Freedom from Religion Foundation makes awkward misstep

[SCFinfan]

One more thing, and I'm asking this completely earnestly, because I just can't understand the other side on this:

How is it fair that your religious belief is accurately portrayed on money and mine is not?

It makes me feel like a 2nd class citizen in my own country.  I do not trust in God.  Trusting in God is a religious statement.  Why is this on money at all?  Would you be OK if my religious beliefs were on money and it said "We don't trust in God?"  I wouldn't want that.  I want it to be inclusive of everyone.

I imagine that lots of people think this is over-reacting, but it really upsets me.  "In God We Trust" wasn't even added to the dollar until the late 50s in a push against Communism.  I cannot believe it has held up this long, as it seems to be a blatant establishment of religion.

The answer to this is that SCOTUS has said that the Constitution allows for what they call "ceremonial deism." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism

The court says these statements are merely ritual and not religious. At first, I thought that this was sleight of hand. I was later convinced that the court is right. The english language is perforated through w/ references to deity at some level or another.

For example: goodbye comes from God be w/ ye or you. Likewise, even atheists say stuff like, "Oh thank God," or "Goddamn" or "Oh God" or "[God] bless you" (after a sneeze). So, to some extent, phrases like "In God we Trust" are meaningless outside of ritual.

That's generally why it's legal.

[Sunstroke]

^^^ By Odin's Beard, that actually makes some sense...

[SCFinfan]

^^^ By Odin's Beard, that actually makes some sense...

http://howthehog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fry-can-t-tell-meme-generator-not-sure-if-sarcasm-or-serious-e14739.jpg

[Sunstroke]

Great is the mystery of sarcasm...

1 Sunstroke 3:16

[Dave Gray]

The answer to this is that SCOTUS has said that the Constitution allows for what they call "ceremonial deism." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism

The court says these statements are merely ritual and not religious. At first, I thought that this was sleight of hand. I was later convinced that the court is right. The english language is perforated through w/ references to deity at some level or another.

For example: goodbye comes from God be w/ ye or you. Likewise, even atheists say stuff like, "Oh thank God," or "Goddamn" or "Oh God" or "[God] bless you" (after a sneeze). So, to some extent, phrases like "In God we Trust" are meaningless outside of ritual.

That's generally why it's legal.

Thanks for you response.  That does help, but doesn't clear it up for me.  I am not unreasonable.  I'm not saying that we should refuse to use Thursday (Thor's day) in govt. docs, for example.  But I think that in God We Trust is pretty clearly a religious statement, especially considering when and why it was added and changed from the actual motto.  "In God We Trust" doesn't now carry some meaning through tradition, other than what it actually says, the literal meaning that we trust in God.

[pondwater]

This is blatantly false.  The "In God We Trust Thing" on money started way past the founding fathers.

Why are we writing anything about God on our money anyway?  It's just not the place for it.  I don't want it to say "There is no God" on the dollar bill, but I do feel like it's a Constitutional violation and a state sponsored establishment of religion.

I'm not out making a stink about it, but I'm glad that stuff like the FFRF is out there.  Sure, they go overboard on some things, but someone has to.

It could be argued that the Federal Reserve is, in effect, the entity charged with control over the currency. The Federal Reserve is a private company. Hence, they can put what they want on their worthless paper.

And as for "if most people agree"...it doesn't matter if everyone agrees, it's in the Constitution.  If everyone agrees and votes that it should say things about God on our money or that we should pray in school or whatever, it still should be dis-allowed.

I really don't care too much about "in god we trust" on our currency. Leave it on or take it off, doesn't affect me either way, I have better shit to worry about. However, I'm glad we agree about the constitution being followed regardless of what the masses think. If you're arguing for the 1st amendment, make sure you're being congruent and be sure to argue just as strongly for the 2nd amendment. Might as well go buy lots of guns and ammo while you're at it, hell yeah!

[SCFinfan]

Thanks for you response.  That does help, but doesn't clear it up for me.  I am not unreasonable.  I'm not saying that we should refuse to use Thursday (Thor's day) in govt. docs, for example.  But I think that in God We Trust is pretty clearly a religious statement, especially considering when and why it was added and changed from the actual motto.  "In God We Trust" doesn't now carry some meaning through tradition, other than what it actually says, the literal meaning that we trust in God.

I don't know. Courts do as they please.

I think it's obvious that the unborn are due their human rights. But the court disagrees.

It's whatever they say - and sometimes what they say is fairly arbitrary.

[Fau Teixeira]

something that isn't alive doesn't have rights
a rock doesn't have rights
hair on the floor of barber shop doesn't have rights
an unsustainable fetus doesn't have rights .. we can talk about rights right when a collection of cells can survive outside the womb

[Phishfan]

It could be argued that the Federal Reserve is, in effect, the entity charged with control over the currency. The Federal Reserve is a private company. Hence, they can put what they want on their worthless paper.

It would not be a very good argument. The Federal reserve has both public and private components so saying it is a private company is not accurate. Also, the Dept. of Treasury actually makes the money and they are entirely within the federal government.

[pondwater]

It would not be a very good argument. The Federal reserve has both public and private components so saying it is a private company is not accurate. Also, the Dept. of Treasury actually makes the money and they are entirely within the federal government.

If you want to split hairs. Actually, you are correct in that it has public and private components. Let me revise my statement and say that the federal reserve is not part of the US government. Federal Reserve Employees are not  US federal employees and are not covered by govt health insurance or pension programs. Federal Reserve Banks are not listed as government organizations by the phone companies. Federal Reserve decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government and it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress.

You are also correct in that the Treasury physically makes the bills. However, almost all of these bills are issued by the Federal Reserve, not the government. You will also notice that they are called FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

[SCFinfan]

something that isn't alive doesn't have rights
a rock doesn't have rights
hair on the floor of barber shop doesn't have rights
an unsustainable fetus doesn't have rights .. we can talk about rights right when a collection of cells can survive outside the womb

Fau - it's just a comparison statement. Chill.

Even so, each of your points is factually incorrect:

something that isn't alive doesn't have rights

Corporations have rights. They are legal fictions, and definitely not alive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Majority_opinion

a rock doesn't have rights

A rock likewise doesn't have DNA, nor does it grow in and of itself into something.

hair on the floor of barber shop doesn't have rights

Neither does it have a totally separate and unique DNA from its bearer.

an unsustainable fetus doesn't have rights .. we can talk about rights right when a collection of cells can survive outside the womb

Why? Why does a fetus which is not viable not have rights? Please explain to me why viability confers human nature on what was previously cells? What you're doing is not arguing, but just stating something, as if it were common-sense. Ridiculous.

Moreover, viability is a moving line. In 1973, when Roe was decided, viability was 24 weeks. Now, the most pre-mature baby ever born was born 21 weeks and 6 days after conception... meaning that babies aborted btw 21 and 24 weeks were being killed - all because of a defition that measures medical technology's capacity at a given time - not the humanity of the fetus...

[bsmooth]

Not to completely derail this thread, but while a few fetuses have survived being born prior to 24 weeks of gestation, the numbers over time do not lie. At 24 weeks the survival rate is just over 50%. That comes from a study done in the last few years in England...a country with modern medical technology.
Beyond that, it is the mother's choice. They have to face the consequences of their decision both here, and in the afterlife, if you believe that they have committed a mortal sin and will be punished.
As for the FFRF, I understand their point. The reason behind most of these public displays of symbols is religious beliefs. It is not ceremonial deism like the SCOTUS says about our currency. Therefore they should be restricted to private land.

[Fau Teixeira]

Why? Why does a fetus which is not viable not have rights? Please explain to me why viability confers human nature on what was previously cells?

Because viability confers rights. A human has human rights. a potential proto-human does not. It's the same reason an egg isn't a chicken until it hatches.

As our technology advances, we've pushed back that hatching point. or viability point if you will. So it is fair to and i agree with the ban on 3rd trimester abortions (within reason). If a baby can survive outside of the womb, then i would argue that that is the line that should be drawn as far as abortions go. Until that point, since it has no innate right to exist, and just the potential to become a person, the decision is 100% the mother's who's body it's a part of.

What you're doing is not arguing, but just stating something, as if it were common-sense. Ridiculous.

I think it's obvious that the unborn are due their human rights.

yep .. ridiculous.

As for the FFRF, I understand their point. The reason behind most of these public displays of symbols is religious beliefs. It is not ceremonial deism like the SCOTUS says about our currency. Therefore they should be restricted to private land.

most is not all, i think it's completely valid to have a star of david present in a public holocaust memorial, it's an integral historical part, you can no more separate the jewish religion from the holocaust than you can separate african ancestry from a historical monument about american slavery

[SCFinfan]

Not to completely derail this thread, but while a few fetuses have survived being born prior to 24 weeks of gestation, the numbers over time do not lie. At 24 weeks the survival rate is just over 50%. That comes from a study done in the last few years in England...a country with modern medical technology.
Beyond that, it is the mother's choice. They have to face the consequences of their decision both here, and in the afterlife, if you believe that they have committed a mortal sin and will be punished.

I appreciate your intelligent contribution, though I disagree w/ it. I don't understand why viability confers humanity on a creature who is otherwise exactly the same, genotypically, at 23 or 24 weeks. I get that you think it does, but, there's just no proof that this does anything to erase or confer humanity on a creature.

You can imagine, perhaps, an elderly woman who could not survive w/o round the clock care - someone to feed her, protect her, provide her w/ oxygen (her lungs are old and weak), etc, etc. Someone who is totally - in a very real sense, reliant upon someone else. Someone who would die of starvation or some other awful thing w/in a very few days just through simple neglect.

Is this person, in my hypothetical, not human? If she is human, then why is a non-viable fetus not human?

To my mind, what the viability argument comes down to is that your humanity could, potentially, be based on how strong you are to survive in your environment. That comes off to me as insane and somewhat eugenic.

As for the FFRF, I understand their point. The reason behind most of these public displays of symbols is religious beliefs. It is not ceremonial deism like the SCOTUS says about our currency. Therefore they should be restricted to private land.

If you read Salazar, etc, they say that structures like crosses, have meanings beyond the simple religious meaning - therefore they are allowed to stand. I think a Star of David would pass muster here. It is, after all, a political symbol.


Even so - does anyone realize how much of an asshole you have to be to file a legal action to get a six-point star removed from a Holocaust Memorial? A HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL?! That is the insanity of these people.

[SCFinfan]

Because viability confers rights. A human has human rights. a potential proto-human does not. It's the same reason an egg isn't a chicken until it hatches.

But you're arguing in a circle. Viability confers humanity you say. I say why? You're answer: a human has rights and a proto-human doesn't. Wha?

You have to explain *WHY* viability causes humanity to be conferred upon an organism. I'll await your reply.

yep .. ridiculous.

Fau - I know you're smarter than this. I wasn't making an argument there, or using a statement of faith as an argument. I was making a comparison point to Dave's question as to why the supreme court ruled that way. They're arbitrary to everyone, conservative or liberal; religious or not. I used a point on which I feel they're being arbitrary. That's all. I know you understand that, right? If you don't, please go back and read. You'll see what I'm saying bears out.