MSNBC: Live vote: In God we Trust

[Destino]

And then they will hit a wall, where their efforts go no further because avoiding active government endorsement of religion is not the same as scrubbing all historical acknowledgment of religion, and the courts understand that. So the historical buildings will remain, but no new public buildings will be built with Christian imagery financed by taxpayer dollars.

You are confident here where I am not. I see the same arguments that are used to remove a a cross put up in 1934 as a war memorial being used to remove "glory to god" from the Washington monument. The same arguments do in fact apply.

It's funny that people are writing off my comments as slippery slope yet no one at all would argue that this stops here or at all until the courts stop it.

[techboy]

(Trying to edit things down as much as possible without changing any meanings . . . )

Cute.

I'd suggest, though, that you actually read those posts, because they don't say what they think you say.

You will find, for instance, that in almost all of those quotes, I used the term "concerning" as a synyonym for "with respect to", which is the actual language in the ammendment. So unless you want to argue that the first ammendment's language of "with respect to" means that a religion has to be established, you're barking up the wrong tree.

There is one where I say that something would establish a religion, but of course that's not a minimum standard, and nothing in my post suggests that it is.

There's also one where I was lazy and dropped the "concerns" or "with respect to", and I even admitted it. You even quoted where I admitted that.

I have flat out stated what I meant, so you have no excuse for misunderstanding any longer.

I am not a liar, nor am I shy about stating my opinion, even if it's unpopular, as I'm sure you're aware. I do it all the time here.

If I wanted to use a narrow interpretation of the 1st ammendment, I'd just say so, and I wouldn't have later agreed with your broader reading of it that prohibits promotion. If I mistated something, or was wrong, I'll state that too, and I'm not shy about admitting that either.

In short, cut it out. You know what my position is, because I have spelled it out clearly. Stop misrepresenting it.

However, leaving that statement aside . . .

You should have done that to start instead of playing silly little "gotcha" games.

So, you're saying that the government can promote a religion, as long that that promotion doesn't actually cause a single person to actually switch religions?

No.

To be frank, though, I see no reason to continue repeating myself. This issue is not important, and frankly I couldn't care less if the slogan was removed tomorrow. What's more, it almost certainly won't be.

Believe what you like.

I think said lawyer was explaining why it would be impossible for anybody to ever sue Obama for (allegedly) not being born in the US. That person would have to prove that President Obama's election harmed him more than it harmed everybody else.

That's not my understanding at all.

[spjunkies]

Wrong thread :doh:

[Jumbo]

Wrong thread :doh:

May be getting more and more that way.

I tried to kill it, surreptitiously. :laugh:

[Larry]

No.

To be frank, though, I see no reason to continue repeating myself. This issue is not important, and frankly I couldn't care less if the slogan was removed tomorrow. What's more, it almost certainly won't be.

OK, moving past the "standing" debate (because it's OT, anyway), and the "what does 'establishment' mean" debate (because I think we can both agree that "promote" is the standard to be used), I think we can reduce these 4,000 word, 18 quote from 14 different posts, debates down to something a lot more reasonable.

Let me make it as plain as possible, and I'll avoid the "establishment" language altogether to prevent confusion.

1. The government may not promote religion, or hinder it.

2. A slogan on a coin does not promote religion.

3. Whether or not it was meant to promote religion is irrelevant.

And I think that the crux of the debate is your point #2, above.

Now, I think we both agree that the person who proposed that slogan thought that it promoted his religion. (Because he said so.)

I think we can both agree that the Director of the Mint thought that it promoted his religion, when he asked Congress to change the law to mandate it.

I think we can both agree that Congress thought it promoted their religion when they voted to change the law.

I think we can both agree that when Congress again modified the law to require it on paper currency, that Congress believed it supported Christianity. (Because they said that the reason they were doing it was to defeat the Commies by promoting Christianity.)

And yet you announce that every one of them is wrong. And that what they thought is irrelevant. (Could you tell me, whose opinion on this question is relevant, other than yours?)

Could you explain exactly what criteria, what test, what standard it is that you're using to determine whether a government action does or does not promote a religion, which this particular law fails to meet?

(What I'm imagining is something along the lines of "In order for a law to promote religion, the law must __________, and this law does not." I'm not trying to demand that your response must fit in the formula I'm specifying. I'm simply trying to clarify what I'm asking.)

(I'm aware that we're in the land of opinions, here. It isn't always possible for people to come up with clear-cut standards to justify their opinions. Sometimes "I know it when I see it" is the best standard that can be used. I'm simply hoping that it's possible to take this discussion beyond simple declarations of opinions.)

[techboy]

And yet you announce that every one of them is wrong.

Yes.

And that what they thought is irrelevant.

Yes again. I'll admit I'm actually very close to the line on the coin thing, but even if I change my mind on it and decide that I think it's unconstitutional, I'm certain about this.

It makes no sense to me that two identical bills, with identical wording, and identical effects, might have a situation where one is constitutional and the other is not, simply because of who passed it.

If we were talking about logic (but we're not, we're talking about Congress ), I'd suggest that this is a classic case of the genetic fallacy.

Are you comfortable with that situation?

(Could you tell me, whose opinion on this question is relevant, other than yours?)

You're talking about their opinion before the fact, as to the purpose, and in that sense, nobody's opinion (even mine ) is relevant, as far as I'm concerned.

Could you explain exactly what criteria, what test, what standard it is that you're using to determine whether a government action does or does not promote a religion, which this particular law fails to meet?

No, not really.

I'm using the Court and time tested method of "I know it when I see it" (which I see now you included later in your post).

Honestly, I think it would be false precision to make up some kind of rule and try to apply it. This isn't mathematics.

[SoCalSkins]

See here is a good example of the strength behind this movement. I can't support anything that could risk spreading this shallow pathetic belief system.

You prefer supporting the spread of even shallower belief systems that require suppression of all rational thought and complete intellectual dishonesty with one's self in order to alleviate the selfish fear that this life may be it and nothing more.