I think it certainly was required and may always be needed for the Courts to maintain and confirm to those concerned that when the state prints the word God on currency by passing law, it has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause which forbids passing law respecting an establishment of religion, as it is not an establishment of religion, not the state endorsing religion, not the Christian religion, not religion in general, nor is it expressing any heritage connected to this nation's religious and non-religious beliefs . I for one am grateful to the Courts for being willing to point this out 'cause otherwise many folks including myself I'm sure, would naturally not interpret "In God We Trust" to be a secular expression as they now say it is. So what was wrong with E Pluribus Unum anyway. Uncontroversial and not even a suggestion of religion to make a case out of. Served well for a couple hundred years without any Court needing to get involved.. An actual example of 1950's politicians meddling - a real assault on hundreds of years of traditional American motto and belief.
Complete horsehit. This is why we have deluded religious nuts all around. There is no critical thought with them. Wouldn't be so bad, but they also vote. The societies with the highest levels of atheism also have the best standards of living and least violent crime.
Electoral college and the tyranny of the majority? And I implied that the religious aspect is precisely why people are getting their panties in a bunch (not the "historical"). As such, there is no excuse for it to be anywhere in government. And yes, people will always want to overturn shit, but not always will have legal standing to do so as is the case here.... Even if petty
I agree with you that the Court has created a big problem, as "In God We Trust" is the antithesis of a secular statement. It is clearly religious. But no one is being forced to do or say anything, to affirm any sort of belief or anything else. This is a political, not a constitutional, issue, the sort that federal courts once wisely made a practice of avoiding. I contrast this lack of coercion with mandated diversity training, which does require one's agreement to a state-sponsored set of beliefs.
I am not a religious person, but believe that if you take away a moral compass from society then you have to replace it with something else. Poor parenting leaves kids with the options of whatever they see in society and the MSM and Hollywood have done a pretty poor job as moral compasses. If atheist's and liberals also succeed in removing '"In God We Trust" from society's frame of mind, it must be replaced with something else and "In Reason We Trust" wouldn't come close, as this forum clearly shows...
Exactly. There are an estimated 25,000 scientologists in the US if I remember correctly. Should we just let the next President chosen by 25,000 people somewhere randomly in the country no matter what the rest of us say? Other than the fact that it was how the country was founded. There's even less excuse for it not to be there.
"Do No Evil" is as good a moral compass as anything. Certainly has more to do with morality than a jealous vengeful God concept designed to frighten children and people who should know better into doing whatever they are being told is right or good. Morality comes before God or religion otherwise you couldn't even know if religion or God was moral or not. Good is good and right for its own sake, so if you can't do good without religion, then you just ain't doing good properly.
Oh look... another leftist can't admit when he's wrong. My shocked face As the saying goes: the essence of liberalism is the spoiled child...