter if people are offended by it or not. It is not supposed to happen.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:56:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:50:28 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

A. It is a reference to a diety, which is a part of a religion. I understand that it is not indoctrination, but it is still not permissible under the First Amendment.

Where does it say that references to a god cannot appear in government records, currency, ect? Such statements do not establish a religion. In fact, simple belief that a god exists =/= belief in a religion.

b. I was punished once in third grade for not saying the pledge . . . schools can, and do, force students to say the pledge.

Judging by your profile page, that was at least ten years ago. And even if they did, they are not supposed to. Unless you went to a private school, because then they can.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:54:02 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:50:28 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

A. It is a reference to a diety, which is a part of a religion. I understand that it is not indoctrination, but it is still not permissible under the First Amendment.

b. I was punished once in third grade for not saying the pledge . . . schools can, and do, force students to say the pledge.

a) Interesting, because in 2011 an appeal against a ruling that it was constitutional was denied by the USSC. Meaning that it IS, in effect, constitutional.

The USSC is not always correct because the justices have political motives. For example, Plessy v. Furgueson was obviously unconstitutional, but it was still permitted.
b) Then that school has violated your right to Freedom of Expression--because it isn't legal to force you to say it in a public school. If it was more recent I would have suggested contacting the ACLU.
The fact is that it can still force people to say the pledge . . .
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:58:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:56:41 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:50:28 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

A. It is a reference to a diety, which is a part of a religion. I understand that it is not indoctrination, but it is still not permissible under the First Amendment.

Where does it say that references to a god cannot appear in government records, currency, ect? Such statements do not establish a religion. In fact, simple belief that a god exists =/= belief in a religion.

It is establishing a belief in a religion, which is unconstitutional. Again, it fails the Lemon Test.
b. I was punished once in third grade for not saying the pledge . . . schools can, and do, force students to say the pledge.

Judging by your profile page, that was at least ten years ago. And even if they did, they are not supposed to. Unless you went to a private school, because then they can.

I attended a government-funded public school during that time.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:59:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

But they are endorsing it.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:00:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:57:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:54:02 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:50:28 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

A. It is a reference to a diety, which is a part of a religion. I understand that it is not indoctrination, but it is still not permissible under the First Amendment.

b. I was punished once in third grade for not saying the pledge . . . schools can, and do, force students to say the pledge.

a) Interesting, because in 2011 an appeal against a ruling that it was constitutional was denied by the USSC. Meaning that it IS, in effect, constitutional.

The USSC is not always correct because the justices have political motives. For example, Plessy v. Furgueson was obviously unconstitutional, but it was still permitted.

Unfortunately, while this happens, the USSC is the be-all end-all authority on constitutionality. And, if I'm not mistaken, the rejection of appeal took place AFTER the induction of Sotomeyor. Meaning that, the most current ruling is that it is constitutional.

b) Then that school has violated your right to Freedom of Expression--because it isn't legal to force you to say it in a public school. If it was more recent I would have suggested contacting the ACLU.
The fact is that it can still force people to say the pledge . . .

...is irrelevant when talking about whether the pledge is lawful or not. The fact is that it is UNlawful to force the pledge, and anything different is a fluke.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:01:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:59:01 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

But they are endorsing it.

Which they can do because the pledge is currently constitutional.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:03:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:01:26 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:59:01 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

But they are endorsing it.

Which they can do because the pledge is currently constitutional.

Just because the court claims something does not mean that it is correct.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:06:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:03:29 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:01:26 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:59:01 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:45:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:42:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:40:49 PM, TUF wrote:
At 1/23/2012 7:37:41 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Any mention of a diety should be banned . . .

Why do you think so?

Printing the name of a god on state issued coins and/or forcing children to worship a god through the pledge is a violation of the the Establishment Clause. The government is not supposed to endorse any form of religion.

I don't see a problem with it.

a) "In god we trust" is not the specific reference to a religion. It's merely a statement that was originally placed there--it's not indoctrination.

b) Schools can't force people to say the pledge at all. There is no true "force" there.

But they are endorsing it.

Which they can do because the pledge is currently constitutional.

Just because the court claims something does not mean that it is correct.

Except that in terms of what is officially constitutional, the USSC is the head authority.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:12:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.
Give me a break . . ."God" implies an Abrahamic god.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:12:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.
Give me a break . . ."God" implies an Abrahamic god.

Yeah, but not a specific god. It could be the jewish, christian, or even islamic god if we disregard the whole Allah thing.

Anyway--as I said before, I think the whole pledge should go away, but I don't think it's a pressing issue.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:16:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:12:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.
Give me a break . . ."God" implies an Abrahamic god.

Not neccarily. Gods have been a religous diety for ages. Even the greeks had their gods that were not Abrahamic.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:17:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:12:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.
Give me a break . . ."God" implies an Abrahamic god.

Cause a million other religions don't have a god, or gods.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:17:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.

lol are you being serious right now? You wouldn't like Buddah because its more specific, but God is so general that somehow has less religious favoritism than "Buddah" would? Come on now.

Its a difficult argument to make that "in god we trust" is violating any kind of right. However, violation of rights is not the only basis through which we can prosecute. Considering how loosely the SupCt. has interpreted the Constitution in history, it would not be a stretch to say that "In God we trust" is a law respecting religion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:18:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:17:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:12:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.
Give me a break . . ."God" implies an Abrahamic god.

Cause a million other religions don't have a god, or gods.

Except that in the pledge God is capitalized, implying an Abrahamic god.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:19:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:17:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.

lol are you being serious right now? You wouldn't like Buddah because its more specific, but God is so general that somehow has less religious favoritism than "Buddah" would? Come on now.

Its a difficult argument to make that "in god we trust" is violating any kind of right. However, violation of rights is not the only basis through which we can prosecute. Considering how loosely the SupCt. has interpreted the Constitution in history, it would not be a stretch to say that "In God we trust" is a law respecting religion.

The pledge isn't even a law though.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:19:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:18:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:17:24 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:12:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.
Give me a break . . ."God" implies an Abrahamic god.

Cause a million other religions don't have a god, or gods.

Except that in the pledge God is capitalized, implying an Abrahamic god.

Hmmm, well, that still leaves quite a few religions left.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:20:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:19:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:17:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.

lol are you being serious right now? You wouldn't like Buddah because its more specific, but God is so general that somehow has less religious favoritism than "Buddah" would? Come on now.

Its a difficult argument to make that "in god we trust" is violating any kind of right. However, violation of rights is not the only basis through which we can prosecute. Considering how loosely the SupCt. has interpreted the Constitution in history, it would not be a stretch to say that "In God we trust" is a law respecting religion.

The pledge isn't even a law though.

It is still an endorsement of religion, which is not permitted in schools.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:21:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:10:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/23/2012 8:06:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
Its funny because I'm sure everyone would be in outrage if it said "in Buddha we trust"....

A red herring. Lawfulness of the pledge indicates that it must follow this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So technically, both are constitutional.

Does that mean I agree with them both? No. In fact, "god" shouldn't be mentioned anyway. But it's not that big of an issue.

I'd have a problem with "Buddha" more though as it implicates a specific religion.

The lack of plural means that they are endorsing a monotheistic deity as opposed to polytheistic. How can that not be considered 'respecting an establishment of religion'?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico