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 phrase should be removed from ALL government
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...
education, and not some belief stoked in fantasy and superstition.
Hopefully this will run its course through the courts and get that BS off my money too.
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
Oh... Like he hasn't seen it already.
I'm likely going to be on Soh on air on the 10th of November. Do you mind if I use this?
Lemme tidy it up a bit maybe. I'll resubmit where you can see it.
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.
Bibles and guns..
I'm pretty sure that's a country song.
Haha, I wouldn't doubt it.
I'm an atheist NRA supporter who owns multiple assault rifles. I live in Appellation Ohio. Guns and the problems are misunderstood.
Our nation has so many bigger issues to have hissyfits about.
That would seem to argue *against* going to the bother & expense of putting a plaque outside every school, then.
No, I just mean to argue against widespread bundled undies over this.
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 don't argue this stuff. It's not worth my time. You think as you want and I will to.
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
whenever asked). But *adding* something that seems clearly wrong is just... really *wrong* in my opinion.
I don't think it violates the first amendment. I'm pretty sure the first amendment 1) bars the government from establishing a national religion and 2) protects people rights to practice their religion...
I don't see people being forced to practice a religion or unable to practice the religion they choose...
So, your argument is that God isn't religious?
How did you gather that?
God is religious, then?
Of course God is religious. But how does having "In God we trust" as our national motto equate to "all citizens must practice Christianity"?
Is saying you trust in god a religious statement?
This is a pretty big issue.
Of course it is. But how does that make it violate the first amendment? It doesn't force citizens to follow a religion nor does it prevent them from following the religion they choose...
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.
The first amendment was created to keep the Government from forcing citizens to follow a religion and to stop the government preventing citizens from following the religion they choose... The statement doesn't established a religion...
It respects an establishment of religion.
I have no problem with the national motto being changed back to E pluribus unum. I just don't think the one we have is unconstitutional...
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 guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because this is obviously going nowhere...
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.
I already gave them so I'm pretty sure agreeing to disagree is about as far as this can go for me
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.
Sorry I'm all debated out. I've said what I thought and that's all I can say. Good debate though, thanks for the chat
This debate has inspired me to post a poll about this tomorrow though. I have a lot of conservative followers so feel free to debate about this with them tomorrow if you want
The objectively correct answer is yes.
I propose that all post offices display on a plaque at the entrance which reads "In Zod we trust". Think it will pass?
I don't think zod wants that
Did anyone ask God if he wants it?
I'm not going to touch that
Where does it say separation of church and state?
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.
A lower court ruled in 1970 that the national motto does not violate the first amendment. It has never been challenged by the supreme court...
Well, it's likely to get challenged, now.
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...
...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.
"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.
The idea of the first amendment is to prevent what happened in England from happening here. It was our if respect for people and their various religions that the gov not make one above all others and to not prohibit any.
Do I think these plaques are needed no. Do I think they violate the first amendment no.
What, exactly, is what "happened in England" that they were trying to prevent?
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 think it is wrong
but separation of church and state isn't in the constitution is it?
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
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I don't think having a national motto In God we trust is the same as establishing a national religion but some would argue otherwise...
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
I wouldn't be apposed to that. I'm pretty sure it was the original national motto
Look a couple of posts above this.
Sorry; not replies, but posts. I explained it up a little.
Dammit Pennsylvania, why do you have to make me so ashamed of being from you?
That seems destined for a trip to court will it will be declared unconstitutional. What the hell were they thinking?
I was worried when I got to required, what's the reasoning there?
How would it not be?
They are using the excuse that it is patriotic not religious because "In God we trust" is our national motto.
It's the national motto. If you don't like it you can fight to change or just do away with the national motto. But as it is the national motto I don't know how it could be unconstitutional for the schools to display it...
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?
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.
I understand what you are saying but until the national motto is determined to be unconstitutional the use of it by the school is constitutional...
It is not constitutional. The state or Supreme Court will defiantly shut it down.
It's obvious that this is a violation of the separation of church and state.
I understand what your point is Okie but I don't agree. Just because the motto has not been found as unconstitutional, doesn't mean it's not. "Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion".