Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ruling: No Separation of Church and State?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 61 of 66 (274544)
01-01-2006 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Silent H
12-30-2005 6:01 AM


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:
Given that we already had one, and there is no mention of it, this resolution could be taken different ways, which I already told you I had seen discussed elsewhere as making IGWT a parallel motto with EPU.
"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:
Given that we already had one, and there is no mention of it, this resolution could be taken different ways, which I already told you I had seen discussed elsewhere as making IGWT a parallel motto with EPU.
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:
Given that we already had one, and there is no mention of it, this resolution could be taken different ways, which I already told you I had seen discussed elsewhere as making IGWT a parallel motto with EPU.
If you had been looking at the US Code, you wouldn't have said:
IGWT was placed as a motto, but not in a way that it wholly replaced EPU. Technically we have two.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 12-30-2005 6:01 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2006 6:31 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 63 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2006 7:12 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 66 (274587)
01-01-2006 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain
01-01-2006 1:21 AM


AbE: Just to let you know something I replied to within this point made me wonder if you had not understood what I was discussing. The following post shows where I made my first comment (the one you replied to) and what it was in response to. You might want to start there first. Maybe it will make this post moot...
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. You asserted, I asked for some more information in light of other information that is out there, and then you reasserted. Eisenhower isn't going to help you.
2) Ironically here you ask for evidence. If I ask you for evidence you don't have to give it because its out there, but when I say something I must provide evidence? Is that how it works?
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.
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.
"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 (perhaps you can point to where I said EPU was THE national motto), I proved the sex organ definition was valid (specifically in the context I stated I was using it), ???, ???. Those last two you simply made up as filler. Anus doesn't mean anus?
Eisenhower signed the law that made the change in 1956.
Congress made the Act and ruled that it did not repeal the original act. What part of "did not repeal the original act" do you not understand. If an act exists, and it is not repealed, it is in effect. That is compounded when the same body also says it may continue to be used as a national motto.
Now here's the thing I don't get, with all the semantic differences between "a" and "the" you seem to have missed the obvious. 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. 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. So why would they discuss its usage as A motto, unless they meant as AN OFFICIAL motto?
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.
Tradition has everything to do with what we're discussing. That's what was being discussed before you came around. Which US MOTTO has a LONG TRADITION. There was an idea being put forward that IGWT was, but my point was EPU has a longer history as a national motto.
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?
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?
This is the link I provided, and in the motto section it clearly reads:
E pluribus unum (1789 to present)
(Latin: "Out of Many, One")
In God We Trust (1956 to present)
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.
In any case, this does not change much. It appears there is a contradiction now within wiki. There is a contradiction between it and the boy scout discussion of the motto. This leaves me right about where I was before. I am still willing to accept more info. INFO. You were asserting and the fact that you can read into something Theo cited, or find changes in parts of something I cited, does not change the fact that all you had done was assert.
I totally grant that IGWT is A motto, and it is certainly the one that will be in principle usage . 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.
If they can both be used, they are FUNCTIONAL comottos.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-01-2006 12:41 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2006 1:21 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2006 1:10 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 63 of 66 (274595)
01-01-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain
01-01-2006 1:21 AM


reintroducing the topic
You asked what tradition had to do with anything. This is from post 22, the post your replied to which started the whole ball rolling. First was a quote from the decision (color changed to emphasize important parts for THIS discussion)...
If the reaonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation's cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff... Instead he appreciates the role religion has played in our government institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions.
Immediately followed by my response...
First of all the "national motto" is E Pluribus Unum. At least that was the one that is a cherished TRADITION. The motto In God We Trust came about later and was not fully incorporated until 1956 in a fit of religious overstepping.
Now do you understand what I was addressing and why tradition is the question on the table? While I start with an overstatement, the very next sentence puts it into proper context. The third sentence shows I at least vaguely understood when and where it was "replaced". I was getting at the idea that the court's description of IGWT being some tradition is flawed, especially when addressing the issue at hand (up till that point in the thread) which was separation of church and state.
He was trying to place IGWT as a motto with a history like that of the DoI, which is not true at all. Our longest running traditional motto is EPU, and having been instituted by those that took part in the DoI, arguably has more relevance as a TRADITION.
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. Principle or Primary usage, which is what I think you are getting at, does not mean wholly replaced. If EPU can legitimately be used as a national motto by the govt... and evidence so far supplied indicates the govt still does (and not just on coins)... then it has not been WHOLLY replaced.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2006 1:21 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2006 12:04 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 64 of 66 (274873)
01-02-2006 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Silent H
01-01-2006 7:12 AM


Re: reintroducing the topic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2006 7:12 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 66 (274889)
01-02-2006 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
01-01-2006 6:31 AM


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:
If EPU can legitimately be used as a national motto by the govt
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:
More generally and popularly, the term sex organ refers to any part of the body involved in erotic pleasure. The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex, the prepuce, the breasts (especially the nipples) for females, and the nipples for males.
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:
The anus is not listed in their accurate and detailed description of sex organs.
And yet, as we can see from the Wikipedia entry:
More generally and popularly, the term sex organ refers to any part of the body involved in erotic pleasure. The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex, the prepuce, the breasts (especially the nipples) for females, and the nipples for males.
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:
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 a national motto.
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:
More generally and popularly, the term sex organ refers to any part of the body involved in erotic pleasure. The larger list would certainly include the anus for either sex, the prepuce, the breasts (especially the nipples) for females, and the nipples for males.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 01-01-2006 6:31 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2006 8:47 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 66 (275275)
01-03-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rrhain
01-02-2006 1:10 AM


Interesting history of the E Pluribus Unum...
Before I get rolling let's get things straight. This all started back in post 22. There I quoted the decision...
If the reaonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation's cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto...
And replied to that portion with...
First of all the "national motto" is E Pluribus Unum. At least that was the one that is a cherished TRADITION. The motto In God We Trust came about later and was not fully incorporated until 1956 in a fit of religious overstepping. A reasonable person has a reasonable complaint against that.
Thus all I was addressing is the court referring to In God We Trust as the national motto which is a "cherished tradition". The second sentence is quite clear, and the third should make it more clear. There is no subtlety there.
When you replied to that post you quoted only the first sentence, and I suppose that should have been a clue to me that you were not addressing my actual position, and instead debating your own strawman that was not about national mottos which have a cherished tradition, but simply what is the only motto stated directly as the national motto.
Here is what I said in response to your initial reply to me:
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.
For a guy into arguing about "a" and "the", how could YOU miss what I am saying here? That there are different mottos used by the US, and EPU was not officially and wholly replaced. That is indeed something that Theodoric's citation clearly showed. Thus EPU is our motto, along with IGWT that came later, and the one with the longest tradition.
For my part I didn't pick up that you were only interested in what is titled "the national motto" until one of your last posts when you questioned what tradition had to do with anything. Clearly we were talking past each other. But when I brought this up you chose to be mean, and ironically insisted I must address your strawman before getting to my position. What a hoot.
Now there is clearly room for confusion in this matter as "national motto" vs "motto of our nation" vs "motto of the United states" (both "a" and "the") seem to get used in different ways depending on the source. I decided to do a bit more research and found I was in error about how what is officially called "the national motto" relates to "the motto of the United States" (historically) and where it appears. I had assumed there was a connection between that designation and what gets printed over things, many things. That is that there was a free standing national motto, and it is that motto that gets printed on things.
And I am not alone in this error, here are some things you have said...
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?... 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 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."
I had known all along that EPU as the motto of the United States was not related to coinage, but let you continue saying such absurdities. I mean I tried to to give you a hint when discussing how EPU and Liberty were different. Okay. I let you have your length of rope.
Every source handed to you indicated that EPU's origin was not with coinage and does not remain with coinage. Go back and check the wiki entries as well as boyscout citation. The origin and continued use of EPU is with the Great Seal of the US, as well as the presidential seal.
Apparently there was no actual designation of something called "the national motto". What there was was a designation of EPU as the motto of the United States to be fixed on the Great Seal. This seal is the closest thing to a coat of arms that the US has and is used to mark documents by the US govt today as official. IGWT is NOWHERE to be found, neither is liberty. Even the secondary mottos on the back of the full seal are not used to mark govt documents as official.
The Seal was put on money and continues to be printed on money. That is where EPU first began its presence on coinage. Eventually the seal was removed but they left the motto (on paper the full seal is seen). While EPU was referred to as the national motto, that appears to have been a mere colloquial phrase rather than anything official separate from the motto of the United States on the seal.
IGWT was placed on money as a motto in the 1800s, but not even colloquially considered the national motto, just a motto on US coins. The histories of both as part of coinage can be found at the treasury departments pages on EPU and IGWT. EPU was made a requirement on coinage, and remains so even after the 1950s when something new was created... the free standing "national motto".
While I was aware that in 1956 the US made IGWT the "national motto", I was under the impression it was creating something in tandem since one had already been made. Even you suggested a similar belief that there was such a thing before and was somehow replaced (despite the fact that the House Judiciary stated IGWT did not replace EPU and I asked what that could have meant). Clearly it appears we were both mistaken.
The 1956 act created something new, a free standing national motto. The judiciary committee was stating that that did not act to replace the national motto on the Seal, which was EPU.
You repeatedly ask me where else EPU can be found, beyond coinage. And ironically kept pointing at the US Code. Have you read the code? Heheheh... I did.
Perhaps if you weren't so bent on YOUR strawman of what my position was, and your ignorance of where EPU exists, you'd have read more of the US Code. Uh, I believe it is Title 4... but I'll let you look it up.
What it does is uphold the Great Seal, which is the mark used to make official all documents of the US govt. That Seal was designed to include and still does OFFICIALLY CARRY BY US CODE the motto E Pluribus Unum.
So there was a mixture of mistakes on both sides. And while you were correct that the only thing designated "the national motto" in a freestanding sense is IGWT, that was never what I was trying to discuss. As it turns out I was erroneous in assuming EPU had ever been designated an official freestanding motto, but I was completely correct regarding its status as a national motto. It is A national motto (as was suggested in my own original statement which suggested more than one) used officially as a motto of the US govt and has the longest historic tradition as a motto of the US govt.
The court is still wrong, even as the only specifically declared "national motto", it cannot have had a long cherished tradition as the OTHER national motto (as in used by our nation to represent sanction of the the US govt) which is E Pluribus Unum.
PS---
You decided to avoid dealing with the sex organ issue within the thread it began, bringing it up here. I assume it was to avoid others seeing where it actually came from and so obscure your misrepresentation of that issue. Or maybe it was to avoid people discovering that you are a plagiarist as well as willfully misrepresenting data. In any case, you can continue any discussion of that issue at that thread instead of here.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-03-2006 08:47 AM
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-03-2006 09:04 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 01-02-2006 1:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024