saiyan0321
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,455
- Reaction score
- 121
- Country
- Location
Yeah 'In God we Trust' has been defined by the American Supreme court repeatedly. Some of those famous cases include
'Stephan Aronow vs United states of America'
In this the problem was the printing of 'In God we Trust' on all currency notes and coinage passed by a law by congress. Stephen filed a public litigation as a tax prayer and concerned citizen that it violated the principles of first amendment in the establishment clause which had stated that the congress could not pass any law that was religious in nature or would prohibit the exercise of religion or its practice. The district court highlighted that he had no locus standi as the law had not violated the principles of the first amendment. It was then brought to its first appeal where the court highlighted that it was not empowered to do so since in the case of Massachusetts vs melons the court had adopted the doctrine of standing and pointed out that the courts cannot simply review the unconstitutional act of the congress and the question could only be considered when there is involvement or justification based on direct injury suffered or threatened. They court agreed with the district court since the appellate had not suffered any injury then he had no standing however they did not implement the doctrine of standing and decided to answer the question still. The court highlighted that the national motto has nothing to do with establishment of religion. Its usage is patriotic and of ceremonial in nature and does not give the image of government exercise to establishment of any religion. The court stated that the term 'In God we trust' is simply a term and not a support for any specific religion. Infact the court highlighted the Theodore Roosevelt saw its usage as sacrilegious due to its ceremonial and secular credentials. The court also stated that the courts will not tolerate governmental interference with religion or attempts to bring forth a government established religion.
'Mcgowan vs Maryland' ( which spoke of religion and secularism and its interconnected nature)
Elk Groove unified School district vs NewDow 2004
Lamberd vs Board of commisioners of Davidson county'
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio vs Capital square Review Advisory board'
In the comments of Justice Sandra, the term has lost its religious value and it has now entered Ceremonial deism and its constant repetition has given it a secular meaning and has become an expression of patriotism. Justice sandra pointed that it highlighted the role of religion in national life and it was this that gave it secular flavor that the role of religion, not singular religion but all religions for all those that follow in their lives, the role it plays. In the elk groove case the good justice worded that its usage is in no way an endorsement of religion by the government or state and for those that truly respect history, they would understand the meaning behind the motto.
In newdow vs congress, it was again held that the motto does not violate the separation of state and religion and the national motto is excluded from the first amendment because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact and is of solely secular, patriotic and ceremonial nature.
All these cases have one thing in common that they have repeatedly highlighted separation of state and religion and they have repeatedly highlighted that the motto is not religious. Now the most interesting thing in my eyes is their interpretation.
Firstly they interpreted the motto as secular despite having religious undertones. The reason is because unlike the majority of idiots found in our region, the courts in US actually know what secular is and it is not synonym with irreligious but is the state treatment of all religions equally. There exists no superiority and to make sure such exists and balance is maintained, the doctrine of separation of state and religion comes to be. The doctrine is itself is the child of secularism because secularism, in its meaning, simply tries to create equality amongst all religions and to truly be equal, the sovereign power cannot have the power to interfere in religious matter since the sovereign power is also human and is open to bias like take the case of theodore Roosevalt and his dislike for the motto.
Secondly a highlight that while a phrase will lose religious significance if it is used repeatedly as patriotic and if it gains ceremonial nature then the religious meaning will be changed. What i truly like in this is the advancement of thought that the motto is not slave to the maker nor the America of that time but to the meaning and the America of now and indeed that in the future it will no longer be slave to America of now but to the America of future. They explained it through how people see it rather than how they used to see it and that is the evolution of constitutional governance in a country. Do you see, a person born of our region where we try to throw everything back to our founding fathers or to our great leaders without thinking that rather than try to interpret their meanings and highlight their speeches, we need to spend time figuring out what we want from the country and what we need to see out country as so that we can live just lives without oppression. Did you notice the clarity of thought in their interpretation. The jurisprudence of our region pales in comparison.
Anyhow this was meant to be a great highlight how US state is not religious and the usage of this motto does not mean that US is religious and frankly in a perfect world, you guys should have tried to emulate the secularism they had.
