• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A rural Kansas town voted to remove "In God We Trust" from police cars

The concept of the Establishment Clause means to that the government is forbidden to support/endorse religious belief over non belief or to support one religion over the other. Obviously In God We trust does exactly that. The government instead is to be absolutetly neutral on the issue of religion and religious belief.

We all cannot have equal rights, both secular and religious, as required by the US Constitution and the BoR if the government is supporting, showing favoritism, or endorsing one religion over the other or supporting the religious dogma of any religion. You have the equal right to believe or not to believe and for you to worship as you choose but one of your rights or those of any other person is not to force others to obey or support your religious beliefs. This applies to all religions and beliefs equally.


You should read the words of Jefferson and Madison on the Establishment Clause.

Potificate all you want, there is no effort to establish anything.

You didn't look up the date, did you ?

You do know that the HOR has a chaplain and opens with prayer.
 
The concept of the Establishment Clause means to that the government is forbidden to support/endorse religious belief over non belief or to support one religion over the other. Obviously In God We trust does exactly that. The government instead is to be absolutetly neutral on the issue of religion and religious belief.
It was before the Senate to change it in 2011, they voted 396 to keep it as the national motto.

If it's a violation of the Constitution you're going to have to file a lawsuit.

I wish you luck.

I superbly argued that it didn't endorse any religion.
We all cannot have equal rights, both secular and religious, as required by the US Constitution and the BoR if the government is supporting, showing favoritism, or endorsing one religion over the other or supporting the religious dogma of any religion. You have the equal right to believe or not to believe and for you to worship as you choose but one of your rights or those of any other person is not to force others to obey or support your religious beliefs. This applies to all religions and beliefs equally.
Yeah you're oppressed by the national motto...

Tell me more about your first world problems.

You should read the words of Jefferson and Madison on the Establishment Clause.
They likely supported the motto.
 

Potificate all you want, there is no effort to establish anything.

You didn't look up the date, did you ?

You do know that the HOR has a chaplain and opens with prayer.

The BoR was passed in 1789.


James Madison was opposed to chaplains on the government payroll.
 
Which God?
Yeahi can. I just did. Lol
It doesn't matter which God. Any god is religious. But God with a capital G is most associated with the Abrahamistic god.
 
The BoR was passed in 1789.


James Madison was opposed to chaplains on the government payroll.

You seem want to avoid answering questions.

Are you aware that the HOR has a chaplain ?

Are you aware of what was resolved in 1812 ?
 
James Madison was opposed to chaplains on the government payroll.

He apparently didn't win that one.

According to you, that is unconstitutional.

Best of luck.
 
It doesn't matter which God.
In order to be respecting the establishment of a religion or would have to be specific.
Any god is religious.
Why?
But God with a capital G is most associated with the Abrahamistic god.
On the police car in the op the entire motto was in all caps.

So show that they were talking specifically about Yahweh.
 
The BoR was passed in 1789.


James Madison was opposed to chaplains on the government payroll.
File a case maybe it'll make it to the supreme court.

I wish you luck.

If personally love to hear how the motto respects the establishment of a religion, and how you're rights are violated by it. But I guess the cat has your tongue.
 
He apparently didn't win that one.

According to you, that is unconstitutional.

Best of luck.
Then we should have Imams, Buddhist/Hindu gurus and every other religion as a taxpayer funded chaplain, including Satanists, Pagans and atheists freethinkers. If one religion gets to play them they all must get to play equally.
 
What purpose is being served by having "In God We Trust" on government vehicles?
 
Then we should have Imams, Buddhist/Hindu gurus and every other religion as a taxpayer funded chaplain, including Satanists, Pagans and atheists freethinkers. If one religion gets to play them they all must get to play equally.

I am telling you what has happened.

Your red herrings don't work.

If you want to push this point of view, get a lawyer and start suing.

Otherwise, deal with it.

But your claim it is unconstitutional is currently crap.
 
I am telling you what has happened.

Your red herrings don't work.

If you want to push this point of view, get a lawyer and start suing.

Otherwise, deal with it.

But your claim it is unconstitutional is currently crap.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the strict separation of church and state. Your religious rights (to believe or not and to worship or not as you choose_) are not in any way infringed by keeping the actions of the state and the expenditure of taxpayer money absolutely non-religious. The US is not and never was a Christian country with more rights for christian people. The framers saw and in many cases experienced the abuses that happened in Europe when religion and the state intertwined and out in place multiple measures to prevent that church-state abuse from happening in the US while at the same time protecting the right of all people, regardless of their beliefs or lack there of to believe or not to believe. Your illogical religious beliefs do not apply to anyone beyond your nose and cannot be enforced or supported by the actions of the state. The framers were very clear on this.



For Jefferson, an Enlightenment rationalist, reason had to govern in all areas, including religion. “For the use of … reason… every one is responsible to the God who has planted it in his breast, as a light for his guidance, and that, by which alone he will be judged,” Jefferson explained.2 His declaration to Benjamin Rush that “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,” was made in the context of religious freedom: any government effort to control religious beliefs was “tyranny over the mind of man.”
Jefferson saw religious freedom as essential for a functioning republic. Without religious freedom and a strict separation of church and state, “kings, nobles, and priests” threatened to create a dangerous aristocracy. As Peter Onuf explains, “Jefferson defined the old regime as an unholy alliance of ‘kings, nobles, and priests’ that divided the people in order to rule them. Jefferson’s Bill for Religious Freedom, … [made] possible the progressive development of that ‘entire union of opinion’ that alone could guarantee the survival of republican government.”
 
Jefferson’s demand for strict separation and religious freedom does not mean that he was irreligious. In fact, this canard irritated Jefferson. He explained:

the priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather antireligious sentiments, of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the Act of Virginia for establishing religious freedom. they wished him to be thought Atheist, Deist, or Devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations. but I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our god and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests.10

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Jan. 1, 1802

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Thomas Jefferson, gravestone.

In 1817 he wrote to John Adams:


The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, Materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.[
 
There is nothing unconstitutional about the strict separation of church and state. Your religious rights (to believe or not and to worship or not as you choose_) are not in any way infringed by keeping the actions of the state and the expenditure of taxpayer money absolutely non-religious. The US is not and never was a Christian country with more rights for christian people. The framers saw and in many cases experienced the abuses that happened in Europe when religion and the state intertwined and out in place multiple measures to prevent that church-state abuse from happening in the US while at the same time protecting the right of all people, regardless of their beliefs or lack there of to believe or not to believe. Your illogical religious beliefs do not apply to anyone beyond your nose and cannot be enforced or supported by the actions of the state. The framers were very clear on this.

Keep bleating this out.

There is no separation of church and state in the constituiton.

You keep lathering up over what you think people thought or how you view the world.

I am pointing out what actually happened.

You have manufactured so much in the post, I am not going to bother.

BTW: There were many state sponsored religions in the U.S. after the constitution. Nobody ever challenged them.

Clarence Thomas said that they would still be constitutional in one of his dissents on related topic.

Spare me any more lectures. You either put up instances and disprove Madison declaring days of fasting and prayer along with the HOR chaplain or find someone else to read your rants.
 
Keep bleating this out.

There is no separation of church and state in the constituiton.

You keep lathering up over what you think people thought or how you view the world.

I am pointing out what actually happened.

You have manufactured so much in the post, I am not going to bother.

BTW: There were many state sponsored religions in the U.S. after the constitution. Nobody ever challenged them.

Clarence Thomas said that they would still be constitutional in one of his dissents on related topic.

Spare me any more lectures. You either put up instances and disprove Madison declaring days of fasting and prayer along with the HOR chaplain or find someone else to read your rants.
The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment is where the strict separation of church and state is created. Jefferson was clear on this. How many times does this need to be explained to you? The same first amendment is also where the free exercise clause resides. When understand as a pair their create a wall of separation in church and state while also protecting each of our rights individually to believe or not to believe and to worship as we choose?

The same Jefferson explained this in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists that has been used by the SCOTUS to define the Establishment Clause. I highlighted his exact words of separation of church and state, if you can read.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Thos Jefferson. 07 October 1781

Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to the bench and is only there because of his skin color. Republicans under H.W Bush needed a black justice to replace the liberal justice Thurgood Marshall and they needed any conservative, no matter how unqualified. That is how Thomas is on the bench.
 
Only 1 person probably complained, but that was enough for these spineless, overpaid elected pinheads to "act for the greater good of 'diversity'".

Got a feeling you'd have a very different perspective if the quote read, "In Allah We Trust."
 
The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment is where the strict separation of church and state is created. Jefferson was clear on this. How many times does this need to be explained to you? The same first amendment is also where the free exercise clause resides. When understand as a pair their create a wall of separation in church and state while also protecting each of our rights individually to believe or not to believe and to worship as we choose?

The same Jefferson explained this in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists that has been used by the SCOTUS to define the Establishment Clause. I highlighted his exact words of separation of church and state, if you can read.


Thos Jefferson. 07 October 1781

Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to the bench and is only there because of his skin color. Republicans under H.W Bush needed a black justice to replace the liberal justice Thurgood Marshall and they needed any conservative, no matter how unqualified. That is how Thomas is on the bench.

There is no separation of church and state in the first amendment. It says congress can make no laws.

Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the constitution. His statement about a "wall.....was in a letter. That was it.

I don't need you to keep yapping about things that don't exist. I have been familiar with that letter for decades. That you don't understand it is not my problem.

The letter was written in 1802 when he was the president:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Do you know why the letter was written ?

You realize that Jefferson didn't say he could help them.

He was simply expressing an opinion.

And Hugo Blacks notorious blunder was just that. A stamp of stupidity on the SCOTUS in the name of what you want things to say....not what they really say (and you seem to be following in his footsteps).

Smearing Thomas is pretty left-wing-ish. Low-brow and uneducated.
 
Thomas Jefferson, gravestone.

All of these are meaningless quotes as they have no application.

Putting "In God We Trust" on a coin or car does nothing to force someone into believing or behaving a certain way.

It does not establish anything.

The woke concept of a this "can't have the 10 commandments on the courthouse grounds" is about to go by-by.
 
There is no separation of church and state in the first amendment. It says congress can make no laws.

Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the constitution. His statement about a "wall.....was in a letter. That was it.

I don't need you to keep yapping about things that don't exist. I have been familiar with that letter for decades. That you don't understand it is not my problem.

The letter was written in 1802 when he was the president:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Do you know why the letter was written ?

You realize that Jefferson didn't say he could help them.

He was simply expressing an opinion.

And Hugo Blacks notorious blunder was just that. A stamp of stupidity on the SCOTUS in the name of what you want things to say....not what they really say (and you seem to be following in his footsteps).

Smearing Thomas is pretty left-wing-ish. Low-brow and uneducated.
Is is an establishment of state endorsement of religious belief over non-belief and a state support of the christian religion over other religions. If that same quote said In Allah We Trust or In Satan We Trust you would not be so supportive of it, but when its your myth you want the state to support it.

Jefferson is the cornerstone of the framers and the country. He was also the POTUS when that letter was written.


What right or freedom of yours is threated by removing it and keeping the actions of the state secualr so the rights of all are protected equally?
 
Is is an establishment of state endorsement of religious belief over non-belief and a state support of the christian religion over other religions.

What is it you are referencing ?

If that same quote said In Allah We Trust or In Satan We Trust you would not be so supportive of it,

You know that ? Did I say it somewhere ?

Are you making stuff up ?
but when its your myth you want the state to support it.

What do you mean support it.

I have no issue putting it on a coin.

If the federal government came out and said Christianity is the religion of the United States and we will use tax dollars to fund Christian churches, I'd be 100% opposed.

States did that up until 1830 and were never challenged. But that is different. Even though it would be constitutional (as stated by Thomas...your opinion notwithstanding), I doubt I'd be happy about it if it were my state.

Jefferson is the cornerstone of the framers and the country. He was also the POTUS when that letter was written.

Jefferson had nothing to do with framing the Constitution. He wasn't there. He communicated with Madison and expressed opinions.

He is BY NO MEANS a cornerstone of the framing.

His letter was nothing but encouragement and him stating an opinion. While it was quoted once in SCOTUS law, you don't find the term in the Constitution.

You are completely wrong on this one.

What right or freedom of yours is threated by removing it and keeping the actions of the state secualr so the rights of all are protected equally?

Since you are manufacturing a problem, there is no answer to your question.

NOTHING was established and congress did nothing.

States are much more free to do what they want are as municiplaities.

The SCOTUS bastardization of the doctrine isn't even at issue here.
 
Then we should have Imams, Buddhist/Hindu gurus and every other religion as a taxpayer funded chaplain, including Satanists, Pagans and atheists freethinkers. If one religion gets to play them they all must get to play equally.
By all means have your satanic Chaplin. Just record them because they're hilarious
 
All of these are meaningless quotes as they have no application.

Putting "In God We Trust" on a coin or car does nothing to force someone into believing or behaving a certain way.

It does not establish anything.

The woke concept of a this "can't have the 10 commandments on the courthouse grounds" is about to go by-by.
This post proves that you are a liar. I assume that you have a exemption to the 10 commandments about lying.

The 10 commandments is a religious idea. Keep it in your church. You oppose the seraption of chuch and state vbecause you want the government to goven via your religious beliefs that not all christian agree with. You would howl if the governmenbt govenmed by the relgious idea of any other relgion but you support it when its your myths and dogma. Does the word HYPOCRITE means anything to you? You also oppose equal religious freedoms and secular rights for others that is guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause, even when those other people are christian whose sect is different from your own.

This is exactly when the strict separation of church and state exists.
 
Back
Top Bottom