So now that the other thread is filled with the argument of why it should not be on money, I would like to hear someone justify why it should be.
For the sake of discussion, lets say that it is not on money and you have to prove why it should be there.
I'd add that any reason must be a secular reason. According to the supreme court, laws must have a secular purpose. Laws/government actions with religious purposes violate the 1st amendment establishment clause.
In striking down Judge Moore's appeal, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals commented on the fact that six of the current Supreme Court members agree that the "Lemon Test" (ie: a law must have a secular purpose, not advance or inhibit religion, and not excessively entangle government with religion) is not adequate for deciding Establishment Clause issues, but since it has not been formally addressed, it could still be applied. That is why Judge Moore is likely to appeal.
__________________ Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven.
In striking down Judge Moore's appeal, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals commented on the fact that six of the current Supreme Court members agree that the "Lemon Test" (ie: a law must have a secular purpose, not advance or inhibit religion, and not excessively entangle government with religion) is not adequate for deciding Establishment Clause issues, but since it has not been formally addressed, it could still be applied. That is why Judge Moore is likely to appeal.
Last I knew, the 11th Circuit does not overrule the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court wrote that test.
Last I knew, the 11th Circuit does not overrule the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court wrote that test.
No kidding. Did you even read what I wrote? Sheesh.
__________________ Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven.
As I understand, courts would like to jettison the Lemon Test in favor of a more holistic, totality-of-circumstances analysis; so, while their analyses won't explicitly be under the aegis of the Lemon Test, the presence of a secular purpose will still be very important.
That said, SCOTUS's reasoning on this issue seems OK to me: the phrase 'In God We Trust' really has lost any religious resonance. It's just an empty cipher that tells us that that which is adorned with the phrase is somehow Important (sacred in a secular sense).
Plus, if it were taken off, what would all those gold standard freaks joke about? ("you don't think we'd ask god to protect our money supply if it were backed up by something?" and so on).
Please, won't someone think of the childr...err, goldbugs?
Last edited by burrow_owl; 4th September 2003 at 03:48 PM.
the phrase 'In God We Trust' really has lost any religious resonance. It's just an empty cipher that tells us that that which is adorned with the phrase is somehow Important (sacred in a secular sense).
This is the argument that it is ceremonial deism. But of course the fact that some people want it to stay so badly and that some want it gone so badly, demonstrates that it is not seen as ceremonial deism.
The same argument will likely be used with "Under God" in the pedge. They will say that it's OK because it's just ceremonial deism. But the fact that the country was up in arms over the 9th ruling only serves to prove that it is not just ceremonial deism.
Last edited by crazyfingers; 4th September 2003 at 03:57 PM.
Location: Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Posts: 8,653
Blessings: 34,083
Reps: 32,903 (power: 48)
I don't think it matters one way or another whether In God We Trust stays on money. If you turn the bill over you will see a pyramid with an all seeing eye on the top. This is a New Age sybol. The God America trusts is the dollar, and not who many think it is.
Linear Mode
