╌>

Satanic Temple plans to sue Mississippi if state puts 'In God We Trust' on flag | TheHill

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  4 years ago  •  59 comments

By:   Aris Folley (TheHill)

Satanic Temple plans to sue Mississippi if state puts 'In God We Trust' on flag | TheHill
The Satanic Temple is warning Mississippi that it will pursue a lawsuit against the state if it puts the phrase "In God We Trust" on its flag, as is currently planned.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



baphometstatue_satanictemple_salemmass_getty10082019.jpg?itok=jIrBsCqQ © Getty Images

The Satanic Temple is warning Mississippi that it will pursue a lawsuit against the state if it puts the phrase "In God We Trust" on its flag, as is currently planned.

Late last month, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) signed legislation into law retiring the state flag, which had featured the Confederate flag symbol for more than 120 years.

The move came amid a nationwide push to remove symbols of the Civil War-era pro-slavery cause as widespread protests against racial inequality and police brutality continued across the country, ignited by the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks and more Black Americans.

Under the law, a commission will be appointed to create a new design for the flag that will be voted on during a special election in the state in November. The new design is not allowed to feature the Confederate flag and must include the phrase "In God We Trust."

In a recent letter to Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R), an attorney writing on behalf of the Satanic Temple first commended the state for first taking "the very positive step of removing the Confederate battle flag from the Mississippi state flag."

However, the group added that "removing one divisive symbol of exclusion only to replace it with a divisive phrase of exclusion does not eliminate exclusion, but rather moves it from one group to a collection of others."
The group went on to suggest that if the state "is going to place a religious phrase on its flag, it should include reference to Satan," saying the seven tenets of the Satanic Temple, which include striving to act with compassion and call for the freedoms of others to be respected, seem more consistent with the state's values than the Ten Commandments.

"On the other hand, we can imagine that there would be some Mississippians who would be a bit put off by the words 'In Satan we Trust' on the state flag," the letter continued. "If you can imagine that, then you might imagine how atheists, Satanists, and other people of nontheistic faiths could feel excluded by the addition of 'In God we Trust' to the state flag.

"We trust that you will take our request under advisement," the group said. "However, should the state of Mississippi insist on placing this exclusionary religious phrase on its flag, we do intend to file suit and seek injunctive relief against this act."

While the group acknowledged a past court ruling in a similar case in which it was noted that the Supreme Court had determined the national motto's inclusion on currency "does not infringe on First Amendment rights," the group said it believed its case would be "distinguishable" and warned it would "move forward with that understanding."

TagsReligion in the United StatesFlags of the Confederate States of AmericaThe Satanic TempleSatanismIn God We TrustMississippi flag


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 years ago

An overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in God, so the phrase itself doesnt bother me. If the flag had "In Jesus We Trust" on it, that would be a different story. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 years ago

I disagree. they should file suit and win. religious bullshit doesn't belong on public property. we're where we're at now with some religious zealots because we let their shit slide in the past. the 1st amendment is explicit in the wall of separation between church and state and that needs to be fully embraced and then.enforced as rigidly as every other amendment.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @1.1    4 years ago
I disagree. they should file suit and win.

I'm not sure if legal precedent would favor a legal victory for them.

religious bullshit doesn't belong on public property.

Agreed.

we're where we're at now with some religious zealots because we let their shit slide in the past.

Sort of like give them an inch, they take a mile type thing?

the 1st amendment is explicit in the wall of separation between church and state

But the phrase "separation of church and state" is not explicitly stated in the constitution (How many times have we heard that lame counterargument to the concept of separation?) jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

and that needs to be fully embraced and then.enforced as rigidly as every other amendment.

I'd say even more so. Separation should be absolute.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.1    4 years ago
I'm not sure if legal precedent would favor a legal victory for them.

A clear 1st Amendment violation?

I'd say even more so. Separation should be absolute.

tenor.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    4 years ago

It's clear to me. But previous legal precedents makes it no so clear cut.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.1.4  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.1    4 years ago
But the phrase "separation of church and state" is not explicitly stated in the constitution (How many times have we heard that lame counterargument to the concept of separation?)

IIRC, the Constitution doesn't say anything about"separation of Church and State". Those words are expressing what some people feel it means. (I could look it up but now feeling to lazy to do so).

So if it doesn't say"separation of church and state"-- what does it say?

And,if memory serves, it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an estabishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof/" (or words to that effect).

What that means is two things:

1. The government hall not establish any one particular religion as the official state religion.  So, for example, they can not says that Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam is the state religion. (Or even that the Lutheran denomination or the Baptist is the official religion).

2. The government shall not prohibit the practice of any religion (So it can' t forbid the prctice of Christianity (or any fiorm of it) or any other religion.So I believe that also means it cannot prohibit Satanism (a religion based on worshipping Satan).

It seems tome that putting "In God We trust" should not be prohibited by the Constitution because its not establishing any one particular religions as the official religion.(Unless one argued that that phrase did not include any religions that don't worship God...but that's a bit tricky). 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @1.1.4    4 years ago
the Constitution doesn't say anything about"separation of Church and State". Those words are expressing what some people feel it means.

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are based on the concepts of separation of church and state and they imply that there is a separation. That has been acknowledged and supported by the SCOTUS. The Founding Fathers themselves also made that quite clear too.

The government hall not establishany one particular religionas the official state religion.  So, for example, they can not says that Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam is the state religion. (Or even that the Lutheran denomination or the Baptist is the official religion).

That is correct. It also means the government must remain religiously neutral and not show religious preference or favoritism.

The government shall not prohibit the practice ofanyreligion (So it can' t forbid the prctice of Christianity (or any fiorm of it) or any other religion.So I believe that also means it cannot prohibit Satanism (a religion based on worshipping Satan).

Satanism is considered a religion and is just as protected, valid, and equal in the eyes of the law. However, religious practice itself does have its limits, as long as it does not conflict with established law. The SCOTUS was also clear on that too.

It seems tome that putting "In God We trust" should not be prohibited by the Constitution because its not establishing any one particular religions as the official religion.(Unless one argued that that phrase did not include any religions that don't worship God...but that's a bit tricky). 

The SCOTUS felt the same way. But they declared the inclusion of god as "ceremonial deism," which was just an attempt to placate both sides of the issue. However, the argument can be made that referencing god is showing favoritism towards certain religions over others or over non-religion, which is where the dissent comes in.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 years ago
If the flag had "In Jesus We Trust" on it, that would be a different story. 

What difference does it make if it says "God" or "Jesus?"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2    4 years ago

"God" is not a religion. And I dont believe saying In God We Trust establishes religion as is prohibited by the first amendment. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    4 years ago
"God" is not a religion.

"God" is the central figure of the Abrahamistic religions/denominations and excludes all other religions. Jesus is a central figure of christianity. Same difference. 

And I dont believe saying In God We Trust establishes religion as is prohibited by the first amendment.

technically, it's not as long as no one is compelled to say or adhere to it. But the use of "God" clearly denotes certain religions over others or over non-religion.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    4 years ago
"God" is not a religion.

God ONLY occurs in religions or fictional works.  Belief in a God is solely religious in nature.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.2.4  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.2    4 years ago
But the use of "God" clearly denotes certain religions over others

But are there any religions that don't worship a god (or even gods, plural)  of one sort of another? If some group or even belief system is a religion-- doesn't that by definition means it worships a god?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2    4 years ago
What difference does it make if it says "God" or "Jesus?"

Here's the difference-- any and all religions worship a God (or in the case of polytheistic religions, many gods-- but still, its "God-worship"). Jesus, OTOH, is worshipped only by a some religions and not others.

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
1.2.6  Freefaller  replied to  Krishna @1.2.4    4 years ago
But are there any religions that don't worship a god (or even gods, plural) 

Off the top of my head Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism amongst others would seem to fit  the bill, possibly included would be some "pagan" religions that believe more in spirits (animal, water, tree, etc) than actual gods. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @1.2.5    4 years ago

It specifically says "God," singular and capitalized. That implies the Abrahamistic (monotheistic) god. So it is referencing (or favoring) a specific god and associated religions over others.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 years ago

Since the word 'God' is ill-defined, the meaning of the word defaults to 'supreme entity'; it is a deistic reference.   As you point out, it does not designate any particular god except by implication (the USA is mostly Christian and Christians call their god 'God').   So this is not literally supporting a particular religion but rather all religions;  at least one could make a good argument to that effect.   (I am confident that the supporters, however, are viewing this as support for the Christian god).

Now we have heard from an atheist group (Satanists) objecting to the secular reference.   I wonder if we will hear from religious groups:

  • Muslims complaining that it should be Allah
  • Hindus complaining that it should be Brahman
  • Jews complaining that it should be G-d, Eloah, ...
  • JW complaining that it should be Jehovah
  • Scientologists complaining that it should be L. Ron Hubbard  ( kidding )

Personally, I think flags should be secular.   Especially when the design for the flag is still undecided (I am not in favor of removing all religious references on secular items installed by our ancestors).   But, one way or the other, this is not a big deal (for me).

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.3    4 years ago

If the country , or I guess more particularly the state of Mississippi , had a majority composed of atheists I could see a better a reason to not mention God, but I suspect Mississippi is highly composed of people who believe in God. Such a flag would at this time be pretty accurate. Since I dont think the flag is unconstitutional , I think the satanists are going to be out of luck. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.2  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    4 years ago
If the country , or I guess more particularly the state of Mississippi , had a majority composed of atheists I could see a better a reason to not mention God, but I suspect Mississippi is highly composed of people who believe in God.

It doesn't matter if its a majority or even 1 person. The constitution generally doesn't allow for a "majority rule" system. Even if Miss had a 100% christian population and the mention of god was deemed unconstitutional, then even that 100% majority does not get to overrule that determination.

Since I dont think the flag is unconstitutional , I think the satanists are going to be out of luck. 

Prior legal precedents in such issues do not favor the Satanists. But each case seems a little different too. So we will see.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    4 years ago

They certainly will not prevail.

I think the flag (and all national / state artifacts, laws, etc.) should be secular and apply to ALL people equally; thus I disagree with this motto.   One could easily make a flag that favors no particular demographic.  It could speak of all Americans (e.g. Land of the Free) or to all in a State (e.g. 'Virtute et Armis').   There is no compelling reason that I see to specialize public artifacts to a demographic — even if it is the majority.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.3    4 years ago
They certainly will not prevail.

Unfortunately. 

I think the flag (and all national / state artifacts, laws, etc.)shouldbe secular and apply to ALL people equally; thus I disagree with this motto. 

As do I.

There is no compelling reason that I see to specialize public artifacts to a demographic — even if it is the majority.

I don't get some peoples need to plaster god all over everything. But I agree,

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.3.5  evilone  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.4    4 years ago
I don't get some peoples need to plaster god all over everything.

I have to conclude those that do this have fragile little egos like a dog that marks every tree he comes across.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
1.3.6  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @1.3.4    4 years ago
I don't get some peoples need to plaster god all over everything

I don't get some peoples need to take God out of everything.

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
1.3.7  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  evilone @1.3.5    4 years ago

Hey, my dog likes to leave pee-mail for other dogs.  He also checks every tree for reply pee-mail. LOL

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.8  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @1.3.6    4 years ago
I don't get some peoples need to take God out of everything.

No one is doing that. Only getting god out of the government or law where it doesn't belong. God is still prevalent in peoples homes, churches, temples, and pretty much everywhere else, ect..

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.9  Ozzwald  replied to  MonsterMash @1.3.6    4 years ago
I don't get some peoples need to take God out of everything.

God belongs in church, imposing it anywhere else (outside private property) is where the separation should come into effect.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.3.10  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @1.3    4 years ago
Scientologists complaining that it should be L. Ron Hubbard  ( kidding )

Of those you mentioned, Scientology is not a religion. Rather, it is an extremely evil cult, and IMO should be olutlawed. . (But that a bit off topic).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @1.3.10    4 years ago

I was kidding. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.12  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @1.3.10    4 years ago
Of those you mentioned, Scientology is not a religion.

If I am not wrong, in the eyes of the government, it is considered a religion with all the same protections as other religions.

 
 
 
Account Deleted
Freshman Silent
1.4  Account Deleted  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 years ago

What ever it says in the Federal Constitution.

If God is mentioned in the Constitution then by all means put it in the state flag. We are governed neither by the tyranny of the majority nor the minority; but by law.

Now if they want to put :

"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." Galatians 5:13  Now that might be OK - but then that would offend the Pan-ites .

Well - Maybe just a big smiley face all done in Rainbow colors.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.1  Gordy327  replied to  Account Deleted @1.4    4 years ago
If God is mentioned in the Constitution

God is not mentioned.

We are governed neither by the tyranny of the majority nor the minority; but by law.

Some people don't seem to understand that.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.4.2  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.1    4 years ago
God is not mentioned.

But: religion is.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.3  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @1.4.2    4 years ago
But: religion is.

The freedom of. But even that (religious exercise) has its limits.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    4 years ago

Just as I predicted. 

only a matter of time before something like this would happen.

Far too many loony tune idiots.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    4 years ago

Arkansas schools are required to post signs that say "In God We Trust" in every class room. This started about 2 years ago and they are still there

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    4 years ago
Arkansas schools are required to post signs that say "In God We Trust" in every class room. This started about 2 years ago and they are still there

Why am I not surprised. That certainly seems to be skirting the line of separation. But if students are not required to recite it or pray or something like that, then it might be legally allowed

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    4 years ago
That certainly seems to be skirting the line of separation.

Where is "Separation" of church and state mentioned in the Constitution?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @3.1.1    4 years ago

It is a net concept of the Establishment clause —not actual words— based on the founders' desire to avoid manifestations such as the Church of England.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @3.1.1    4 years ago

Implied in the Establishment Clause and deemed as such by the Founding Fathers and the SCOTUS.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    4 years ago
Arkansas schools are required to post signs that say "In God We Trust" in every class room. This started about 2 years ago and they are still there

Gosh, has it impeded learning there yet?

have any of the schoolchildren been traumatized yet?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    4 years ago
Arkansas schools are required to post signs that say "In God We Trust" in every class room. This started about 2 years ago and they are still there

"In God We trust" was on American coins going way back. (IIRC, some coins had it, while at first some didn't..?) However I distinctly remember that under Eisenhower, it was suddenly put on paper money. Maybe also on some government seals or emblems (?).

At the time I thought that was strange...although its never bothered me. (I never thought hat it in any way restricted my freedoms...)

Just a thought...maybe we should replace it with the words "God Save the Queen"... (perhaps as a way of recognizing gay rights? (No, not Jesus Save the Queen...just God would be better there)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @3.3    4 years ago
"In God We trust" was on American coins going way back.

That started back as an optional addition in 1865. It wasn't actually mandated by federal law until the 1950's.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4  Tacos!    4 years ago

They are wasting their time. "In God We Trust" is already the official motto of the United States (since the 50s) and of Florida. I actually think we should go back to "E Pluribus Unum." But whatever, this ship has sailed. It has been challenged in court multiple times and we still have it.

Also, the motto has been on Mississippi's state seal since 2011, so it seems a little late to complain about it now.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1  Gsquared  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 years ago

I did not see your comment until my comment below was posted.  I completely agree that we should go back to "E Pluribus Unum".

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Gsquared @4.1    4 years ago

"Great minds" as they say

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    4 years ago

Indeed!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Gsquared @4.1    4 years ago
I did not see your comment until my comment below was posted.  I completely agree that we should go back to "E Pluribus Unum".

I don't care what anyone sez-- I still like "God save the Queens"!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 years ago
I actually think we should go back to "E Pluribus Unum."

I agree. That is also what the Founding Fathers came up with. 

But whatever, this ship has sailed. It has been challenged in court multiple times and we still have it.

That's why any challenge might fail. Precedent has already been set.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    4 years ago

That's why any challenge might fail. Precedent has already been set.

Especially with the current membership of SCOTUS.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.1    4 years ago

In God we Trust!  One nation under God, indivisible...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.2    4 years ago

In God we Trust!  One nation under God, indivisible...

Which one?  There have been thousands worshiped.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5  Gsquared    4 years ago

The original motto of the U.S. was "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one).  It was only changed to "In God We Trust" in the 1950s by the so-called "conservatives" in Congress who wanted to express their religious zeal.  Although it is a wonderful, unifying motto, "E Pluribus Unum" would have no chance of reinstatement today given the chasmic divisions the successors of those so-called "conservatives" have created as they continue to try and divide us in furtherance of their distorted political goals.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gsquared @5    4 years ago

Conservatives prefer the use of both mottos.  Out of many, one....one nation, under God, indivisible.  In God we Trust!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    4 years ago

Do you claim to speak for all "conservatives"?   There are "conservative" atheists. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5.1.2  charger 383  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    4 years ago
There are "conservative" atheists. 

That is true and there are "independent" Atheists too

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.2    4 years ago

there are "independent" Atheists too

Of course.  There must be many.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.1.4  Krishna  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    4 years ago
Conservatives prefer the use of both mottos.  Out of many, one....one nation, under God, indivisible.  In God we Trust!

The more mottos the better!

Hey, I have an idea. Why not put this on coins:

A penny saved is a penny earned!

On larger bills:

Neither a borrower or a lender be! 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.1.5  Krishna  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    4 years ago
 There are "conservative" atheists. 

True.

But remember:

There are no Atheists in foxholes!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Gsquared  replied to  Krishna @5.1.5    4 years ago

That is an old saw.  My response:  Maybe or maybe not.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6  CB    4 years ago

This is the constant push and pull between Church and State for which I question if the founders wondered or knew could come?   At the time, science was slowly developing its 'backbone' and religion was in every way matured and elite. Today, both jostle for ascendancy—as equal 'contestants.'  Remember each state has its own constitution.

The art of compromise is in order with this state flag.

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred


51 visitors