I've got an ACLU bumper sticker and I invite you to drive around Eugene Oregon and see if you can kick my ass, little man.

Cheers

I just don't get that country some days. I mean... how can you try to abolish all of the things that the country was founded upon in the first place?

The issue is that the cross is Christian, and the state that is prevented from establishing any religion by its constitution. The rest, well, who cares? If you want to change that constitution then you have to go through an amendment process, as detailed in that constitution. These processes require large majorities, among other things. Since there isn't a large majority that would support such an amendment, there isn't an amendment. It's not like it wouldn't be politically popular to put forth such an amendment, but since the majority isn't with you on this it's instead political suicide. Rant all you like about the ACLU, but if the laws weren't on the books the way they currently are then the ACLU wouldn't have been able to do what they've done. If you want to change those laws, go ahead and try to do so through the democratic process.

If you want to argue the legality of this action wrt the California constituition, put forth that argument.

But hey, if you want to step outside. . . just kidding. That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

California is a battleground because for decades they have quietly stacked their courts with every activist judge they could find. Courts in California are for legislation, not justice. This is also the state that can't seem to go a decade without electing some popular actor to poltical office. I think they are simple, easily-swayed folks.

The ACLU stands up for the rights of every group which is having their liberties stepped on.  There's a great case where the ACLU filed suit on behalf of the KKK in order that they may have a peaceful parade.

Cheesr

Reply By: jeblackstarPosted: Thursday, June 10, 2004I've got an ACLU bumper sticker and I invite you to drive around Eugene Oregon and see if you can kick my ass, little man

It was a form of emotional speech you dolt, not literal. But if you like...

I wonder why people aren't fighting all the other religious symbols out there, like the stuff on our money, except for the "In God We Trust" thing. I guess if it isn't Christian, it's all right.

Saiyan Robot - They are. And give me a good reason why the federal government isn't violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by putting "In God We Trust" on dollar bills.

That's good. I wonder what they'll replace the pyramid and the Latin and the "In God We Trust" though. I accept that it's violating the 1st amendment, just like all the other religious symbols, and quite possibly the names and symbols of planets.

The Latin says "Novus Ordos Seclorum" Which means a New Order for the Ages.  It's not relgious at all.

Cheers

Reply By: Daniel TurnerPosted: Thursday, June 10, 2004Saiyan Robot - They are. And give me a good reason why the federal government isn't violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by putting "In God We Trust" on dollar bills.

Dan,

The Constitution doesn't say Freedom FROM religion, it says "Freedom OF religion". The Government can print a symbol of a religion without endorsing it. The issue in the Constitution on religion is to prevent the government forcing one religion on the people. I don't think they are forcing Christian religion on me becuase I use money that has "God" on it.

The Constitution says government will not establish a religion. They are not establishing anything by paying respect to one because of history. Christian beliefs are part of the American history and thats just a fact of our past. By placing "In God we trust" on money the government is not saying you have to be a Christian. If they put a photo of a person on the money are they saying that person was great? Jefferson was a slave owner, why have the black population not asked and forced his picture to be removed? Becuase its part of our past. What is the definition of "establishing"

es·tab·lish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh)
tr.v. es·tab·lished, es·tab·lish·ing, es·tab·lish·es

To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.

To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
To make firm or secure.
To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
To make a state institution of (a church).

I don't think putting a cross on a symbol, or the word "God" on our money does any of the above things. Thats the Websters dictionary definition of Establish.

If they do this, where does it stop? Take the word "God" out of all official speeches, memorials, and any images of any religion. Any museum funded by the government would have to remove any religious references. Where do we draw the line?? We have to stop stripping our society of references to religions that helped form our country. Like it or not these symbols and words are a part of our past and should be remembered and honored. Just as we honor those killed in the holocaust. Should we do away with that national memorial because it has jewish religious symbols and references all over it? Where does it stop??? If you don't like the symbol, don't look at it. If you don't want to say the word "God" in the pledge, don't. But don't make the rest of us change what has been and should be our great traditions and honors of the past just because you want to force your will on someone. By choosing not to say God we say thats OK we don't want to force our will on you, but it goes both ways. If you don't want to say the pledge thats OK don't. But don't take away my kids right to say it in class. If you don't want to pray before a football game, then don't thats OK, but don't tell us we can't excecise that freedom. We let you choose not to do these things, but let us choose to do them if we so choose.

ShadowWar - Fantastic answer! But you're wrong Here's why:

The Government can print a symbol of a religion without endorsing it. The issue in the Constitution on religion is to prevent the government forcing one religion on the people. I don't think they are forcing Christian religion on me becuase I use money that has "God" on it.

The Government, in this case, is not forcing religion on you, but they are endorsing religion, because when you have the government (not politicians, who have their first amendment right to invoke God all they want) using its power to promote God, you automatically have an endorsement of religion. Can't have God wihout religion.

If they put a photo of a person on the money are they saying that person was great? Jefferson was a slave owner, why have the black population not asked and forced his picture to be removed? Becuase its part of our past.

The In God We Trust thing was actually added to our money about a century ago, so this isn't something that we've done since the founding. The Government is not stopped by the constitution from saying a person was great, so this point is irrelevant to the debate. But to answer your question about why no one has asked for the removal of Jefferson's picture from money, it's because they don't have grounds to do so, since the Government isn't restricted from endorsing slavery (so long as they don't actually allow it). I think that the "part of our past" argument is useful, but incorrect. I doubt most religious people would allow that the only significance of the word God is historical.

To bring about; generate. To place or settle in a secure position or condition. To make firm or secure. To introduce and put into force. To make a state institution of.

I think that the State using its power to put "God" on stuff falls into most of those categories. Though of course the definition of Establish is not given by the dictionary, but by supreme court precendent.

Um, as for the rest of your post, as I've already said politicians have their first amendment right of free speech, and so can't be stopped from saying it in speeches. As for the museum thing, there's historical or artistic significance to what they house, and this is made pretty clear in that they are museums. You can't say the same for money because it has none of these things. So the line is pretty clear. I don't want the government at any level using its power to promote God. From there, I think you've misunderstood some things. No one is forced to not be religious in any of those contexts. The prayer before football games issue is about schools using their government power to have that prayer be sanctioned, as in given special time for just prayer. You can still pray any time you want, but the government can't endorse it. As for the pledge, why can't you just add your God bit to it and let the rest of us have an America that the support of which does not require religious affiliation? Your kid still has every right to talk about God any time he or she wants, but the government can't endorse it. So we can have it all - you say what you want and I say what I want, and the government stays the heck out of it.

The Latin says "Novus Ordos Seclorum" Which means a New Order for the Ages.  It's not relgious at all.

That one isn't, but the All-Seeing Eye seems to be, and the quote above it seems to be as well: "Annuit Coeptis" meaning "He (God) has favored our undertakings."

Why don't people who complain about "In God We Trust." say nothing about these two blatant symbols of religion? I think it's because they aren't intelligent enough to Google the meaning of it.