• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Looks like a judge made the right decision... (1 Viewer)

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199211,00.html

Damrell disagreed, citing a 9th Circuit decision from 1970 that concluded the four words were a national motto that had "nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."

I am not delusional however. I realize the current 9th Circuit is one of the most activist laden courts in the country.
 
ProudAmerican said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199211,00.html



I am not delusional however. I realize the current 9th Circuit is one of the most activist laden courts in the country.

Yeah, we'll have to follow the appeal(s). I think the judge was wrong. When I get a chance I want to read the whole decision.

When you have a national motto, 'E Pluribus Unum,' coined by the people who created the country, perfectly descriptive of the formation of the United States, inclusive of everyone in the country, its a bad, unnecessary and paranoid decision to change the motto to a prayer to show the communists we're better than them. This doesn't address the Constitutional part of the issue, just the sensible.
 
How could anyone disagree? Everyone can see that trusting in God is secular. :roll:
 
To say that the 9th Circuit has always been as it is now would be similar to saying the Democrats have always been as they are now. Both are ridiculous.

I'm an atheist and I think Mr. Newdow is a nutcase and childish. I'm sorry but I don't feel excluded by slogans. Now, if I were required to affirmatively agree with the slogan in order to spend the money I'd object. As far as I'm concerned the slogan has nothing more, nor less, than some historical interest.
 
Patrickt said:
To say that the 9th Circuit has always been as it is now would be similar to saying the Democrats have always been as they are now. Both are ridiculous.

I'm an atheist and I think Mr. Newdow is a nutcase and childish. I'm sorry but I don't feel excluded by slogans. Now, if I were required to affirmatively agree with the slogan in order to spend the money I'd object. As far as I'm concerned the slogan has nothing more, nor less, than some historical interest.

So you don't mind the government saying "In God we trust" when it's supposed to represent all of us? Even as a Deist I disagree with this. The government has no business saying such things and that phrase is nothing but a statement of belief which is not inclusive. Some Christians just use this to keep their foot in the door of our government.
 
It doesn't bother me in the least. The slippery slope argument seems to be one of convenience. The slogan, like "Better Living Through Chemistry", has been with us through resurgences of religion in the country and periods on relative secularism. I don't think the slogan is significant one way or the other. For the record, I also don't care if Congress opens with a prayer or not. I don't care if crosses are on public land. I don't care if my religion is on my dogtags or not, as long as I have the option of no religion.

And, I do have the option in every part of my life to have no religion. While people have tried to coerce me into a recognized religion, the government never has and, in my opinion, never will.
 
The first amendment was to keep government out or religion it is insanity to think you can keep religion out of government every on has a religion. Even atheism is a religion. Besides that can you quote in this amendment where is says religion will stay out of government? This amendment has no bearing on the state!

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 
You're wrong on two counts. Atheism is not a religion and the 14th Amendment gave the constitutional protections to all citizens of the United States. That means, the 14th Amendment made the protections and responsibilities of the Constitution apply to the states. Since I've visited the other thread I'm aware that you are convinced that atheism is a religion. Fine.
 
Patrickt said:
To say that the 9th Circuit has always been as it is now would be similar to saying the Democrats have always been as they are now. Both are ridiculous.

I'm an atheist and I think Mr. Newdow is a nutcase and childish. I'm sorry but I don't feel excluded by slogans. Now, if I were required to affirmatively agree with the slogan in order to spend the money I'd object. As far as I'm concerned the slogan has nothing more, nor less, than some historical interest.
Excellent post! :good_job:

Those who are offended by history are free to emigrate to an alternate universe (at their own expense).
 
Narph said:
The first amendment was to keep government out or religion it is insanity to think you can keep religion out of government every on has a religion. Even atheism is a religion. Besides that can you quote in this amendment where is says religion will stay out of government? This amendment has no bearing on the state!

You have no grasp of the intended purpose of the establishment clause. Not everyone has a religion, and everyone should keep their religion to themselves.

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. 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. - Thomas Jefferson
 
Last edited:
Columbusite said:
How could anyone disagree? Everyone can see that trusting in God is secular. :roll:

Huh? What's your definition of "secular?"
 
Columbusite said:
The government has no business saying such things and that phrase is nothing but a statement of belief which is not inclusive.

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and one of the six authors of the First Amendment, held it as a fundamental and undeniable truth "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator...be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."
 
Columbusite said:
So you don't mind the government saying "In God we trust" when it's supposed to represent all of us? Even as a Deist I disagree with this. The government has no business saying such things and that phrase is nothing but a statement of belief which is not inclusive. Some Christians just use this to keep their foot in the door of our government.
So being a Christian should exclude us from being involved in the gov't? Are you now going to start discriminating against people for thier beliefs? This nation was founded by people who, while not exclusively Christian, were overwhelmingly Christian. The Constitution forbids the gov't from becoming involved in the affairs of the Church, but it no way forbids any religion from being involved in the affairs of the gov't.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Please show me where there is any reference limiting the influence of the Church in the gov't. or where we have established any religion by way of a law passed by Congress.
 
Lachean said:
You have no grasp of the intended purpose of the establishment clause. Not everyone has a religion, and everyone should keep their religion to themselves.

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. 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. - Thomas Jefferson
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Here's the letter from the Danbury Baptist Church:
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge

Ephraim Robbins

Stephen S. Nelson

and here's Jefferson's response:
Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

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, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church was not about keeping the church out of the gov't, but to clarify that the gov't was not going to be sticking thier noses into the affairs of the Church. Read teh whole letter and the letter that it is a response to. Without doing this, you cannot fully understand what was being said. Taking one section out of context is pure deception in light of the entire letter and it's very clear intent.
 
faithful_servant said:
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church was not about keeping the church out of the gov't.

I don't matter what Jefferson meant. He ain't nuttin but a secondary authority to back up the primary authorty who is James Madison.
 
faithful_servant said:
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church was not about keeping the church out of the gov't

Huh? Where did Thomas Jefferson ever say that a public servant's opinions and sentiments regarding the duty which we owe to our Creator should be expressed in the civil law or the administration of the government?

What does it matter what a public servant's opinions are on the subject of prayer, fasting, thanksgiving or any other manner or method of discharging one's duty to his Creator? The government has no authority over our opinons regarding prayer or any other matter of religion. Religion, according to Jefferson, is a matter which lies solely between man & his god. A man owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; and the legitimate powers of government reaches actions only, and not religious opinions.
 
faithful_servant said:
So being a Christian should exclude us from being involved in the gov't?

Nope. The U. S. Constitution prohibits a religious test.

A public servant is expected to bring his good morals to work with him. However, a public servant in the discharge the duties of his civil office will have no need of his opinions on the existance of God, the number of Gods, the unity of the Godhead, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, baptism, prayer, fasting, public humiliation or thanksgiving, because a civil officer has no authority over the people's opinions as regards matters of religion.
 
Yeah, he did make a "right" decision.

Too bad he didn't make the correct one.

It's everyone's money, it should not bear an homage to a god everyone does not share.
 
Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto on coins. However, he had no objection to putting in on buildings In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote:

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
 
What Is An Interference With Religion By Governmet?​

In 1790, The U. S. Congress, even before the First Amendment was ratified, applied the Constitutional Principle of Separation of Church and State so strictly that it considered and rejected a proposal that the national census should list "religious minister" as an occupation because "the general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any matter whatever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be though to do this in ascertaining who and who are not ministers of the gospel."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_3s19.html
 
Those are everyone's buildings, so the above reasoning still applies, and sadly this means Teddy was wrong.
 
Voidwar said:
Those are everyone's buildings, so the above reasoning still applies, and sadly this means Teddy was wrong.
I haven't yet heard any serious proposals to remove Moses and the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court building, or to remove "God save this honorable court" from the ceremonies opening each session. Can you see any hypocrisy here?
 
I'll propose it right now. Satisfied ?

I'm not a legislator, but then I doubt there are any involved in this thread.

The things you mention are just as innappropriate, for the exact same reasons.
 
Voidwar said:
Those are everyone's buildings, so the above reasoning still applies, and sadly this means Teddy was wrong.

Since the government has deemed it proper to assume authority over our duty to trust in God shouldn't it be required to tell us which God they put us under?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom