Since gay marriage, i dont see seperation of church and state

a reply to: Xtrozero


so....what do you fear having it removed from our money?....can't we all rally around the phrase "E. pluribus Unum" which means "out of many, one"....this would seem to aptly define the richness and diversity of all Americans, as well as a "symbol" for America

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The last decision was 8-0 with only Scalia not participating in the decision.

I don't know anything about the SC ruling on this, as I haven't followed it... Would you mind linking to the decision?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Totally different scenario, they already ruled on this three times and covered various challenges to the motto among them the Pledge of Allegiance and it use on currency.

The Court does not accept suits that it has already ruled on unless it feels there is a viable legal challenge to previously established precedent, hence the reason one of the cases was dismissed outright.

The legal precedence is over-whelming clear and by large majorities, the motto is non-denominational and not religious so it therefore does not violate the establishment clause.

On a personal level I would not have an issue if it was not there as it is a rather recent addition to the Pledge and paper currency and I am fine with E Pluribus Unum. But it is here to stay minus an act of Congress.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jimmyx

"in god we trust" establishes a godly religious belief...

The maybe you should hire an attorney and take your sentiments to the Supreme Court who will most likely dismiss the case outright like the last person who challenged the motto.

well then...I guess you will have to accept their ruling on gay marriage, just as I have to accept their ruling on leaving "in god we trust" on our money.....nice to see we agree

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
Government needs to be for ALL citizens, not exclusive for God believers. Atheists do not recognize or want a 'Ceremonial' God or any God on a legal government document.

Even 'Ceremonial Deism' creates separation.

Frankly they need to get used to it since, as I said earlier, unless you have some novel strategy that the last few challengers tried the legal precedent is it does not violate the Establishment Clause. The last decision was 8-0 with only Scalia not participating in the decision.

No, they don't. And they're not.

They are already re-organizing and will continue to do so until God is removed from all legal government documents, of which currency is.

America is a secular government. God on our money is a clear violation of Separation of Church and State.

It's simply wrong. And don't bother giving me the argument of the universal God or ceremonial God.

originally posted by: jimmyx

well then...I guess you will have to accept their ruling on gay marriage, just as I have to accept their ruling on leaving "in god we trust" on our money.....nice to see we agree

I have no problem with gay marriage, I am glad they were able to get their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

originally posted by: Annee
They are already re-organizing and will continue to do so until God is removed from all legal government documents, of which currency is.

America is a secular government. God on our money is a clear violation of Separation of Church and State.

Then maybe you can share the strategy they will employ that demonstrates multiple instances of legal precedent at the Supreme Court level is wrong.

It's simply wrong. And don't bother giving me the argument of the universal God or ceremonial God.

I do not have to give you any argument, the Supreme Court did it for you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

That's about "under God" in the Pledge. Kids have a choice whether or not to say the pledge. Is there a Supreme Court case about "In God We Trust" on currency?

I admit to ignorance on the subject, but I can't find one...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Which cited O'Hare vs. Blumenthal case precedent.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Another of interest is Aronow vs. United States

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Which cited O'Hare vs. Blumenthal case precedent.

Sorry, this is leading me on a wild goose chase. There doesn't seem to be a Supreme Court decision on "In God We Trust" on our currency. If you can show me that case, please do. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that it's never actually gone to the SC.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

That's about "under God" in the Pledge. Kids have a choice whether or not to say the pledge. Is there a Supreme Court case about "In God We Trust" on currency?

I admit to ignorance on the subject, but I can't find one...

Why would we be interested in old/past cases of God on our money?

We already know the Christian influence on our government. And current attempts of Christians using their power to stop Equality.

The fight for Separation of Church and State continues every day.

As I said, those fighting to have God removed from our currency have already regrouped and are moving forward. Not backward.

originally posted by: Annee
Why would we be interested in old/past cases of God on our money?

My only interest is that AugustusMasonicus claimed that the Supreme Court had already ruled on it. I cannot find that they have, so my interest is fading fast. LOL!

I agree with everything you've said. It WILL happen. It should happen. It's just a matter of time, just as marriage equality was.

originally posted by: Jordan River
Since the supreme court decsion. I honestly do not see seperation of church and state. This is...or was one of the special distinction with our government.

It hasn't been that way for a long time. It's one of those things that's still being worked on and will continue to improve as more and more Americans abandon religious delusion in favor of science.

Information and the means to access it have never been more free, and with education and enlightenment a society gradually leaves voodoo and superstition behind.

originally posted by: Jordan River
That being said lgbt group are now a special class of citizens. How are we sappose to distinctly tell if someone is or isnt gay.

LGBT people are not a "special class" of citizen, we are afforded no more rights than anyone else. We are now being afforded THE SAME RIGHTS in many respects.

And you don't need to know if someone is LGBT.

originally posted by: Jordan River
If the church shuns these people its a hate crime.

No it's not.
If a BUSINESS refuses to serve someone based on their religious beliefs, their race, their sexuality, then that is a criminal offense and considered to be discrimination.

NO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION is being FORCED to do anything, and no matter how many times the right wing want to claim they are, it will not miraculously make it true.

originally posted by: Jordan River
Im pretty liberal, and i find this new direction destructive, not because people are gay, but because government, citizens and america are still racist/bigot

No, you're really not pretty liberal.

originally posted by: Jordan River
Lets keep pissing off the ignorant people out there.

Yes, lets

I am seriously amazed at the lack of knowledge on this subject by some here on ATS. All the Supreme Court said, was that states did not have the right to deny the marriage of same sex individuals. It did not say they were a protected class, though some states have made the LGBT community a protected class. It did not say that churches would be forced to marry them, though some churches have embraced this principle. This decision by the SC affected my hetero marriage in no way, and affects my life in no way, WTF are you evangelical christians so upset about? Seriously, you guys have your panties in a wad?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
My only interest is that AugustusMasonicus claimed that the Supreme Court had already ruled on it.

There are instances where they refused to hear cases challenging the motto due to previous lower court rulings and the precedent of the cases I linked earlier.

Newdow’s latest lawsuit came five days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a challenge to an inscription of “In God We Trust” on a North Carolina county government building.

In doing so, the justices upheld the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that “In God We Trust” appears on the nation’s coins and is a national motto. Source

The Court notes that language in Supreme Court cases also indicates that the national motto, and its use on coin and currency, does not infringe on First Amendment rights. Source

From 2013 and ruled against in 2014:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and 19 other plaintiffs mounted a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department and other government officials this week, claiming that they are discriminating against nonbelievers by including the phrase "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency.

...

Similar challenges to the appearance of "In God We Trust" on national currency have failed. In 2011, a case also filed by Newdow made it all the way to the Supreme Court, only to be rejected.Source

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Do you seriously not understand that this ruling didn't "add" anything, it ruled that the states were violating the 14th amendment by not allowing same-sex marriages ... Seriously the ignorance of people lately is outstanding

The ignorance sure is astounding.

It is perfectly acceptable to violate the 14th amendment rights of gun owners( they are not a protected class)

But people sing a different tune when it comes to another group such as LGBTS.

I love the epic double standard.

originally posted by: Annee
Why would we be interested in old/past cases of God on our money?

Because the 'old/past cases' are legal precedent and frequently used in the determination on whether to hear new challenges and if heard the impact that said precedent has on the suit.

As I said, those fighting to have God removed from our currency have already regrouped and are moving forward. Not backward.

Yes, and their most recent challenge yielded an unfavorable ruling in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals which cited precedent.

The world would be a much more pleasant place if people had to have some idea what they're talking about before they offer an opinion.