tar Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 No it doesn't. My link says the lower courts refused to hear the case and SCOTUS refused to review it. If you were familiar with the case you would know that they refused to hear the case because they claimed Dr. Newdow didn't have standing to file the case in the first place, not because they ruled, or didn't as the case is, on the constitutionality of his case. Zorach v. Clauson does not address it either. It addresses the right of children to leave public schools during school hours for bible study off of public school property. It has nothing to do with the phrase on U.S. currency. At question basically is any belief or declaration in any god(s) religious by the very nature of making a theist statement? If so then a declaration that God exists is a recognition of the theist establishment and Congress is prohibited from passing any laws that recognize such an establishment in my opinion. I suspect the court would be forced to agree and that's why they avoid hearing the case at all. Can you point that out? The Declaration Of Independence says, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...." Nowhere does it call their Creator a supreme being. My creator was my mom. BTW, "under God" was added by an act of Congress in 1956 so if the declaration that any god exists is religious then that is unconstitutional as well. True, but don't believe I have even met your Mom. I have no evidence that she was a being substantial enough to be held responsible for my existence. I am fairly sure it took a being on a larger scale than my Mom, to be responsible for me. And in reality, all men are not created equal. Not if you consider any real measure. Some men are quite strong and stupid, and others are quite weak and smart. Some are created quite suitable for existence and others created with significant weaknesses. Where did you get this notion, that all men are created equal? Equal in whose estimation? Equal in what? Regards, TAR2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 A great experiment would be to print up a bunch of perfect counterfeit dollar bills and put "there is no God" on them instead of in god we trust and see how long it take people to figure it out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) If there is anything that all men are created equally in, I would guess it would be in the equal bias toward their own survival. A great experiment would be to print up a bunch of perfect counterfeit dollar bills and put "there is no God" on them instead of in god we trust and see how long it take people to figure it out... Moontanman, Good idea. In fact, how about just printing real dollars, half the dollars blank in that area, and half with "in god we trust", and see if they all spend the same, or if anybody notices or cares. Judging by public reaction, we could just increase the proportion of bills of one style or the other in each successive run, or print random inspirational messages in that spot, like postage stamps. Regards, TAR2 Then people would start collecting their favorite dollars, and the treasury could print all the dollars they desired, without causing inflation. This would also allow atheists to spend and accept only the blank dollars that they believed in and that they did not feel hypocritical about. Edited February 5, 2013 by tar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 If it's not giving preference to one religion over another, then how come it doesn't say In Allah We Trust, or In Vishnu We Trust? I dunno. Maybe because they are all gods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 What about buddhism, then? Buddha is not a god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 If we were to take the word God from our currency and coin, what words should we replace it with? No, no, it shouldn't be removed or replaced. It would be like asking what replaces Stonehenge once we demolish it. I mean, there are no druids any more so we might as well demolish it, eh? No. There's a good poem on the topic... Larkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 A great experiment would be to print up a bunch of perfect counterfeit dollar bills and put "there is no God" on them instead of in god we trust and see how long it take people to figure it out... Wouldn't be the first time that defacing the currency was used as a tool of a political movement - the Suffragettes did it in Edwardian England http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/p/suffragette-defaced_penny.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) I'm only thinking out loud here, but these are my thoughts on how they came up with 'no theological impact'. The First Amendment basically says: 1. The government cannot create a national religion 2. The government cannot give preference to one religion over another 3. The government cannot stop people from practicing their religion What I believe they are saying is, recognizing there is a god (rightly or wrongly) has no impact on points 1, 2, or 3. But there's no evidence that there is a god to recognize so even the act of recognition gives preference to the religious belief that there is a god versus the irreligious views that lack belief in deities. Why should theism be recognized by a government that is supposed to be secular? What the 1st amendment actually says is, "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." Unfortunately there is nowhere that the founders gave the context of the word establishment which can be used as a noun or a verb. It is evident from their flight from England that they did not want there new government to establish any national religion and in Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter that he took it to also forbid recognition of religious establishments. This would seem to include both uses of the word establishment as being prohibited so that would include recognition of theism and or deism. FWIW, it does not say the government cannot recognize god(s) but it specifically prohibits Congress from passing laws that do so and it was an act of Congress that permitted the treasury to recognize god on currency and another that added god to the pledge. Both are technically violations that the theist courts refuse to address. Edited February 6, 2013 by doG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now