Newdow seeks injuction to prevent P.E. Obama from saying

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1649147' date='Jan 14 2009, 17.22']That's crap reasoning. Ceremonial deism is bunk. It's the SCOTUS wanting to not upset 95% of the population but lacking a real legal justification for it.[/quote]

I want to push back on that just a little bit. I assume that when I refer to today as Thursday, you don't know that to mean that I'm endorsing the Norse god of thunder. Or if I called the largest city in Missouri St. Louis, you wouldn't think that I was endorsing the sainthood of King Louis IX of France. Even the word "inauguration" referred at one point to a religious ceremony, but even those who support some kind of benediction at the ceremony probably wouldn't argue that Barack Obama is literally going to consecrated on January 20. Lots of words and phrases that once were heavily religious aren't any longer.

You and Tracker and others are arguing that Michael Newdow serves a function by raising awareness about "In God We Trust" or what-have-you. But if most people hadn't been thinking about it beforehand, doesn't it follow that, to those same people, "In God We Turst" didn't actually constitute an endorsement of religion, any more than "St. Louis" or "Thursday" did?

[IheartTesla]

Just because some words have ceased to have a religious connotation doesnt mean a sentence such as "In god we trust" has also done the same.

If people havent been thinking about this issue before it is because separation of religion and state isnt as important to them. They know it means an endorsement of religion and just dont care.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1650529' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.38']Just because some words have ceased to have a religious connotation doesnt mean a sentence such as "In god we trust" has also done the same.

If people havent been thinking about this issue before it is because separation of religion and state isnt as important to them. They know it means an endorsement of religion and just dont care.[/quote]

Really? Why would one know that "In God We Trust" is an endorsement of religion when they don't know it about "St. Louis"?

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650469' date='Jan 15 2009, 16.56']You and Tracker and others are arguing that Michael Newdow serves a function by raising awareness about "In God We Trust" or what-have-you. But if most people hadn't been thinking about it beforehand, doesn't it follow that, to those same people, "In God We Turst" didn't actually constitute an endorsement of religion, any more than "St. Louis" or "Thursday" did?[/quote]

Whoa there...I'm not endorsing Newdow's case (feels a bit like tilting at windmills to me); I'm just responding to the statement that what he's doing is somehow bereft of any meaning other than an attempt to censor religious people.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1650537' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.43']Whoa there...I'm not endorsing Newdow's case (feels a bit like tilting at windmills to me); I'm just responding to the statement that what he's doing is somehow bereft of any meaning other than an attempt to censor religious people.[/quote]

Ah! Apologies, then.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650469' date='Jan 15 2009, 16.56']You and Tracker and others are arguing that Michael Newdow serves a function by raising awareness about "In God We Trust" or what-have-you. But if most people hadn't been thinking about it beforehand, doesn't it follow that, to those same people, "In God We Turst" didn't actually constitute an endorsement of religion, any more than "St. Louis" or "Thursday" did?[/quote]
Err...if an employer is paying all his female employees an average of say, 62% of what he pays his male employees (let's say it's for the same work and they have roughly equal seniority, for neatness sake), and he's [i]surprised[/i] when someone makes a stink about it, does that mean he wasn't discriminating?

The fact that a majority is [i]oblivious[/i] to discriminatory treatment of a minority hardly means that it's not there.

[IheartTesla]

"In God we trust" is a sentence. Which even a 3 year old kid can parse. A sequence of 4 words that explicitly mentions we trust in god.

I had no idea St. Louis referred to Louis the XIV and I dare say the majority of Americans share my ignorance at the etymology of the name of the city. At any rate, it is a noun that describes a geographical location. No action is proscribed by invoking its name.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1650548' date='Jan 15 2009, 17.51']I had no idea St. Louis referred to Louis the XIV and I dare say the majority of Americans share my ignorance at the etymology of the name of the city. At any rate, it is a noun that describes a geographical location. No action is proscribed by invoking its name.[/quote]

Louis the IX, actually. But in any case, you don't have to know that it refers to a particular saint to know that it refers to a saint, and hence a religious figure in the Christian tradition. If you don't like this argument w/r/t St. Louis, let's take the simpler case of St. Paul. Or San Francisco. The naming is obviously an endorsement of a religious figure--we don't name towns after people we don't like. There's no Hitler, North Dakota, and if I proposed that we found a Hitler, North Dakota, people would oppose it because the act of naming a city after a person is a tribute that person. And if I'm naming it after a Christian saint, I'm almost certainly doing so because I want to endorse their Christian message. You can't seriously argue otherwise.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1650548' date='Jan 15 2009, 14.51']"In God we trust" is a sentence. Which even a 3 year old kid can parse. A sequence of 4 words that explicitly mentions we trust in god.

I had no idea St. Louis referred to Louis the XIV and I dare say the majority of Americans share my ignorance at the etymology of the name of the city. At any rate, it is a noun that describes a geographical location. No action is proscribed by invoking its name.[/quote]


Wait. You are arguing that a three year old can figure out the words "In god we trust" means "We Trust in God" at the same time you are also arguing that you didn't know the name "Saint Louis" referenced some form of religious figure?

Or are you arguing that it is okay to make vague references religious figures, but referencing particular religious figures wouldn't be okay?

[Lord Mord]

Dumas,

[quote name='Dumas' post='1650454' date='Jan 15 2009, 13.42']What atheism and unbelief in general need at the moment is not symbolic gestures and courtroom grandstanding like Newdow delivers. It needs a PR campaign to convince people that atheists are not automatically amoral hedonistic baby-eaters or pompous self-important fanatics, but by and large ordinary people whose morals are generally very close to what are called 'Judeo-Christian values.'[/quote]


I think any attempt to improve the image of atheists will actually have the opposite effect, to say nothing of, why should we try to make other people feel safer?


I'm tired of the thinking that goes on, that the largest religious demographic, the demographic, incidentally, who holds the principal wealth and power in this country, has to be coddled and coaxed into doing what's right.


"Oooooh ... Nooooo, sweetheart. You didn't ask [i]sweeeeetly[/i] enough!"


Enough with the handjobs, hoping for a kiss in return.

[Guest Other-in-law]

The city of St Louis was already named before it became part of the US. It's in a whole different category than offical mottoes that the Federal government puts on it's coinage or tries to get people to recite as a loyalty oath.

All the backlash talk is a pile of crap anyway. The majority wanted blacks to shut up and stay in their place, and every other group that had to fight for equal treatment. If no one was willing to make people mad we'd never see [i]any[/i] progress.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1650586' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.26']The city of St Louis was already named before it became part of the US. It's in a whole different category than offical mottoes that the Federal government puts on it's coinage or tries to get people to recite as a loyalty oath.[/quote]

We could as easily use the name of St. Paul, Minnesota, if St. Louis is proving too troublesome.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650593' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.28']We could as easily use the name of St. Paul, Minnesota, if St. Louis is proving too troublesome.[/quote]
Did the Federal government name St Paul?

My understanding is that cities are generally named by the people who found them, and are able to pick whatever they wish. If such a name bothered me enough, I could live elsewhere. I don't have such an option of using a legal currency that isn't tainted with religious beliefs that I disagree with.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1650596' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.30']Did the Federal government name St Paul?[/quote]

No, but that's a distinction without a difference. It's used by the federal government as the name of the city. (And since it was founded while Minnesota was part of a US territory, it was under federal and not state jurisdiction when it was named.)

[potsherds]

[quote name='lordcaspen' post='1650584' date='Jan 15 2009, 23.24']Dumas,

I think any attempt to improve the image of atheists will actually have the opposite effect, to say nothing of, why should we try to make other people feel safer?


I'm tired of the thinking that goes on, that the largest religious demographic, the demographic, incidentally, who holds the principal wealth and power in this country, has to be coddled and coaxed into doing what's right.


"Oooooh ... Nooooo, sweetheart. You didn't ask [i]sweeeeetly[/i] enough!"


Enough with the handjobs, hoping for a kiss in return.[/quote]
Gotta agree.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650600' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.31']No, but that's a distinction without a difference. It's used by the federal government as the name of the city.[/quote]
????

The Federal government uses the name the city bears. If the city government renamed it Squareville, I doubt the Federal government would refuse to recognise it. It's not within the Federal government's authority to rename the cities of states (Washington DC, it probably could).

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1650607' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.37']????

The Federal government uses the name the city bears.[/quote]

You're misunderstanding me. The naming of the city initially was a public act undertaken under federal jurisdiction. It's as much an endorsement of whatever as the printing of U.S. money with "In God We Trust" on it.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650608' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.39']You're misunderstanding me. The naming of the city initially was a public act undertaken under federal jurisdiction. It's as much an endorsement of whatever as the printing of U.S. money with "In God We Trust" on it.[/quote]
Was the city founded by federal employees, or private citizens? I think there's a reasonable distinction to be made between the two in deciding what constitutes an endorsement.

[TerraPrime]

Re: JQA

[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650443' date='Jan 15 2009, 15.33']The loss of a job based on one's religious beliefs is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Criminal acts against yourself and your property on the basis of your religious beliefs are legally a hate crime in forty-five states and the District of Columbia, as well as under federal law. To the extent that either of the latter issues are a problem, the solution for the large, large majority of American atheists lies in effective enforcement of the law that's been put in place to protect them already. They don't need new laws.[/quote]

In Newdow's case, he is in fact arguing for the enforcement of existing law. Whether his argument along the First Amendment line carries weight or not remains to be seen, if it ever gets time in front of the SCOTUS. I think it has a fighting chance, based on some of our courts' rulings on prayer before football games in high schools.


[quote name='John Quincy Adams' post='1650469' date='Jan 15 2009, 15.56']You and Tracker and others are arguing that Michael Newdow serves a function by raising awareness about "In God We Trust" or what-have-you. But if most people hadn't been thinking about it beforehand, doesn't it follow that, to those same people, "In God We Turst" didn't actually constitute an endorsement of religion, any more than "St. Louis" or "Thursday" did?[/quote]

One distinction is proximity in culture and time. God, being the name used in Christianity and Judaism, is culturally pervasive and inextricably tied to those religions in the public consciousness. Thor, on the other hand, is a god amongst pantheon of the Nordic religion, that for all intent and purposes, is dead. It is not part of our cultural consciousness or dialogue. We have Christian Coalition, but not a Nordic Religion Group. When religious figures are invited to open sessions at a Congress, we do not see representatives of Norse religions in the forefront.

Another distinction is that many of these battles, such as "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on our printed currency, were actually quite recent. They were added some time in the relatively recent past. I will liken this argument to the one over the Georgia State Flag. In the 60s, as a gesture of defiance against the court-ordered racial integration, the state of Georgia added the Confederate Flag onto their state flag. As we argued over the rights and wrongs of whether the state flag is offensive, we heard the same argument, i.e., that the Confederate flag is a historical artifact that does not mean what it actually does and in fact, it has evolved into meaning-neutral in terms of racism. I didn't find that argument convincing in that case, and I do not find "ceremonial deism" convincing for the same reasons. We know that "so help me God" was added to the Oath of Office unofficially somewhere in the past, after Washington and Adams and Jefferson and others. I view it in the same light as the addition of the Rebel flag to the state flag. Given our cultural climate and the reality of religion in this country, I think that arguing "in God we trust" and "so help me God" are value-neutral in the context of affirming one's faith stretches the boundary of credibility to the breaking point. That line of argument is even harder to justify in the cases of invocations and benedictions, where the entire ceremony was crafted based on religious significance with the explicit function of calling upon the aid of some deity to the functioning of this country. It's like arguing that a mass is just a gathering of like-minded folks who like cheap wafer cookies and mediocre red wine.

In terms of your counter-examples, i.e. St. Louis or San Francisco, I would argue that if a new city were to be named as, say, St. Augustine, that there'd be a justified case to oppose it. Do I think we ought to rename our cities that currently have religious names? Yes, I do. But that's lower on the priority list, at least for me.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1650610' date='Jan 15 2009, 18.43']Was the city founded by federal employees, or private citizens? I think there's a reasonable distinction to be made between the two in deciding what constitutes an endorsement.[/quote]

You're splitting hairs here. The initial name might have come from a private citizen, but the federal government in the form of the territorial government would have to recognize the city as a political unit. If a little girl had come up with the phrase "In God We Trust" after a contest was run during the Howdy Doody Show, and the federal government simply adopted it, I don't think that would change the issue in your mind of being forced to spend tainted money.