Ruling: No Separation of Church and State?

It's interesting that the judge seems to have adopted the Teddy Ruxpin defense of the Ten Commandments. As Dahlia Lithwick put it four years ago in yet another court battle concerning government displays of religious iconography: The problem, of course, is that O'Connor's continual attempts to devise good law out of bad cases, creating generalized tests that only make sense in the light of the single, specific case that was presented, has resulted in precisely that: Tests that make no sense in any other context. And the fundamentalists know that. They heard that if they stick a Teddy Ruxpin next to Jesus, they can claim that it's a "holiday" display and thus push their religious message while lying about its true purpose.Alas, I've never understood a person's need to have his government tell him how to show reverence to his god. But, such people seem to exist. They seemingly cannot celebrate their religion without having the government tell them that they're #1 and the bestest, most wonderfulest religion out there. And they're willing to put up with Frosty the Snowman in order to have their government tell them that.This message has been edited by Rrhain, 12-24-2005 09:23 PM

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

I don't see any reference to the 10 commandments in the DOI at all ... clearly this is stretching well beyond the truth to make a point that does not in fact stand to honest scrutiny.

---

Not only that, they are quote mining the DoI. Here's the entire phrasing: Now, why would they completely ignore the second sentence there? You know, the one that talks about how "governments are instituted among men" and how those powers come not from god but from "the consent of the governed" and how it is the "right of the people" to control the government and not god's right.Combine this with the fact that the Constitution starts off with the three words, "We, the people," rather than "By god's grace," you wind up noticing that while the framers of the US government were certainly religious, they were not establishing a religious government but rather a distinctly secular one.This is not surprising given the societal climate: They were Neo-Classicists, a great number of them Deists, and the paradigm of the clockwork universe reigned. There's a reason that the DoI reads like a geometry proof.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nuggin writes:

quote:

---

And, while the true power of the US Government SHOULD reside in the Congress, it has steadily been pulled toward the Executive branch.

---

Incorrect. The true power of the US government, as was intended from the very beginning, lies among all three branches. Each are co-equal to the other. That's the entire point behind checks and balances: No one branch has "true power."Though, if one wants to trace it all the way back, the "true power" is in the people, themselves. All three branches are bound by the Constitution and only the people have the power to change it.[Question to Admins: Why is it I could not use the word "lies" in the above sentence? It came out as asterisks. I had to spell it out in ASCII code. There are certain words we aren't allowed to use? We cannot use the common English word that describes a position in (meta)physical space? We are not allowed to say, "He's lying down"?]

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

holmes writes:

quote:

---

First of all the "national motto" is E Pluribus Unum.

---

Not anymore it isn't. It hasn't been "E Pluribus Unum" for decades. It was changed to "In God We Trust" around the same time as "under god" was put into the Pledge. Its origin as a motto (though not the national motto) was from the time of the Civil War and was done by Christians for Christians as the historical information on the US Mint's web site claims. In a letter by Rev. M. R. Watkinson to Secretary Chase: Am I not the only one seeing the similarities between this sentiment and Falwell's claim that the reason the US was attacked on September 11 is because "god removed his shield of protection"?Interestingly, Theodore Roosevelt didn't approve of the motto on coins: He didn't mind it being put on buildings and monuments and places where the point is to indicate a lofty, emotional sense, but to put it on coins and stamps would cheapen it. Interestingly, this is the exact argument used by the Supreme Court in claiming that the phrase "under god" in the Pledge is not an endorsement of religion: It is so innocuous, so without meaning, so cheap, as it were, that it doesn't actually mean, you know, "god."Eisenhower signed into law the change from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" on Jul 30, 1956.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nuggin responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The true power of the US government, as was intended from the very beginning, lies among all three branches.

---

​

That's not entirely true. There are checks and balances, but look at them.

​

The Executive can veto the Congress, but the Congress can over turn the Veto.

---

Yes, which the Supreme Court can then overturn. Which the Congress can then adapt to and the people can rewrite the Constitution to change. Let's not forget that the Executive is the one who nominates judges to the Court which then requires approval from the Senate. It isn't as if the Congress gets to have its way all the time.

quote:

---

The Congress can oust the President, the President can not throw out a Congressman.

---

The President can indict and jail a Congressman and prevent him from doing his job. Law enforcement is part of the Executive. This is why the claim from Bush that Congress had access to the same intelligence information as he had is so disingenuous: The Congress can only have the intelligence information that the Executive wants them to have. The CIA and the FBI and the NSA and all the other law enforcement agencies report to the President, not Congress. Congress can subpoena witnesses, but the President can declare executive privilege or declare the material classified and thus out of the reach of Congress.

quote:

---

The Supreme Court can strike down a law of Congress - (BEST PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!) but they can not generate law themselves.

---

Not true. There's a great deal of brou-ha-ha these days about "activist judges" and "judges making law," but that is not the tradition of the court system, certainly not at the time of the Founding Fathers that all of these so-called "originalists" seem to worship so much.You're right that judges don't create law in the same way that legislators do. However, a judge can provide for remedies and their pronouncements have profound effects upon the law. A judge has the power to say, "The law says thus-and-so should happen but that law is unconstitutional. Instead, such-and-such is going to happen." And that judgement remains precedent until such time as Congress gets around to doing something about it.And as check to that, the Judical branch can make pronouncements all it wants, but it has no power to enforce them. Let us not forget, the Supreme Court had ruled that the forcible removal of the Cherokee was illegal to which Andrew Jackson responded, "Mr. Justice Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."

quote:

---

Only Congress can declare war.

---

Yep. But only the President can wage it. Congress can declare war all it wants but we won't actually go to war unless the President orders the troops to engage.

quote:

---

The original lay out clearly puts more power in Congress (where is should reside, since it's a deliberative body).

---

Incorrect. The original lay out clearly puts the power distribution equally among the branches. If you ever get out to Philadelphia, I suggest you go to the Constitution Center.

quote:

---

The founders were sick of power residing in one man (King) and having him wield it unchecked.

---

Indeed. That's why they split it up among three branches. They didn't just replace the Monarch with a Parliament. You have to remember that. The British government at the time was not just the King. There was Parliament, too. The United States is one of the few democracies in the world without a Parliament (and off the top of my head, I can't think of another.) It's quite telling that of all the talk we've had about "spreading democracy" to other nations, not once have we ever established an American form of government. It's always been parliamentary. We just established a parliament in Iraq.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Funkaloyd writes:

quote:

---

Y'all need a parliamentary system.

---

Oh, hell, no. You think party politics is bad in the US, try it in a Parliamentary system where you don't choose your representative. Your party does. And while Israel has a direct election for prime minister, most parliamentary systems don't. In the Westminster system (used by the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.), the prime minister is appointed by the head of state (in the Commonwealth countries, that would be Queen Elizabeth.)The right is so completely controlled by the religious zealots and the neocons, there would be no hope but to see the US slide the last few centimeters into fascism.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

arachnophilia writes:

quote:

---

no, please don't impeach bush. you know who'd be left in charge of the country?

---

There is no reason not to impeach Cheney in the process. He is up to his ears in the same problems that Bush has. It is well known that he is intimately involved in the policy decisions that have led to the Iraq war.The problem with impeachment of Bush isn't who would be left behind but that people are too afraid to go through with it to completely clean house. Impeach Bush and Cheney and follow through on the indictments of the cabinet and Congressmembers and you will find that the government has been removed from Republican control.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I was aware of the institution of IGWT, as well as the letter you quoted (and the significance of what that means). However, from what I understand E Pluribus Unum is still our motto, and the longest standing one. IGWT was placed as a motto, but not in a way that it wholly replaced EPU. Technically we have two.

​

I'm open to evidence against this.

---

What part of is so hard to comprehend? Do you need me to give you the official document? You couldn't look it up for yourself? Do I have to do all your homework for you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What part of... is so hard to comprehend?

---

​

The part where I am supposed to take your assertion as gospel.

---

So I'm supposed to do all your homework for you? You are incapable of actually looking something up on your own? When given the date and administration in which it happened, it is impossible for you to take the initiative to satisfy your own curiosity?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do I have to do all your homework for you?

---

​

What, you have no self control? Who says you have to do anything?

---

(*sigh*)It goes to the issue of integrity, holmes. You asked a question. You were given the answer along with sufficient information for you to look up the references for yourself. Rather than actually doing that, you whined that you hadn't been given the specific document. Rather than looking up the information for yourself, you insisted that your preconceived notion, which you admit was based only upon personal assertion, had to be correct.

quote:

---

you did was REassert your position

---

Huh? You mean Eisenhower didn't sign the legislation making "In God We Trust" the national motto on July 30, 1956. You have evidence for this? Oh...my apologies. That would require you looking something up.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You couldn't look it up for yourself?

---

​

Uh... I did actually.

---

Obviously, you didn't. Or you would have found what Theodoric quoted to you: If you had looked it up for yourself simply by typing "national motto of the United States" into your favorite search engine, you would have found US Code Title 36 Chapter 10 Section 186. That's what that "70 Stat. 732. 36 U.S. Code 186" means. It's a reference to the US Code. You could have looked it up. Did you?Obviously not or you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself.Of course, that was the code at the time. If you had done any searching through current US Code, you would have found the language in US Code Title 36 Subtitle I Part A Chapter 3 Section 302: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."Here's a hint: Try the Cornell Law School for a searchable database of the US Code. No, I'm not going to give you the link. Do your own homework.

quote:

---

Given that we already had one, and there is no mention of it, this resolution could be taken different ways

---

We're back in holmes-speak land. A direct statement that "'In God We Trust' is the national motto" doesn't actually mean that the motto is "In God We Trust."

quote:

---

Another poster posted a link from the boyscouts of america regarding the history of the motto, which supported my position.

---

But I thought you said you looked up the information for yourself. Which is it? Are you relying on your own investigation into the US Code or are you relying on Theodoric.That said, Theodoric's comments do not support your position. You understand the difference between the definite and the indefinite article, yes? Or is this another instance of holmes-speak where words don't actually mean what they appear to mean but instead mean the exact opposite and thus "THE national motto" doesn't actually mean a declaration of what the motto actually is. It's only an indication of what the motto might be."E Pluribus Unum" is printed on the money, yes. That doesn't make it the national motto. You do understand the difference between phrases that are placed upon money and the national motto, yes? On January 18, 1837, Congress passed an Act that standardized the mottoes and devices to be placed on currency. At that time, "E Pluribus Unum" was dropped from silver coins (it had been dropped from most gold coins in 1834 with the change in fineness of the gold used.) About 35 years later, on February 12, 1873, another Act of Congress put it back. However, it seems Mint officials didn't take the Act too seriously and not all coins produced after 1873 have the motto. Go look it up if you don't believe me. It should be fairly obvious where you might try. I'm not doing your homework for you.But you will note, however, that this is just about what to put on a coin. It is not a declaration of what THE national motto is. After all, there are three mottoes on the coins: "E Pluribus Unum," "In God We Trust," and "Liberty" along with "The United States of America" to identify the coin as US Currency, the date of mintage, the value of the coin, and perhaps the minter's mark (the details can be found in the US Code which you can easily look up on your own.) The fact that text appears on a coin doesn't make it the motto of the US.And you will find that nowhere in the US Code is "E Pluribus Unum" mentioned as THE national motto. Instead, the US Code directly states that THE national motto is "In God We Trust."

quote:

---

So the strongest position appears to come from the Department of State, and not the legislature.

---

Incorrect. Declaration of THE national motto is reserved to Congress. US Code is written by Congress and THE national motto is mentioned in US Code. "E Pluribus Unum" is mentioned exactly once in the US Code, solely as text to be placed upon the coins. In the section declaring THE national motto, we don't find any mention of "E Pluribus Unum."Now, you did claim that you looked this information up, yes? So you read the US Code with respect to the national motto, yes? You actually searched for any reference to "E Pluribus Unum" in the US Code, yes? You searched for any reference to "In God We Trust" in the US Code, yes? You searched for any reference to "national motto" in the US Code, yes?Obviously not or you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself by insisting that "E Pluribus Unum" is somehow a secondary national motto.There's only one.I've done enough of your homework for you. Instead of merely claiming that you looked it up when you so clearly didn't, why don't you actually do it for a change.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I looked this subject up before, as well as after your post. I apparently found the same material you did, and more.

---

Obviously not or you wouldn't have said that "E Pluribus Unum" was a national motto. You would have gone to the US Code and found out that there is only one national motto defined. If you had, you wouldn't have said the following: "Parallel motto"? Where on earth do you find anywhere in the US Code, the only authority as to what THE national motto is, that states "E Pluribus Unum" is a national motto of equivalent stature and rank as "In God We Trust"? Where do you find this information, holmes? You claim that it has been "discussed elsewhere," so where else in the US Code is "E Pluribus Unum" discussed?"Taken different ways"? What on earth do you think "[I][B]THE[/i][/b] national motto" means? That there's more than one?

quote:

---

I said I was willing to look at more info on the subject.

---

Obviously not or you would have put "national motto of the United States" into a search engine, found your way to the US Code, discovered that THE national motto of the US is "In God We Trust," that "E Pluribus Unum" is just a phrase we stick on the money, and you would have come back here and said, "I'm sorry, Rrhain. You were right. 'E Pluribus Unum' isn't the national motto and hasn't been since, as you said, Eisenhower signed the legislation for it back in 1956."Now, we all know that is never going to happen because you have some tremendous hangups when it comes to me. Get over yourself and grow up.

quote:

---

That was an honest point of disagreement and an honest request.

---

And you were given an honest answer. Instead of accepting that answer, you decided to throw a hissy fit and look at where we are. Grow up, holmes.

quote:

---

Instead you simply reassert your statement

---

You mean Eisenhower didn't sign the Act which declared THE national motto to be "In God We Trust" on July 30, 1956? You have evidence for this? It was some other president? Some other date? It never happened at all? I'm not going to do your homework for you, holmes. You've got the information you need to look it up. It isn't like I happen to have a copy of the piece of paper he signed to show you. You have to go look it up for yourself.

quote:

---

and try to insult me.

---

Incorrect. I cannot make you look like a fool. Only you can do that. Grow up.

quote:

---

Your assertions are not adequate as there is more info out there.

---

Incorrect. There is only one piece of information necessary: The US Code. That's what I was referring to when I said, "Eisenhower signed into law the change from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" on Jul 30, 1956." Now, I realize in holmes-speak, words don't actually mean what they appear to mean, but for the rest of us, the word "law" refers to the acts of Congress that are signed by the President and become binding legislation.All you had to do, then, was go look up the US Code and find that it does, indeed, say that THE national motto is "In God We Trust" and does not mention "E Pluribus Unum" as a national motto. But you didn't do that. You claimed that there is some "parallel motto" to "In God We Trust." Where? Where in the US Code do we find any reference to any motto other than "In God We Trust" with respect to THE national motto?

quote:

---

I pointed you to another poster's post within this thread as an example of the other type of information out there on this subject.

---

But it doesn't support your claim that "E Pluribus Unum" is a "parallel motto." Instead, it directly states the "In God We Trust" is THE national motto of the United States but that there are other mottoes that are associated with the US. As I have already pointed out, we also put "Liberty" on the coins, but that doesn't mean that "Liberty" is a "parallel motto" to THE national motto of "In God We Trust."The national anthem of the US is "The Star-Spangled Banner," but that hardly means there are no other songs associated with the US. Heck, we took the British national anthem and changed the words: "America (My Country, 'Tis of Thee)" is the same song as "God Save the Queen." But the existence of "God Bless America" and "America, the Beautiful" and "Yankee Doodle" and all the rest of them don't displace "The Star-Spangled Banner" as THE national anthem no matter how often they're played during the Fourth of July.

quote:

---

I chose it because it was easier to go back to, than going somewhere else to get something I had read which says the same thing. The idea that my ref'ing his post is evidence that I did no research before is patently fallacious.

---

Except that you made a clearly fallacious statement: Now, if you had done any research into the subject at all, you couldn't possibly have made this claim with any sincerity since the US Code is crystal clear. [I][B]THE[/i][/b] national motto of the US is "In God We Trust." "E Pluribus Unum" is just a phrase we stick on the money.

quote:

---

Read that quote and look at your quote. Guess what I was looking at?

---

Theodoric's post, not the US Code. If you had been looking at the US Code, you wouldn't have said: If you had been looking at the US Code, you wouldn't have said: Since it is quite obvious that you weren't looking at the US Code, the only response left for you is to say, "Oops. My mistake. You're right, Rrhain. There is only one." But, we all know that will never happen because of your hangups regarding me.Grow up, holmes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That said, Theodoric's comments do not support your position.

---

​

My question now is if you even understand what my position is, because there is no question that his CITATION'S comments (they weren't theodoric's) did support my position.

---

Incorrect. Once again, we're in holmes-speak land where words to mean what they appear to mean.

quote:

---

One of the sentence's you did not deal with was...

​

The House Judiciary Committee recognized that the phrase E Pluribus Unum had also received wide usage in the United States, and the joint resolution did not repeal or prohibit its use as [I][B]A[/I][/b] national motto.

---

[emphasis added]Tell us, holmes, what do you think is meant when someone uses the indefinite article "a" compared to the definite article "the"? If someone says that "In God We Trust" is THE national motto while "E Pluribus Unum" is A national motto, is he really claiming that "E Pluribus Unum" is a "parallel motto" to "In God We Trust"? Are you honestly saying that "a" is symantically equivalent to "the"?

quote:

---

Yes IGWT was made the motto of the US, but EPU was not repealed or prohibited from being used as [i][b]A[/i][/b] national motto.

---

[emphasis added]Once again, we note the use of the indefinite article "a." Clearly, "E Pluribus Unum" is associated with the United States. We stick it on all the money. It is a national motto.It is not, however, THE national motto.So we have yet another entry for the holmes-speak to English dictionary. "A" means "the," "sex organ" doesn't mean "organ you have sex with," "average" doesn't mean "average," and "anus" doesn't mean "anus." Finally we've got a word that has a positive definition rather than negative ones.

quote:

---

Given that it already was THE ONLY official motto at this nation's inception, and the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITEE recognized the resolution did not repeal or prohibit its use as a national motto, that leaves EPU as A motto.

---

Nobody ever said it wasn't, holmes. What you were shown is that it is not THE national motto. Now, we know that in holmes-speak there is no difference between the definite and the indefinite articles but in English, there is a distinction between an item that is a generic example and an item that is singular and distinct from all others, even though they may be similar?[blah, blah, blah, more of the same discredited argument deleted for space...US Code is clear: There is only one national motto and it is "In God We Trust."]

quote:

---

Yes I did look things up and I reported what I found.

---

No, you didn't or you would have gone to the US Code and seen that you were in error in claiming that "E Pluribus Unum" was some sort of "parallel motto."In fact, you reported no original material. Everything you have mentioned regarding information about the history of the US national motto was culled from me or from Theodoric. You have done no work on your own.

quote:

---

So far my position remains unchallenged, and indeed supported. EPU was the original motto of the US.

---

Nobody ever said it wasn't. I realize that holmes-speak doesn't recognize the meanings of words, but "Not anymore it isn't" typically means that a change of state has happened. Thus, "E Pluribus Unum" used to be the national motto but things have changed and it is no longer the national motto. Eisenhower signed the law that made the change in 1956.

quote:

---

Though IGWT was later made the motto, the resolution was decided by Congress to not have repealed the original declaration of EPU as a motto, and that it still could be used.

---

Incorrect. US Code is crystal clear: There is only one national motto. It is "In God We Trust."Where do we find "E Pluribus Unum" in the US Code, holmes? Show me where you can find any title or statute that indicates that "E Pluribus Unum" is anything other than a phrase we stick on the money.

quote:

---

That makes it a functional co-motto.

---

Huh? "Functional co-motto"? Where? Where do we find any mention of "E Pluribus Unum" in the US Code beyond regulations regarding the mintage of currency? Where do we find any mention of the national motto outside of the declaration that it is "In God We Trust"? For someone who is so adamant about insisting that it is a "co-motto," you have yet to provide any substance in the US Code that justifies this claim.

quote:

---

And it most certainly can be considered the longest running and so traditional motto of the US (which was my original point in this thread on that subject).

---

Huh? "Traditional"? What on earth does tradition have to do with anything? We're talking about what the national motto actually is right here and now, what it was for a long time.

quote:

---

Here is a link to Wiki's entry on the US.

---

Now, holmes, remember what happened the last time you tried to use Wikipedia as a reference. It contradicted you.

quote:

---

Look at what it gives for the motto.

---

Hmmm...it says that the motto was "E Pluribus Unum" from 1789 to 1956 and then "In God We Trust" from 1956 to present. What's your point?

quote:

---

Then look up both of them using the links to both mottos. It appears there are many more people that have the seen the same info as I, and theodoric, and the boy scouts, have seen.

---

Hmm...looks like somebody has done some editing since then. The entries say that "E Pluribus Unum" was replaced by "In God We Trust."

quote:

---

Are you ever going to deal with evidence presented to you?

---

(*chuckle*)And as soon as you provide some, I will. Strange how the only people who have been quoting any sources have been me and Theodoric.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

holmes responds to me...well, no. No, he doesn't. As is typical, holmes avoids everything:

quote:

---

You asked what tradition had to do with anything.

---

What follows is a non sequitur. We're talking about the national motto, not the Declaration of Independence. And we haven't even managed to get to the question of whether or not "In God We Trust" is constitutional as a national motto. We're still trying to decide whether or not the US Code explicitly states that THE national motto is "In God We Trust" or if there is something somewhere in it that declares "E Pluribus Unum" is some sort of "parallel motto" to it.I've only been able to find "E Pluribus Unum" mentioned once in the US Code as a phrase to put on the money. I'm still waiting for you to show us where it claims it is a "co-motto" to "In God We Trust."

quote:

---

The third sentence shows I at least vaguely understood when and where it was "replaced".

---

Then why didn't you say as your very first response when I showed you how "E Pluribus Unum" is not the national motto, "You're right, Rrhain. It isn't"? I think we all know why.Grow up.

quote:

---

I might also note that when you initially replied to me my reply stated that IGWT was not instituted in a way that "wholly replaced" EPU.

---

But it was and is. "E Pluribus Unum" was wholly replaced as THE national motto by "In God We Trust." US Code makes it clear. There is no mention of "E Pluribus Unum" anwyhere in it except as a phrase to put on the money. Instead, the US Code explicitly and clearly states that THE national motto of the US is declared to be "In God We Trust." Can you find me anything in the US Code that contradicts that? Can you find me anything in the US Code that declares "E Pluribus Unum" to still be one of many national mottoes? Can you find me anything in the US Code that declares there to be more than one national motto?We're waiting.

quote:

---

Principle or Primary usage, which is what I think you are getting at, does not mean wholly replaced.

---

Nope. I don't mean "principle" or "primary" or any other term that implies that there is a set of mottoes, equally valid but for which there is a pecking order. I mean "sole" or "only" or "singular." You know, all those things that are implied when you use the definite article, [I][B]THE[/i][/b].I realize in holmes-speak, words don't mean what they seem to mean and thus "singular" stands a real good chance of meaning "more than one," but let me try to be clear:There is one and only one national motto. By law, it is declared to be "In God We Trust." It replaced all other national mottoes. There are other mottoes that are used by the government and are associated with the nation such as "E Pluribus Unum" and "Liberty," but none of that makes them THE national motto.

quote:

---

If EPU can legitimately be used as a national motto by the govt

---

See, here we go again with the holmes-speak. Notice how "the" has been replaced with "a" as if those two words mean the same thing. To speakers of English, they don't but apparently in holmes-speak, they do. No wonder we're having such a hard time communicating, holmes: Words don't mean what you think they mean."E Pluribus Unum" cannot be legitimately used as [I][B]THE[/i][/b] national motto. It has been wholly and completely replaced by "In God We Trust" as mandated by federal law in the US Code. Can you cite me the relevant part of the US Code that indicates that "E Pluribus Unum" is anything more than just a phrase we stick on the money?Now, one hopes you are not being disingenuous and claiming that any motto used by the US Government elevates it to "national motto" status. You do understand the difference between a motto used by the nation and THE national motto? Given your reliance on holmes-speak, I don't think you do.Where in the US Code is "E Pluribus Unum" declared to be the national motto?We're waiting, holmes.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You mean Eisenhower didn't sign the Act which declared THE national motto to be "In God We Trust" on July 30, 1956? You have evidence for this?

---

​

1) Whether he did or did not, does not change what form of argument you were using.

---

I do not have the document to show you, holmes. You're going to have to look that up on your own. You were given sufficient information to do so. I am not going to do your homework for you.[whining deleted for spaced...we all know how holmes loves terse replies.]

quote:

---

3) I am aware of what Eisenhower did and I have since given you other sources which explain what it meant for EPU. The authors of the act have ruled that it did not repeal or replace EPU, and that EPU could still be used as a motto.

---

Irrelevant. The US Code is the final authority. As you have been asked over and over and over again, where in the US Code do we find any reference to "E Pluribus Unum" beyond a phrase that gets placed upon the money?Be specific.We're waiting, holmes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

we also put "Liberty" on the coins

---

​

Liberty was not officially made the nation's motto at any time in our history, EPU was at the very beginning. There is a big difference between the two.

---

Not when it comes to what THE national motto is. According to the US Code, "E Pluribus Unum" and "Liberty" share the exact same status: A phrase to placed upon the money. The only time "national motto" is ever mentioned, it is in connection with the phrase, "In God We Trust." We don't find "E Pluribus Unum" anywhere near such a declaration nor do we find "Liberty" associated with the concept of a national motto.The fact that "E Pluribus Unum" used to be the national motto is irrelevant. US Code is clear: THE national motto is "In God We Trust."

quote:

---

quote:

---

"A" means "the," "sex organ" doesn't mean "organ you have sex with," "average" doesn't mean "average," and "anus" doesn't mean "anus."

---

​

I didn't say that or mean that

---

Then why is it that every time I refer to THE national motto, you respond by talking about "a" national motto as if that means anything? Your post after this one has a perfect example: Excuse me? "A" national motto? What on earth is this "a"? We're talking about THE national motto. To use the word "a" would imply that there is more than one but according to the US Code, there is only one.

quote:

---

I proved the sex organ definition was valid

---

Incorrect. Your own source contradicted you: Contrary to your claim, Wikipedia declares the anus to be a sex organ and the article makes a distinction between reproductive organs and organs used for sex.

quote:

---

???, ???. Those last two you simply made up as filler.

---

(*chuckle*)Can't remember your own threads, can you? This was not the first time I mentioned those specific items, holmes. It is becoming quite clear that you don't read the articles to which you respond. No wonder we are having such a hard time communicating. You're responding to hallucinations of what you wish we are saying, not what we actaully are.

quote:

---

Anus doesn't mean anus?

---

According to you. This is what you said: And yet, as we can see from the Wikipedia entry: So one is left wondering what you think the word "anus" means.Oh, and I forgot to add: In holmes-speak, "promiscuity" doesn't mean "number of partners."

quote:

---

Congress made the Act and ruled that it did not repeal the original act.

---

Incorrect. That is not what your source said. Here is the text: We're back to that distinction between "a" and "the" which apparently doesn't exist in holmes-speak. Do you truly not understand the difference between the definite and the indefinite articles, holmes?

quote:

---

What part of "did not repeal the original act" do you not understand.

---

The part where anything you provided showed that. Instead, it showed that "E Pluribus Unum" was demoted to A motto, not THE motto. You do understand the difference between "a" and "the," do you not?

quote:

---

That is compounded when the same body also says it may continue to be used as a national motto.

---

A motto, holmes. Not THE motto. This is why I keep pointing out that in holmes-speak, it appears that "a" and "the" mean the same thing. You keep replacing "the" with "a" and expect us not to notice.

quote:

---

There would be no need for the congress to say something could be continued to be used as a motto, if they did not mean officially.

---

Of course. All mottoes and devices used by the government need to be approved by Congress. They are going to be associated with the United States and therefore need to be approved. That doesn't make all of them equal. There are multiple seals for various governmental offices. That doesn't make them all the same. There is only one Great Seal of the United States as well as seals for the President, Vice President, the House, the Senate, as well as Congress as a body. They are not interchangeable. We don't talk about "a" Presidential Seal. We talk about "the" Presidential Seal...despite the fact that the Presidential Seal has changed (the eagle used to face the arrows until Truman changed it by Executive Order in 1945.) There is only one. There are other seals, but only one is THE Presidential Seal.There are other mottoes, but only one is THE national motto.

quote:

---

Coins can be printed with the phrase whether it is a motto or not, and its not like people can be stopped from saying it if it isn't allowed to be a motto.

---

Oh, Christ, don't turn Bill O'Reilly on me. Just because "E Pluribus Unum" isn't THE national motto doesn't mean anybody is prevented from saying it.

quote:

---

So why would they discuss its usage as A motto, unless they meant as AN OFFICIAL motto?

---

Because there is a difference between being "a" motto and being "the" motto. You do understand the difference between "a" and "the," yes?

quote:

---

Tradition has everything to do with what we're discussing.

---

Incorrect. The question is: What is THE national motto? US Code declares it to be "E Pluribus Unum." There is no indication anywhere in US Code that "E Pluribus Unum" is anything more than a phrase to be put on the money.

quote:

---

That's what was being discussed before you came around.

---

And we could get back to that discussion if you would just show us where US Code declares "E Pluribus Unum" to be a "co-motto" or simply admit that you made a mistake. But since we know you have massive problems with me, we're stuck in this endless loop.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now, holmes, remember what happened the last time you tried to use Wikipedia as a reference. It contradicted you.

---

​

But it didn't. You are now outright fabricating. You really can't handle the truth can you?

---

(*chuckle*)Here's what the article says: Now, I realize that in holmes-speak, words don't actually mean what they seem to mean, but to the rest of the world, "the term sex organ refers to any part of the body involved in erotic pleasure" would be a direct contradiction to your claim. And more specifically, your claim that the anus was not a sex organ would be directly contradicted by the statement, "The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex."Are you claiming that the above text was not part of the Wikipedia article you referenced?

quote:

---

I have to admit something certainly seems to have been changed on the other pages. I find that interesting and given that you have been shown to misrepresent data and plagiarize that raises and interesting question (in my mind) of who might have made the changes.

---

If that's what you need to make yourself happy, holmes, then you go right ahead. But know that I am truly sorry about your penis.The smaller lesson you need to learn is that Wikipedia is not the best reference.

quote:

---

I am still willing to accept more info. INFO.

---

You mean like the US Code to which you were told to go look up? You mean like the US Code where you were asked to find any indication that "E Pluribus Unum" had any mention of other than as a phrase to put on the money? You mean that information?Will publishing the entire US Code here for you to look at be the only way to satisfy you? I even gave you a hint as to where you could go look it up. Did you? Are you ever going to do any homework for yourself?

quote:

---

I totally grant that IGWT is A motto

---

Incorrect. It is not merely "a" motto. It is THE motto.But I keep forgetting...in holmes-speak, "a" and "the" mean the same thing.

quote:

---

But in the context of the what was being discussed, I am still right. They are co-mottos. They can both be used, and described as historic and traditional mottos for the nation.

---

Incorrect. One is THE national motto. The other is not. It used to be, but it isn't anymore.

quote:

---

If they can both be used, they are FUNCTIONAL comottos.

---

Incorrect. Only one can be used as THE national motto. The other is just a phrase that the government has decided to use in some places.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.