'In God We Trust' signs to greet Louisiana students in new school year

  
Via:  habibertina  •  2 weeks ago  •  127 comments

'In God We Trust' signs to greet Louisiana students in new school year
Louisiana law requires the words "In God We Trust" to be displayed at all public schools.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




(CNN) As Louisiana students gather supplies and class schedules for a new school year, administrators are ensuring legally mandated "In God We Trust" signs are hung in every public school building in the state.



Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards signed a bill in May 2018 requiring the phrase be displayed in all public schools in the state by the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year.

The bill gives school administrators discretion over how the phrase is displayed, but there's "a minimum requirement of a paper sign."


The measure also requires students be educated on the history of "In God We Trust" and its status as the national motto.







Shelby Ainsworth, principal of West Monroe High School in West Monroe, Louisiana, praised the bill, telling CNN affiliate WAFB , "I still feel strongly that America is a Christian nation."


"There are varied opinions even amongst high school students, their parents, the communities, the different churches that are represented, different faiths that we have," Ainsworth told WAFB. "It's nothing hidden, it's nothing swept under the rug, but it's nothing forced upon anyone."


Other states require "In God We Trust"



Louisiana isn't alone in requiring the motto to be displayed in public schools. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem approved similar legislation in her state, which also goes into effect during the 2019-2020 school year.

The South Dakota bill protects schools from legal trouble that may arise from the move. Any schools that face a lawsuit or complaint as a result will be defended by the state attorney general at no cost. If the schools become responsible for legal fees or monetary damages, the state will take those on.

Florida enacted similar legislation in March 2018 when then-Gov. Rick Scott gave his seal of approval.

The Palm Beach Post reported in September 2018 that Palm Beach County school district approved displaying the Florida state seal, which includes the phrase "In God We Trust," instead of signs bearing the motto, after teachers raised concerns about separation of church and state.


CNN's Madeline Holcombe contributed to this report.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Habibertina
1  seeder  Habibertina    2 weeks ago

Guess they never heard of these cases, and those legislators have certainly not done their homework!

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
The Court looked at whether the daily reading of a state-composed nondenominational prayer in school violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 6-1 decision, the Court ruled that New York’s official prayer to begin the school day was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 370 U.S. 421)

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (1963)
The Court considered whether a Pennsylvania law and policy of the Abington School District requiring public-school students to participate in classroom exercises involving daily Bible verse reading violated the religious freedom of students under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In an 8-1 decision, the Court found that the Pennsylvania law and school-district practice violated the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. (Citation: 374 U.S. 203)

Murray v. Curlett (1963)
The Court examined this case in combination with Abington v. Schempp (1963), determining whether Baltimore, Maryland, public schools violated the Establishment Clause in conducting daily opening exercises involving reading of the Bible and reciting of the Lord’s Prayer. As with Abington v. Schempp, the Maryland school-day religious exercises were declared a violation of the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 374 US 203)

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
The Court considered whether a Pennsylvania law reimbursing religious schools with state funds for textbooks and teacher salaries for non-public, non-secular schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In an 8-0 decision, the Court set out a three-pronged test for the constitutionality of a statute, by which a statute is constitutional if: (1) it has a primarily secular purpose; (2) its principal effect neither aids nor inhibits religion; and (3) government and religion are not excessively entangled. On this basis, the Court struck down the Pennsylvania law as in violation of the Establishment Clause, finding that the statute constituted an excessive government entanglement with religion. (Citation: 403 US 602)

Stone v. Graham (1980)
The Court considered whether a Kentucky state law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Applying the three-prong test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court found 5-4 that the Kentucky law was unconstitutional, because it had no secular legislative purpose. The Court also found that by mandating posting of the Commandments under the guidance of the legislature, the state was providing official support of religion, which was a violation of the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 449 US 39)

Lee v. Weisman (1992)
The Court looked at whether officially approved, clergy-led prayer at public school graduations in Providence, Rhode Island, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court applied the 3-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and in a 5-4 decision, held the practice to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. In the Court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the state government’s involvement in the practice of the clergy-led graduation prayer was pervasive “to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.” (Citation: 505 US 577 )

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
The Court examined whether the state of Texas’ Santa Fe Independent School District’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that it did, upholding the appeals court’s earlier ruling. In their decision, the Court rejected the school district’s view that, because students controlled the pregame invocation by voting on and delivering its content, it was private speech protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Rather, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the Court’s opinion that it was public speech, because “the delivery of such a message—over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer—is not properly characterized as ‘private’ speech.” Because of this and the context of the message’s delivery being an official school event, the school district’s policy impermissibly “involve[d] both perceived and actual endorsement of religion.” In addition, the Court applied the 3-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which the policy failed for having no secular purpose (prong 1), because it “was implemented with the purpose of endorsing school prayer.” (Citation: 530 US 290)

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Habibertina @1    2 weeks ago

HI Hab, I haven't seen you in ages. How have you been?

As to the topic at hand, it's no surprise it comes from Louisiana. That state sure loves it's constitutional violations.

 
 
 
Habibertina
1.1.1  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    2 weeks ago

I've been good; a lot of changes in my life in the past couple of years.  It's good to hear from you!

I'm not surprised that it's from Louisiana, either.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Habibertina @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

I'm glad you're back. You've been sorely missed.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.3  Heartland American  replied to  Habibertina @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

So you want the courts to rule it unconstitutional for states to have laws mandating that the motto of the United States of America be made visible to their American citizen students?  

 
 
 
Habibertina
1.1.4  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

It is unconstitutional for ANY government entity to endorse or support ANY type of religion.  And the "motto of the United States of America" appears on our money, so students can view it at any time.  I would also point out that MANY students in our public schools are NOT "American citizen students," and you would do well to remember that.

 
 
 
Habibertina
1.1.5  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

I also want to point out that many "American citizen students" do not practice any religion, either, as is their right.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
So you want the courts to rule it unconstitutional for states to have laws mandating that the motto of the United States of America be made visible to their American citizen students?

You apparently missed the very first comment, " 1   Habibertina ."

The courts have ALREADY ruled it unconstitutional, multiple times.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.7  Heartland American  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

The courts have ruled the showing of the motto of The United States of America in American public schools unconstitutional many times?  Show me! 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Habibertina @1    2 weeks ago

This is just a sign that people can choose to ignore.

All the cited cases above appear to involve some kind of mandatory participation, which of course is unconstitutional.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.1  Heartland American  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago

Not only that but In God We Trust is not a prayer but is on our coins and currency as our national motto.  The Supreme Court already ruled that the religion of atheism can’t strike our motto off of our coins or make it unteachable at school.  The pledge of allegiance and national motto are two items with religious religious references that militant atheists can’t take away from our kids at school.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

Care to explain how atheism is a religion?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

Does that stupid ploy never end?   'Atheism is a religion' is a line the likes of Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort and Ken Ham use.   Not the most intellectually honest religious folks around.   (For that matter, not the most intellectually anything ...)

Rather than pull truly brain-dead one-liners from the bottom of the barrel I suggest they start tapping quotes from Christians like Dr. Francis Collins or Dr. Hugh Ross.    Those are two brilliant individuals who do not need to resort to cheap, transparent tactics like trying to cast atheism as a religion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

The key word there is "stupid." But comes as no surprise. I don't get why some people feel the need to describe or define atheism as a religion, especially if it's already been explained to them. It's like they can't fathom someone not having a religion or religious belief.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    2 weeks ago

Barry Goldwater..... Where are you when your country needs you!

 
 
 
Habibertina
1.2.6  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
The Supreme Court already ruled that the religion of atheism can’t strike our motto off of our coins or make it unteachable at school.

The Supreme Court has ruled that religion CANNOT be taught in schools.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

Personally, I like the sign my brother in law who owns a garage has on his wall. "In God we trust. All others pay up front!".

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.7    2 weeks ago

I thought it was supposed to be "...all others pay cash".

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.8    2 weeks ago

It is, but this is the day of electronics. Just my own modern take on it.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.9    2 weeks ago

You're right. Hardly anyone pays with cash any more, they use their smartphones in department stores and supermarkets, but if you're buying your vegetables and fruit direct from the farmer, you need your cash.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.11  Heartland American  replied to  Habibertina @1.2.6    2 weeks ago

The motto of the USA is not religious and as our national motto it has a secular purpose.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.12  Heartland American  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.7    2 weeks ago

I like it!  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.11    2 weeks ago

what's the secular purpose?

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.3  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Habibertina @1    2 weeks ago

Sorry, but all of those cases deal with things other than requiring the displaying of our official National Motto.

But just in case you think you MIGHT have a leg to stand on...

you don't.

But thanks for playing!

 
 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     2 weeks ago

I doubt that this has anything to do with the law or doing their homework..

It's, IMO, some red meat for the followers. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Just something else someone will be faux-offended over.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago

I agree Texan.  What they do is pass legislation that they know is unconstitutional and then when it's struck down by a court they can cry oppression and discrimination.  Oh my god I'm being faux-offended for being a christian!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1    2 weeks ago

You think this law is unconstitutional?

So if it goes to SCOTUS and allowed to stand, you'll happily accept it and no more complaints?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.1.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

If the SCOTUS allows it to stand I'll have to accept it but unless they strike the first amendment I'll keep my right to complain thank you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

I guess some just look for stuff to grouse about.

Enjoy yourself!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
3.1.4  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
If the SCOTUS allows it to stand I'll have to accept it

They already have... on numerous occasions actually !

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago

Just something else someone will be faux-offended over.

You don't think violating the Constitution is worth getting offended over?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    2 weeks ago
You don't think violating the Constitution is worth getting offended over?

I don't see it as a violation.

It isn't something I get all worked up and hysterical over.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
I don't see it as a violation.

SCOTUS does.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
SCOTUS does.

Then it should have been very easy for you to provide a link to the case where SCOTUS decided that.

I notice you did not do that.

Probably because you can't.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.3    2 weeks ago
Then it should have been very easy for you to provide a link to the case where SCOTUS decided that.

Wow.  

214876_600.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.4    2 weeks ago

This may come as a surprise to you, but that is certainly not proving squat. Do you have any SCOTUS cases to back your claim up, or just the usual?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

Seems like a blatant violation of the Establishment clause.   This should be interesting.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago

What religion is the state endorsing or establishing?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 weeks ago

Which religion/s have "God" at their center? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

That was not the question.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Which religion/s have "God" at their center?

Many religions have a God figure.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

@4.1.1

Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, Rastafarianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai.

There are probably others I have missed.

Now, which one does "In God We Trust" promote, endorse, or establish?

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.5  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 weeks ago

don't matter

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

it does matter. The claim has been made that this violates the Constitution, so I would like to know which, if any, religion the sign promotes, endorses, or establishes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 weeks ago

Constitutional law is more complex than that.   It is likely that this will be subjected to the Lemon test :

In 1971, the Supreme Court heard the case of   Lemon v Kurtzman   (403 US 602). In the case, the Court decided that a Rhode Island law that paid some of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional. The case is discussed in more detail on the   Constitution and Religion Page . One of the results of this case is the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test is used to determine if a law violates the   1st Amendment .

The Lemon Test is not immutable - there is discussion in the general public and on the current Court about the Lemon Test. However, it has stood as a good guide for lower courts ever since 1971.

The following paragraph is taken from the   Lemon v Kurtzman   opinion and establishes the rules of the test:

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Per the test:

  1. This does not seem to have a secular purpose.   (The stated goal is to encourage morality.   But it is accomplishing this by reminding kids of 'God'.)
  2. It might be difficult to make the case that this does not advance or inhibit religion.  (It does seem to make a preference for Abrahamic religions.)
  3. This might be considered an entanglement of government with religion given this is displaying belief in God in public schools.

As for the religion, this supports a category of religion:  Abrahamic religions.   This is because Abrahamic religions (especially Christianity in the USA) is associated with the word 'God'.   Might need to check with Enoch on the use of God vs. G-d to see if he thinks this is support of Judaism.   Islam typically uses the word Allah (In Allah We Trust) so there is a question of applicability there too.

Regardless, it would be difficult to argue that this is not a display of the God of the Bible in public schools.   But, that said, the SCotUS struck down a case for 'In God We Trust' on our currency so, as I noted, this should be interesting.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

The ones you listed. Looks like you answered your own question.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

It has been on display in Florida schools. Don't recall a lawsuit overturning it, either, but maybe there has been a successful suit over it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

@4.1.8

Surely you realize how weak that is.

Pray tell how it promotes or endorses Islam?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
Many religions have a God figure.

You are starting to show how this is violation of the Establishment clause.    It is not as if state support of multiple religions is okay but support of only one is not.

Regardless, constitutional law is more complex than a literal read of the Establishment clause.   The interpretation is guided by legal precedent.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

If it violates law, why does Florida's motto say it?

Why hasn't that been struck down on the Florida state seal?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    2 weeks ago
It has been on display in Florida schools. Don't recall a lawsuit overturning it, either, but maybe there has been a successful suit over it?

I do not know, but this has not been seen by the SCotUS best I can tell.

 
 
 
Habibertina
4.1.14  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 weeks ago

The state does not have to endorse any specific religion for the law to be unconstitutional.  If you read any of the cases I mentioned, the Supreme Court never found that any of the unconstitutional laws endorsed or established ANY specific religion.  They were found unconstitutional because they endorsed and/or established ANY religion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.12    2 weeks ago
Why hasn't that been struck down on the Florida state seal?

Why is it still on our money?   You can ask all sorts of questions, but what matters is if this is subject to constitutional interpretation and then, how this is seen view the lens of the Lemon test.

 
 
 
Habibertina
4.1.16  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    2 weeks ago

Just because there has been no lawsuit yet does not mean one will never be brought.  There is plenty of precedent to make them take down such displays.

 
 
 
Habibertina
4.1.17  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.15    2 weeks ago

It's been on our money since the 1950s as a response to the Communist "scare".  The Supreme Court said that having it on our money does not represent any establishment of religion:

The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious 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 patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." [71] In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court wrote that acts of " ceremonial deism " are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Society_and_culture

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Habibertina @4.1.16    2 weeks ago

One could easily apply the cases you mention in post @4.1.17 to this and have it pass.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.15    2 weeks ago
Why is it still on our money?

See post 4.1.17.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.19    2 weeks ago

That was a rhetorical question to emphasize that asking questions regarding different situations is not that relevant.

I gave my direct answer @4.1.7 but you chose to not comment on any of that content.

 
 
 
Habibertina
4.1.21  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.18    2 weeks ago

Yet the Court has consistently found AGAINST the states that have attempted such displays.  But please enlighten us as to how those precedents could possibly work in the religious bigots' favor.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Habibertina @4.1.21    2 weeks ago

A case citing Lynch v. Donnelly might be all it takes to allow it to stand.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.10    2 weeks ago

Surely you realize god is a religious figure and the basis of many religions. So the government proclaiming some form of fealty, including trust to it, not only shows favortism towards religions that worship/follow god, but also violates the Establishment Clause.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.23    2 weeks ago

@4.1.23

SCOTUS seems to disagree with you. See post 4.1.17

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.24    2 weeks ago

"Ceremonial deism" is the courts compromise to both sides, as it effectively renders the motto meaningless. So that begs the question: if it's meaningless, then why bother having it at all?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.25    2 weeks ago

If it is meaningless, why do you care about it?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.27  Greg Jones  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.25    2 weeks ago
then why bother having it at all?

Why not?

Everyone has the right to be offended.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.26    2 weeks ago

Why do people want it displayed?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.29  Greg Jones  replied to  Habibertina @4.1.21    2 weeks ago
could possibly work in the religious bigots' favor.

What's the difference between a true believer and a religious bigot?

In fact, what is a religious bigot?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.30  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.27    2 weeks ago

Why not? Because that whole Constitutional thingy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.28    2 weeks ago

Why not?

because a few people get faux-offended?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.29    2 weeks ago
In fact, what is a religious bigot?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=religious bigot

An individual who strongly and unfairly demonstrates hate and intolerance to religious (including other) viewpoints.

Seems we have a few on this site that fits this description.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.31    2 weeks ago

It's not about if someone gets offended. It's about the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.34  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.32    2 weeks ago

Indeed we do.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.35  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

So if the court ruled that the national motto on our currency does not violate the establishment clause, how would posters showing the heads side of those same coins at school be a violation.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.35    2 weeks ago

This is about intent:

Louisiana law requires the words "In God We Trust" to be displayed at all public schools.

The problem is that a law is making a requirement to display "In God We Trust".   Justices are smarter than you give them credit; they can distinguish between posting pictures of money and the intent to promote God in a public school.   

Note also that the proponents admit that they are promoting God.   So ...

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.37  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Which religion/s have "God" at their center? 

All religions have some form of "god" at their center. For instance, in Islam, "Allah" means God.

The word god in most other religions simply refer to a being in which is revered or worshiped. Those gods simply have other names.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.38  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.28    2 weeks ago
Why do people want it displayed?

Why are you concerned that it is? Simply don't look at it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.39  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.37    2 weeks ago

The government has no business or right to promote any god/s or show favoritism toward religion over non religion, per the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.40  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.38    2 weeks ago

See 4.1.39

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.41  katrix  replied to  bugsy @4.1.38    2 weeks ago

Would you feel the same way if it said "In Satan we trust?"

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.42  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @4.1.41    2 weeks ago

I suspect many theists would raise hell (no pun intended) if that were the case. Even more so if they were simply told to "don't look at it."

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.1.37    2 weeks ago

Then the motto:  In some god or gods we Trust would make more sense.

 
 
 
Habibertina
4.1.44  seeder  Habibertina  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.22    2 weeks ago

The Court has used Lemon v. Kurtzman as the test for such things, and they have consistently found such displays/actions to be unconstitutional.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.45  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.39    2 weeks ago
The government has no business or right to promote any god/s or show favoritism toward religion over non religion, per the Constitution. 

Which God is the government promoting or showing favoritism to over other gods?

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.46  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.40    2 weeks ago

See 4.1.45

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.47  bugsy  replied to  katrix @4.1.41    2 weeks ago

I don't really care. The only thing I care about printed on my money is the denomination. Everything else is decoration. Liberals should not get worked up over decor.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.48  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.45    2 weeks ago

It doesn't matter which one. The government shouldn't be promoting any god or validating anyone's religion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.49  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.46    2 weeks ago

See 4.1.48.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.50  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.49    2 weeks ago

see 4.1.47

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.51  Heartland American  replied to  Habibertina @4.1.44    2 weeks ago

“The measure also requires students be educated on the history of "In God We Trust" and its status as the national motto.”  There’s your secular purpose from your own seed. Education that it is our national motto and teaching the history of how and when it became our national motto.  Case closed.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.52  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.50    2 weeks ago

Irrelevant 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.53  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.51    2 weeks ago
Case closed.

"9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." - 1 Corinthians 8:9-13

So you're saying that you want the motto displayed even though your fellow citizen may be offended by it, but you think you have to shove your religion in his face as "education"? Seems like some talk a big game about faith but rarely actually practice it.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.54  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.52    2 weeks ago
Irrelevant 

Well, there we go. So are yours.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.55  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.54    2 weeks ago

Not really. I'm discussing the issue from a constitutional standpoint, not from mere feelings about it. 

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.56  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.55    2 weeks ago

[Deleted] Don't let your friends on here find out. I hear that's how you are supposed to roll.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.57  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.56    2 weeks ago

I never claimed to be liberal. So I have no idea where you get that impression, or the idea that I go by feelings. Anyone who knows me undersrands that. Plus I'm not the one trying to bring up or turn this into another  conservative vs liberal talking point. That appears to be you.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.58  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.57    2 weeks ago

Uh, no..The SC already ruled that the motto on our money is OK. As far as the liberal/conservative thing, I could care less. Like I said before, the only thing I care about is the denomination on my bills. Decor does not matter to me, nor should it to you.

You will feel better for it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.59  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.58    2 weeks ago

The issue isn't about the motto being on money. And if you don't care about liber/conservative points, then why even bring it up? Especially when that too is irrelevant. 

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.60  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.59    2 weeks ago

[Deleted] It is about the Constitution and the SC already ruled that the motto was Constitutional.

Nobody should be offended by it. It is only words.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
4.1.61  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 weeks ago
What religion is the state endorsing or establishing?

Does it say in God, Baphomet, Allah, Vishnu, Brahma, and Buddha we trust?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @4.1.61    2 weeks ago
Does it say in God, Baphomet, Allah, Vishnu, Brahma, and Buddha we trust?

Pretty sure you will be able to answer that all on your own if you simply read the article--or at least the headline.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.63  lib50  replied to  bugsy @4.1.60    2 weeks ago
Removed for context - s

Which is the very reason why Louisiana is doing it, [Deleted]  Organized religion uses the malleable to keep their power. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.64  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @4.1.60    2 weeks ago
It is about the Constitution and the SC already ruled that the motto was Constitutional.

On currency, sure. But that is not the issue here.

Nobody should be offended by it. It is only words.

Whether anyone is offended is irrelevant. It's a constitutional issue.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.65  Heartland American  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.53    2 weeks ago

It is secular in purpose in that it is the national motto of the USA.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.66  Heartland American  replied to  bugsy @4.1.56    2 weeks ago

a great and wonderful post.  Every original word of it.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.67  Heartland American  replied to  bugsy @4.1.60    2 weeks ago

All of it voted up.  Well said and keep it all up.  

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.68  bugsy  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.67    2 weeks ago

Thanks. Some folks look at the Constitution they way they interpret it. The only place that matters is the SC, and they determined the motto on our currency is not against the Constitution, although some continue to look at it as such.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago

How so is it in violation?

It's just a bunch of words that should have no meaning to non believers.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    2 weeks ago

Why should believers get preferential reference or acknowledgment over non believers by the government? Or why should the government validate believers with such displays?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

But it does not violate the establishment clause. If you think so, please explain.

See 4.1.17

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    2 weeks ago
How so is it in violation?

See @4.1.7

It's just a bunch of words that should have no meaning to non believers.

Why does that matter in a constitutional question?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    2 weeks ago
It's just a bunch of words that should have no meaning to non believers

I would love to see how Christians would react if the signs read "In Satan we trust! Hail Satan!".

I mean, it's just a bunch of words that should have no meaning to non-Satanists, right?

Perhaps an acceptable  compromise would be if they changed the signs to "Some of us trust in some God, some don't". At least it would be far more honest.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.2.5  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.4    2 weeks ago

see 4.1.47

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2.6  Heartland American  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.2    2 weeks ago

Next they will target any posters or signs with a flag and the pledge of allegiance being anywhere on a public school.  The atheist lawyer Neudow lost on both the money and the pledge when he took both to the Supreme Court.  He knew they would be islands of belief in a sea of secularism in our public schools as national government traditions and on that he was right.  Those traditions and non school hours extra curricular clubs, off campus lunches, and meeting at the flag pole before school are things the atheists can’t take away from us.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2.7  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @4.2.6    2 weeks ago

Well actually under the equal access rule determined by the Supreme Court, they can take before and after school Christian clubs away if there are simply no extra curricular clubs offered by the school at all and they can take away Christian lunch gatherings if they close the campus and let no student leave campus for lunch anywhere, fast food, restaurants, home, the park nearby etc.  I hear that there are school districts in the NE USA that are so concerned their students might be exposed to religious belief that they literally do close their campus for lunch and breaks and have no before or after school extracurricular activities on campus or sponsored by the school.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    2 weeks ago

It's just a bunch of words that should have no meaning to non believers.

What about a religion that does not have a god???

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.8    2 weeks ago
What about a religion that does not have a god???

What about them?

I suppose they won't be trusting in God then, now will they?

Awww.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.9    2 weeks ago
Awww.

So, your belief is to insult or ignore anyone that doesn't share your particular beliefs?  How very Christian of you.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2.12  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.3    2 weeks ago

I’d like to see a brief from an ambulance chasing lawyer claiming that it’s unconstitutional to teach about the national motto of the USA, what is says and how it became our national motto in our public schools.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.2.12    2 weeks ago

Odd that you are interested in what a slimy personal injury lawyer has to say about constitutional law.  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    2 weeks ago

Here's some words for you:

All HAIL SATAN!!!!!

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.3  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago

The national motto has something to do with the establishment clause?  I think that Newdow, the atheist religion lawyer already lost that round.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.3    2 weeks ago

As I wrote, this should be interesting.

See @4.1.7

 
 
 
charger 383
5  charger 383    2 weeks ago

This requires spending tax money some of which was collected from people who do not trust god to put up signs.  It makes those who do not trust god less welcome in school  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  charger 383 @5    2 weeks ago
from people who do not trust god to put up signs

If God were putting up the signs, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If God were out trying to convert others, pushing his faith on the masses, knocking on doors, calling other faiths 'fake', killing those he disagrees with, proclaiming 'Jihad' on non-believers and those of other faiths and telling all mankind how he meant for us to live, well I'd have no problem with that. Sadly, I've only ever seen humans claiming to be some Gods servants doing those things, and therein lies the problem. Apparently millions of religious persons don't have faith that their God can do anything for itself, so they eagerly come up with ways they imagine they are gaining his favor and approval, like forcing their God into schools, courthouses, the pledge of allegiance and just about every other aspect of secular society. It's almost like they believe in a handicapped God who can't do anything for itself and just waits on its believers to take action on its behalf. And when its believers get it wrong and imagine their God wants them to commit genocide or do some other horrible thing to other humans, their God supposedly still sits there apparently unable to act, unable to prevent them from murdering innocent women and children in its name.

 
 
 
charger 383
5.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1    2 weeks ago

where has he been all this time?  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
6  mocowgirl    2 weeks ago

This week I am watching a documentary titled "The Family" on Netflix.  The documentary is based on a book by the same name that was published in 2009.   I wholeheartedly recommend the documentary to anyone who is interested on the men in our government who are behind abolishing the separation of church and state in the United States.  This has been an ongoing movement for around 70 years according to the documentary.  It is a non-denominational cult using Jesus as their central figure.  This is not a Jesus of love, but a Jesus of power seeking to control and dominate the sheeple through his "chosen" rulers (who of course are self-chosen, but are equally self-deluded that they have been destined to rule).  

For a quick timeline of "Religious Freedom" laws and some background on the people who stood solidly behind them check out the Time's article at the link below.

https://time.com/3766173/religious-freedom-laws-map-timeline/
BY   DAVID JOHNSON   AND   KATY STEINMETZ  
APRIL 2, 2015
The national outcry over Indiana’s   Religious Freedom Restoration Act   (RFRA) has turned attention towards the 19 states with their own versions of the law and the others that are considering similar measures. The timeline below shows when each state passed legislation, starting with Connecticut in 1993. Click on a state for links to the laws or pending bills.

The fight over RFRAs dates to 1990, when the Supreme Court ruled against an Oregonian named Al Smith, who was a quarter American Indian. He had argued that his use of peyote in a Native American Church ritual—an act that cost him his job—should be protected by the First Amendment. He lost, and the ruling made it easier for the government to place restrictions on the freedom of religion.

That precedent didn’t sit well with state or federal governments. In the fall of 1993, Bill Clinton signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the standard the Court had overruled. “Those whose religion forbids autopsies have been subjected to mandatory autopsies,” Vice President Al Gore said at the signing ceremony outside the White House. This legislation, he said, was something “all Americans” could be behind. And many of them did, including Republicans, Democrats, evangelicals and progressive civil rights advocates.

The new law demanded that the government have a “compelling interest” before infringing on religious freedom and that the government must use the “least restrictive” means of doing so. If, for example, a state law required that all vehicles have electric lights, the government might have a compelling interest in making sure Amish buggies were as visible as cars on the highway. But the least restrictive means of compelling them to follow the law could be to make sure they used reflective silver tape, rather than force them to embrace technology.

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law applied only to the federal government. So more states quickly passed their own RFRAs to restore similar provisions at state levels.

But the political context has changed drastically since then, and many social conservatives are now championing religious freedom bills as a way to protect them from having to provide service to LGBT people. Critics worry that states will use such laws to combat existing non-discrimination measures in court, providing legal cover for stores that refuse to serve gay customers or businesses to fire LGBT employees.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Freedom Warrior
Ed-NavDoc
devangelical
r.t..b...
Freefaller
JumpDrive


34 visitors