[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

She doesn't care how the Constitution is interpreted, she only cares that her religion is included in that interpretation. Even it isn't, she'll blindly claim it is.

Possibly. Of course, the opposite is true of those who are anti-religion. It doesn't matter what the founders intended or what the actual words in the Constitution are supposed to mean. They don't like it, so they want it not included and don't care by what means it happens.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The will of what people? The people who think exactly like you do? What a hot load.

The last time I checked lots of different people have very different ideas on how things should be.

True. That's why we have things like voting and elected representatives to create new law. We had representatives represent the people in forming the Constitution as well.

We currently don't have one guy making stuff up for us that we blindly follow, and we didn't then either. That's what happened in England, and what the people who made up the this new country were trying to avoid. If you don't believe me, you can look it up.

[ort888]

But the constitution is the very document that gives the court system powers that aren't tied to the general public. It seems to me like it's an important part of the whole system.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So your claim is now that the decision in an 1892 case demonstrates the intent of "the founders"? Isn't this whole judicial interpretation thing how you claim we're getting in trouble? \

Judicial interpretation? Sure.

Here we have an interpretation of the law at a time a lot closer in time nearer to our founders, that disagrees with the Jeffersonian philosphy.

Not just one guy, but the majority of the court agreed. On it's own, it's not that significant. As a piece of a mountain of evidence that the majority did not follow Jefferson's views, it's telling.

Of course, that's interpretation, but there's no reason to believe that latter interpretation which occurred at a time much further fro

It's worth noting that Scalia, in his book on judicial interpretation, rips on the decision in Holy Trinity Church v U.S. for doing exactly what you claim to be worried about: lawmaking by judicial fiat.

Scalia is pretty consistent. So, you think that Scalia is the strict adherent to the Jeffersonian "high wall"?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Completely misleading because circumstances changed. Taxpayer-supported public education was practically nonexistent at the beginning of this country.

The Northwest Ordinance was approved by the House in 1789 around the same time it was hammering out the 1st amendment. The same ordinance was called upon when new states where admitted to the union post First Amendment. It stated that "religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision."

I would be hard-pressed to guess the opinion of "the founders" on the subject of prayer in public schools, when their experience was in privately-funded, largely parochial schools.

As we can see, the government had already stated what intentions it had for schools. We don't have to guess. And, I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about home schooling here. Who paid for teachers and the like back at the time of the Northwest Ordinance and the enacting of First Amendment? Did each citizen pay individually for "tutors" for their children, or was their a centralized system set up where the children attended?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Which God? Who gets to define it

All evidence I can find is that the God we "trust" for our money, and the God who endowed us with unalienable rights it the one the majority of the people of the new United States believed in - the Judeo/Christian/Muslim "God of Abraham."

At least that seems to be where the evidence lies.

Do you believe that there was another God that the majority of our founders believed in?

[The Final Dakar]

The fact that you feel compelled to define what God the founders believed in completely misses the point of what they were trying to achieve.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

But the constitution is the very document that gives the court system powers that aren't tied to the general public. It seems to me like it's an important part of the whole system.

The Constitution gives the court ZERO power to create laws or to change them in ways that was not the intent of our Founding Fathers, who acted as representatives of the people.

It always goes back to the people. It doesn't matter what branch you discuss. Either you are elected and get to make laws, or are appointed and are not allowed to make laws - at least on paper. You give people a little power, they are always going to try to usurp more.

The founders set up a system that was supposed to deter an essential monarchy from deciding for itself what laws we would be regulated by. The fact that we've let the judiciary pretty much do that is a failure on our part, not on the part of our founders.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The fact that you feel compelled to define what God the founders believed in completely misses the point of what they were trying to achieve.

Which part? The part where they outlined the religious deity to which we as a people answer, or the part where despite that deity's power over government, didn't want to impose specific regulations which would outlaw either not worshipping or doing so in a way that wasn't supported by the majority?

Only if you assume that EVERYONE subscribed to the views of Jefferson (a Christian himself, though a far from orthodox one), can you not see a middle ground.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Judicial interpretation? Sure.

Here we have an interpretation of the law at a time a lot closer in time nearer to our founders, that disagrees with the Jeffersonian philosphy.

Not just one guy, but the majority of the court agreed. On it's own, it's not that significant. As a piece of a mountain of evidence that the majority did not follow Jefferson's views, it's telling.

Of course, that's interpretation, but there's no reason to believe that latter interpretation which occurred at a time much further fro

And the Court's first invocation of Jefferson's "wall of separation" view is even earlier, from Reynolds v. United States (1878), so this line of argument is pointless.

Scalia is pretty consistent. So, you think that Scalia is the strict adherent to the Jeffersonian "high wall"?

Scalia is very consistent. I think he would object to your idea, repeated frequently in this thread, that the Courts need to interpret the written law according to "the intent of our Founding Fathers." With the idea that you can go back to the debates during the beginning of this country and find support for a lot of conflicting things, I believe his view is that you must simply read the text of the law and apply it. There is nothing in the First Amendment, or really any of our governing documents, that gives the idea that this is a "Christian nation." The constitutional defense of references like "In God we trust" is that "God" in this context does not refer to any particular god or religious belief.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which part? The part where they outlined the religious deity to which we as a people answer, or the part where despite that deity's power over government, didn't want to impose specific regulations which would outlaw either not worshipping or doing so in a way that wasn't supported by the majority?

I'll just cut through the BS and ask, what does it matter if the "majority" of founders believed in a Christian god?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Only if you assume that EVERYONE subscribed to the views of Jefferson (a Christian himself, though a far from orthodox one), can you not see a middle ground.

I don't care what their beliefs were! It's counter-productive to the concept of religious freedom and its discussion (see: this thread).

If we were to dig up old documents demonstrating the "majority" of the nation's founders secretly loved Satan does that somehow validate or negate our current laws? No.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All evidence I can find is that the God we "trust" for our money, and the God who endowed us with unalienable rights it the one the majority of the people of the new United States believed in - the Judeo/Christian/Muslim "God of Abraham."

OK - so that's the God (and by extension, religious influence) the government can have. The one that all the Jewish, Christian and Muslim people can agree on. Have fun with that!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The Northwest Ordinance was approved by the House in 1789 around the same time it was hammering out the 1st amendment. The same ordinance was called upon when new states where admitted to the union post First Amendment. It stated that "religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision."

As we can see, the government had already stated what intentions it had for schools. We don't have to guess. And, I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about home schooling here. Who paid for teachers and the like back at the time of the Northwest Ordinance and the enacting of First Amendment? Did each citizen pay individually for "tutors" for their children, or was their a centralized system set up where the children attended?

You are reaching. The federal government stated what intentions it had for government in the Northwest territories. Nothing there spells out the relationship between education, religion, and state funding ("encourage" can mean a lot of things, including simply granting charters). So yes, you are still only guessing that your interpretation is correct. FWIW, there were some public primary schools in some towns in New England earlier in the 18th century but they were voluntary, and localized. Grammar schools were often taught by ministers, payment made per child (sometimes with local government funding). Among the plantation class in the South and Mid-Atlantic, private tutors dominated.

A big part of this that you are forgetting is that primary and/or secondary education was not made compulsory in large parts of the United States until state-led reforms later in the mid-1800s. It's obvious that a compulsory system of public education, which we have today, has more ramifications with respect to the Establishment Clause than a voluntary system.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BTW Obama can't even correctly recite the Dec. Of Independence.

So, how do you know he wasn't paraphrasing?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Only if you assume that EVERYONE subscribed to the views of Jefferson (a Christian himself, though a far from orthodox one), can you not see a middle ground.

I think many would say the views of Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. ARE the middle ground - which is why that's how all this has manifested in real life.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That it wasn't written in either. Are you still under the assumption that the language in question is anywhere in the Constitution?

Is the Second Amendment written into the original Constitution?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Is the Second Amendment written into the original Constitution?

Was it originally written in the Constitution, or is it now part of the "original Constitution?"

O'Donnell wasn't refuting or claiming ignorance of what the First Amendment said. She was refuting the interpretation that her opponent was giving.

She admittedly wasn't very clear, but even now it's pretty obvious that some people don't care about the facts, and are just playing politics.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I think many would say the views of Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. ARE the middle ground - which is why that's how all this has manifested in real life.

The "middle ground" between government run by the church and a government with absolutely no religious acknowledgement isn't the views of Jefferson, etc.

The will of the majority - "the people" is what is supposed to win out. Whether you look at the language of the amendment, the will of the majority of the people at the time, the earliest precedents or the fact that the Constitution creates a defacto theocracy (little t, not Big T - church run government...you can't have a Government who protects that which God grants not be overseen by a religious supreme being) - all evidence points on to there being a much loose interpretation of "establishment" than that offered by the minority who are often cited.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'll just cut through the BS and ask, what does it matter if the "majority" of founders believed in a Christian god?

Because they decided as a majority that our country would be ruled by the divine providence of God, as our rights are passed down from him. You really can't make a credible argument that all these guys who signed onto this being the case also wanted there to be abolished from Government all mention of religion. It simply strains the credibility of anyone who suggests it.

If we were to dig up old documents demonstrating the "majority" of the nation's founders secretly loved Satan does that somehow validate or negate our current laws? No.

If the courts truly wished to only interpret the law, and not invent it (which is a power not granted to it via the Constitution), then it would be indeed important. Whether it invalidated current law would depend on the situation.

Again, there is a mechanism in place to change the law when you don't like the ones our Founders put into place. The honest way to make a change is to do that, but since it's hard to convince the majority to do things which goes against it's best interest, it's much easier to do the intellectually dishonest thing and just usurp the power and make the changes with the excuse that a couple of other guys also thought your ideas where pretty good even if everyone else didn't.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The "middle ground" between government run by the church and a government with absolutely no religious acknowledgement isn't the views of Jefferson, etc.

I think a pretty good case could be made that the 'middle ground' is that you can have any church you want, and that has nothing to do with government. Which, from what I can tell, yes, would be consistent with the views of 'Jefferson, etc.'.

Could it be that we're actually in the 'middle ground', and that's just not enough for your agenda?

The will of the majority - "the people" is what is supposed to win out. Whether you look at the language of the amendment, the will of the majority of the people at the time, the earliest precedents or the fact that the Constitution creates a defacto theocracy (little t, not Big T - church run government...you can't have a Government who protects that which God grants not be overseen by a religious supreme being) - all evidence points on to there being a much loose interpretation of "establishment" than that offered by the minority who are often cited.

Wait...I thought the majority of the 'founding fathers' was supposed to win out! Now it's the majority of 'the people'? Which is it?

Also, again, who is 'God' that is granting all this? Who gets to decide that? Should the government have the 'Department of God'?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because they decided as a majority that our country would be ruled by the divine providence of God, as our rights are passed down from him. You really can't make a credible argument that all these guys who signed onto this being the case also wanted there to be abolished from Government all mention of religion. It simply strains the credibility of anyone who suggests it.

You can make a credible argument that they all wanted different things, and all that matters is the end result. That being the language that's there and subsequent applications of it. What 'the majority' specifically would have wanted is irrelevant, and overall, as I've stated, unknowable. You've failed to prove otherwise.

Again, there is a mechanism in place to change the law when you don't like the ones our Founders put into place. The honest way to make a change is to do that, but since it's hard to convince the majority to do things which goes against it's best interest, it's much easier to do the intellectually dishonest thing and just usurp the power and make the changes with the excuse that a couple of other guys also thought your ideas where pretty good even if everyone else didn't.

Right. So if you want to change the First Amendment and legislate Christianity, have at it. Get your votes. Have fun!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

She admittedly wasn't very clear, but even now it's pretty obvious that some people don't care about the facts, and are just playing politics.

True. It's also pretty clear that some are only interested in trying for cheap-shot "gotchas!"even if they have to twist and spin and purposefully mischaracterize everything over the course of 10 or 15 posts to do it. (But then, I just summed up 95% of activity in the pol lounge!)

In the end, it's a snoozefest and has nothing to do with the constitution, the proper role of government, or anything else of any real importance.

[ebuddy]

The fact of the matter is that too many are tempted to misconstrue Separation as Suppression. There is the letter of law and there is the spirit of law. There are both words and intentions to law and one might seek the founding fathers' intentions when applying an interpretation to the whole of law. It may not be important what the founding fathers' intentions were unless the verbiage is contentious enough to warrant further examination. In this, what you find in fact is a beautiful example of State's rights and autonomy. This was for very good reason btw as while the overwhelming majority of founders were adherents to the Christian philosophies, not all colonies were founded on the same Christian religions.

If one were to revise history, they'd have to ignore Christian nomenclature altogether and abandon the wealth of State Constitutions' Preambles (all, but what... 5?) that reference God in the following ways:

• Almighty God
• Supreme Ruler of the Universe
• grateful for His goodness
• Sovereign Ruler of Nations
• Creator
• Divine Providence

"Almighty God", "Supreme Ruler of the Universe", "His goodness", "Sovereign Ruler", "Creator", etc... are all examples of Christian nomenclature which of course follows logically considering their culture and heritage. It seems silly to deny any of this. What you have then is a difference of interpretation; was the spirit of law to dissuade our new system from establishing a religion ala "Church of England" or "Church of Scotland" or was it to suppress any expression of Christianity among civil office-holders or public properties? Both the letter of law and the spirit of law express the former much more clearly than the latter IMO. I believe this was the crux of O'Donnell's point.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you have then is a difference of interpretation; was the spirit of law to dissuade our new system from establishing a religion ala "Church of England" or "Church of Scotland" or was it to suppress any expression of Christianity among civil office-holders or public properties? Both the letter of law and the spirit of law express the former much more clearly than the latter IMO.

Well then it's a good thing the latter doesn't happen. It's rare for someone to even be elected to office unless they profess their Christianity (even if they're really a secret Muslim!). It seems to me where this comes into play is in the discussion around how much religion is to be injected into public resources, in order to seek that 'middle ground' stupendousman talks about. Trouble is, we're already there, and it's more a matter now of refinement than redefinition.

I believe this was the crux of O'Donnell's point.

The problem is, she failed to make it clear she even had a point. Unfortunately for her, that broke badly.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you have then is a difference of interpretation; was the spirit of law to dissuade our new system from establishing a religion ala "Church of England" or "Church of Scotland" or was it to suppress any expression of Christianity among civil office-holders or public properties? Both the letter of law and the spirit of law express the former much more clearly than the latter IMO. I believe this was the crux of O'Donnell's point.

Jackpot.

FTW.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Also, again, who is 'God' that is granting all this? Who gets to decide that? Should the government have the 'Department of God'?

It can replace the departments of Education, Science, Art, and whatever else is up someone's craw.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Almighty God", "Supreme Ruler of the Universe", "His goodness", "Sovereign Ruler", "Creator", etc... are all examples of Christian nomenclature which of course follows logically considering their culture and heritage. It seems silly to deny any of this. What you have then is a difference of interpretation; was the spirit of law to dissuade our new system from establishing a religion ala "Church of England" or "Church of Scotland" or was it to suppress any expression of Christianity among civil office-holders or public properties? Both the letter of law and the spirit of law express the former much more clearly than the latter IMO. I believe this was the crux of O'Donnell's point.

I agree completely, but was that really O'Donnell's point? Weren't they debating something to do with teaching creationism in public schools? I don't see how your argument translates to that. I would say that religious instruction is significantly different from religious expression. If this really was her point then it was a poor one, and, IMO, demonstrated poor understanding of both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

""It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.""

JOHN JAY, FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, President of the Continental Congress, co-writer of the Federalist Papers and a peer to the men signing the US Constitution
(Who clearly didn't interpret the Constitution as later SC Justices have)

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Do you have an actual citation for this? Googling (and Snopes) tells me that it is chronically mis-attributed to Patrick Henry (and no mention of Jay), which understandably makes me hesitant to simply take your word for it being a Jay quote.

Bump.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because they decided as a majority that our country would be ruled by the divine providence of God, as our rights are passed down from him.

That's not in the constitution, AFAIK.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You really can't make a credible argument that all these guys who signed onto this being the case also wanted there to be abolished from Government all mention of religion. It simply strains the credibility of anyone who suggests it.

It's probably a good thing that's not an argument I'm trying to make.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the courts truly wished to only interpret the law, and not invent it (which is a power not granted to it via the Constitution), then it would be indeed important.

No, it wouldn't. Stick to the official texts. That's why they're official.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact of the matter is that too many are tempted to misconstrue Separation as Suppression.

That definitely goes both ways.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It can replace the departments of Education, Science, Art, and whatever else is up someone's craw.

Department of Kids Not Getting Off My Lawn.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Bump.

I saw it a couple of different places. I don't have time to do the footwork right now as far as determining it's authenticity, so I'll be happy to redact that quote from my argument.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's not in the constitution, AFAIK.

The Constitution directly states that the rights we have are handed down by God. If those rights we are enumerating for protection by the Government are granted by God, then God's will has to be the providence that compels action. I'm not sure how any other interpretation makes any sense.

No, it wouldn't. Stick to the official texts. That's why they're official.

When there's debate as to what the official texts mean, then we have to rely on intent.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The Constitution directly states that the rights we have are handed down by God.

It's been a while since my last social studies classes. Where does it say this?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When there's debate as to what the official texts mean, then we have to rely on intent.

...and then you get to argue whose intent, too. And whether it's being interpreted correctly. Fun fun.

[besson3c]

I'm feeling some sort of transitive property sort of argument here: God is mentioned in the constitution as a moral source, so therefore the laws state x and y....

Maybe there is no therefore?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The Constitution directly states that the rights we have are handed down by God.

No it doesn't

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No it doesn't

Who is it that you think that the Constitution says our rights come from?

I admit that it requires a tiny, tiny bit of interpretation, but given that our money has stated that it is in "God" that we trust, since not long after the First Amendment was added, I think it's a stretch if your argument is that our "creator" is not meant to be a supernatural, supreme being (ie. "God").

You can try to make the argument, but given the history of why these terms were used, I'm guessing it would be a torturous attempt at best.

Suggesting that the Constitution has a "separation of church and state" included in it is a greater stretch than it is to say that it states that our rights are handed down by God, IMO.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The Constitution directly states that the rights we have are handed down by God. If those rights we are enumerating for protection by the Government are granted by God, then God's will has to be the providence that compels action. I'm not sure how any other interpretation makes any sense.

No. It. Does. Not.

Nowhere in the Constitution .... NOWHERE is "God", "Creator", "Jesus", etc. mentioned. Ever. Not even a little bit. *

I would strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the actual content of the Constitution ... as opposed to these fanciful notions that some conservatives tend to think is in the Constitution because it jives with their ideology. Because after making this statement your credibility on the issue is pretty much shot.

OAW

* You would do well to learn the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Seriously.

[SpaceMonkey]

If anyone has misplaced their copy:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Who is it that you think that the Constitution says our rights come from?

I admit that it requires a tiny, tiny bit of interpretation, but given that our money has stated that it is in "God" that we trust, since not long after the First Amendment was added, I think it's a stretch if your argument is that our "creator" is not meant to be a supernatural, supreme being (ie. "God").

You can try to make the argument, but given the history of why these terms were used, I'm guessing it would be a torturous attempt at best.

Suggesting that the Constitution has a "separation of church and state" included in it is a greater stretch than it is to say that it states that our rights are handed down by God, IMO.

This is a transitive property argument though. Mentioning a generic creator in a vague sort of way does not mean that we should turn to our creator for implementing the laws established by the constitution, particularly since this would contradict with the more explicit parts that say pretty clearly that no religion should be given special status.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

* You would do well to learn the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Seriously.

It's more ironic because Jefferson is known as the principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence, and stupendousman then discounts his later opinions about the division of church and state.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's more ironic because Jefferson is known as the principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence, and stupendousman then discounts his later opinions about the division of church and state.

Oh most definitely. But let's not even go there. I'm not sure if he could handle the cognitive dissonance that would surely result. Baby steps ...

OAW

[stupendousman]

HAHA...

You are right. I get in too big of a hurry sometimes, it's a wonder I can get anything typed at all.

I'm sitting here thinking...huh...what, and then I realize I keep mixing the two. I'm sitting her repeating the clause in the Declaration in my head and writing "Constitution" since I'm trying to draw parallels to the O'Donnell situation, and unintentionally look even dumber than she did! :embarassed:

Brain fart.

Excuse me.

Back to the subject - let's not let my brain lapse get us off topic.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is a transitive property argument though. Mentioning a generic creator in a vague sort of way does not mean that we should turn to our creator for implementing the laws established by the constitution, particularly since this would contradict with the more explicit parts that say pretty clearly that no religion should be given special status.

No specific religion should be given special status in regards to making one official, over others. If you look at why most where intent on putting an establishment clause in the Constitution, it's because they didn't want one Christian denomination to be made the "offical" government religion as it happened in England and other parts, and then face persecution for not following that religion.

If you look at the historical context, most weren't looking to suppress religious expression out of government, just ensure that the federal government could not legislate what religious values MUST be followed out of fear of prosecution.

As eBuddy pointed out, there's a great expanse between separation and suppression in government, and the Jeffersonians push for the latter when that was never the majority of the founders intent.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sitting her repeating the clause in the Declaration in my head and writing "Constitution" since I'm trying to draw parallels to the O'Donnell situation, and unintentionally look even dumber than she did! :embarassed:

Brain fart.

Excuse me.

Back to the subject - let's not let my brain lapse get us off topic.

Good for you.

In God We Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin, followed in 1866 by the 5 cent nickel (1866–1883), quarter dollar, half dollar, silver dollar and gold dollars. It did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.[2][3] It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."
One possible origin of In God We Trust is the final stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner. Written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key (and later adopted as the U.S. national anthem), the song contains an early reference to a variation of the phrase: "...And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'."[4]

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by screener 

Good for you.

In God We Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In case you're wondering, the phrase comes from the 4th stanza of the U.S. national anthem.

"And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'"

The government managed to screw that up, too.


Edit: Hah, nevermind. It's in the wikipedia.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No specific religion should be given special status in regards to making one official, over others. If you look at why most where intent on putting an establishment clause in the Constitution, it's because they didn't want one Christian denomination to be made the "offical" government religion as it happened in England and other parts, and then face persecution for not following that religion.

If you look at the historical context, most weren't looking to suppress religious expression out of government, just ensure that the federal government could not legislate what religious values MUST be followed out of fear of prosecution.

As eBuddy pointed out, there's a great expanse between separation and suppression in government, and the Jeffersonians push for the latter when that was never the majority of the founders intent.

I agree that there is a huge expanse and that we should not be in the business of suppressing any religion.

Does this relate to what Christine O'Donnell said, or has that matter been settled?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

HAHA...

You are right. I get in too big of a hurry sometimes, it's a wonder I can get anything typed at all.

I'm sitting here thinking...huh...what, and then I realize I keep mixing the two. I'm sitting her repeating the clause in the Declaration in my head and writing "Constitution" since I'm trying to draw parallels to the O'Donnell situation, and unintentionally look even dumber than she did! :embarassed:

Brain fart.

Excuse me.

Back to the subject - let's not let my brain lapse get us off topic.

Totally understandable. You wouldn't be the first one around here to have to backtrack as a result of getting too far ahead of oneself. As evidenced by my "Welcome to like three months ago" moment here recently. It can happen to the best of us!

Having said that, now that we've established what were are actually discussing ... I still think there is a phenomenon among SOME on the right where they confuse the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. The arguments that are commonly made in reference to the Constitution and the "intent" of the Founding Fathers seem to often cite language from the Declaration of Independence. And I would argue that none of that particular matters. For the Declaration of Independence is a motivational document outlining the reasons for going to war against the British. Whereas the US Constitution is a legal document outlining the way in which our government would function. And the fact remains ... there is no mention of "God" or the "Creator" anywhere in the US Constitution. This clearly indicates that the Founders intended the government to be neutral when it came to religion when factored in with the 1st Amendment. After all, if they had intended for the US to be a "Christian nation" in terms of its government as many on the right claim, they could have easily included such language in the Constitution. But they didn't. Quite deliberately.

But I also agree with my friend ebuddy. Separation should not be misconstrued as Suppression. There shouldn't be an issue with people displaying a cross on the City Hall lawn during Christmas. But at the same time, there shouldn't be an issue with people displaying a Menorah on the City Hall lawn during Hanukkah. Or a Star & Crescent on the City Hall lawn during Ramadan. A Christian prayer group meeting on school grounds should be allowed just like an Islamic prayer group meeting on school grounds should be allowed. Etc. But if people can't respect the fact that it's Freedom of Religion and not Freedom of Christianity ... then it's best to simply not go there. And IMO ... the Christine O'Donnell's of the world simply don't get it. Their aim is to find some "Constitutional" justification for fundamentalist Christian religious instruction in public schools. And it just doesn't exist.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Their aim is to find some "Constitutional" justification for fundamentalist Christian religious instruction in public schools. And it just doesn't exist.

Honestly, I think it's within the state's rights to teach religion in their public schools, just not in the science classroom.

You don't teach Latin grammar in Social Studies, or Plane Geometry in U.S. Government. One has nothing to do with the other. If they want to teach creationism or intelligent design, make an elective, then students can choose to learn about those things.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Honestly, I think it's within the state's rights to teach religion in their public schools, just not in the science classroom.

You don't teach Latin grammar in Social Studies, or Plane Geometry in U.S. Government. One has nothing to do with the other. If they want to teach creationism or intelligent design, make an elective, then students can choose to learn about those things.

As an elective ... I don't see an issue with it. As long as the course was an academic study of religion as opposed to religious indoctrination. The public school system is not Sunday School and should not be used for such purposes. I for one enjoy the field of Comparative Religion ... and would take no issue with such a course being offered in a public school setting.

OAW

[CreepDogg]

Very true. The US is what, like 26th globally in math and science? The last thing we need is to be spending time in science class teaching kids something that was not arrived at through any methodology related to science.

I can see the result now....cue forward 20 years to 2 engineers building a bridge:

Engineer #1: 'Hey, Tyler, do you think the I-beams we selected have enough shear strength to hold up the bridge in this location with a full load of traffic?'
Engineer #2: 'Don't worry, Zack. God will hold up the bridge.'
Engineer #1: 'Oh, that's right. What was I thinking?'

Ugh.

That said, yeah, I have no issue with schools offering classes studying religion. I'd think even looking at Creationism is appropriate in a philosophy or theology elective. Just not in farking science class!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Honestly, I think it's within the state's rights to teach religion in their public schools, just not in the science classroom.

You don't teach Latin grammar in Social Studies, or Plane Geometry in U.S. Government. One has nothing to do with the other. If they want to teach creationism or intelligent design, make an elective, then students can choose to learn about those things.

Actually, I might be OK with the Science Classroom being required to teach creationism alongside the theory of evolution ... as long as Churches are in turn required to teach the theory of evolution alongside creationism.