New Pennsylvania bill requires schools to display "In God we trust" on a plaque outside of every school. This is an obvious violation of the separation of church and state, right?
That seems destined for a trip to court will it will be declared unconstitutional. What the hell were they thinking?
That would seem to argue *against* going to the bother & expense of putting a plaque outside every school, then.
Yeah, violations of the Bill of Rights is such a small thing.
Would your reaction be the same if the perceived violation were something you felt infringed on your 2nd Amendment rights?
I always use this argument. What if instead of "God", it said "Satan". Would you want YOUR kids seeing "In Satan we trust" every time s/he walked into their school?
Hopefully this will run its course through the courts and get that BS off my money too.
I was worried when I got to required, what's the reasoning there?
What a complete waste of money, to satisfy a deranged notion that one groups belief in a god (out of 8000 that are believed on this planet) is somehow good for everybody. Leave your religion at home and focus on giving our kids a real and tangible...
The objectively correct answer is yes.
The SCOTUS has ruled on at least 20 or so cases based on separation of church and state just since the 1940s. I think it's pretty well established.
How would it not be?
I propose that all post offices display on a plaque at the entrance which reads "In Zod we trust". Think it will pass?
Dammit Pennsylvania, why do you have to make me so ashamed of being from you?
education, and not some belief stoked in fantasy and superstition.
Did anyone ask God if he wants it?
It's obvious that this is a violation of the separation of church and state.
God is inherently religious. Stating ones trust in god in inherently religious.
The government is barred in the First Amendment from making a law "that respecting an establishment of religion."
It's not about force. It's about the government...
...being barred from making exactly these kinda of statements.
I pledge allegiance to Tony
And the United Community of SoH'ers.
And to the stances for which they stand.
With flippancy and serenity for all.
Someone get this to tony, NOW
I'm not going to touch that
No I wouldn't, but if it was the national motto it wouldn't be unconstitutional for the school to do that. You can say the motto is unconstitutional and fight it that way but the use of it by the school isn't while it is still the national motto...
Slavery was deemed constitutional at one point, that doesn't mean it was ok. I don't think the government should be able push religion on people, especially children.
It is not constitutional. The state or Supreme Court will defiantly shut it down.
Bibles and guns..
How could they determine the schools use of it unconstitutional by separation of church and state without deeming the national motto unconstitutional? I could see them using the situation to fight the constitutionality of the motto but that's it
I don't think zod wants that
I'm pretty sure that's a country song.
They are using the excuse that it is patriotic not religious because "In God we trust" is our national motto.
...by Thomas Jefferson to (I think) Danbury Baptist Church.
The actual clauses, though, are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, both found in the First Amendment.
I don't think it does either, I just have always felt e Pluribus Unum represented the us better, not to mention it sounds better, at least IMO
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
According to Jefferson and other founders and many Supreme Court rulings over the years, these two clauses create a "wall...
...of separation between church and state," hence the naming of this basic concept of the Constitution.
whenever asked). But *adding* something that seems clearly wrong is just... really *wrong* in my opinion.
Our nation has so many bigger issues to have hissyfits about.
So, your argument is that God isn't religious?
What, exactly, is what "happened in England" that they were trying to prevent?
These kind of people are positively nuts. They're the same kind of people that are responsible for the Creation Museum. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.
Directly? No. In spirit? Yes. Does this cross that line? I'm not sure, although I don't think it should be done and favor e Pluribus Unum
Haha, I wouldn't doubt it.
There are two spots, but the actual wording is too long to easily cite in every reference, hence the concept was shortened and called "separation of church and state". It's a concept, not a direct quotes from the BoR. It is a direct quote...
OK, the 1st Amendment was written to disallow the government from establishing a state religion. It requires that the state stay neutral in religious matters. Neutrality negates making overtly religious statements that put one religion...
...or subset of religions above any other religion or non-religion.
The Free Exercise Clause is what protects an individuals liberty to practice your religion freely and not be bound by the religious practice of others.
Together, along with the dictate that there be no religious tests for office, create a wall of separation between church and state.
I pretty much believe in the wisdom of "pick your battles." *Removing* things like "In God We Trust" from our money, & "under God" from the Pledge seem like more trouble that they're worth at present (but I'll give my negative opinion of them
The motto is not technically unconstitutional. But, this act, it passed, might call it into question. It was allowed based on tradition. If it's found that people are using this motto to promote one religion over another, then the motto will...
...be reevaluated and likely found to have prejudicial value and therefor violate the Establishment Clause. It will not pass must with the Lemon Test.
See, I'm offering my points. What evidence or support or analysis do you have? I would like to hear it.
No. You didn't give points. You simply asserted what you thought about the 1st Amendment. That's not offering analysis or evidence or anything of any value.