Ragged responds to me:
quote:
It all depends on your point of view.
That's the entire point. If people think you're invoking god, then it really doesn't matter how louldy you try to claim you aren't. Therefore, in order to avoid the appearance of establishment, it needs to be removed. Nobody can consider the government to be invoking god if it remains silent on the subject.
quote:
The point is that no matter what you call it, the phrase has a specific secular purpose
No, it doesn't. It is there precisely for sectarian reasons. That's why they let people who have religious objections to saying something like that swear under threat of perjury. If it were truly secular, then nobody would be confusing it for an invocation of god.
What you're arguing is that the word "god" doesn't actually mean "god."
quote:
It will not change the degree to which the notion of god influences the government, composed of the people, some of whom are believers.
But that's the point behind the establishment clause: You aren't supposed to look to the government for support of your religious activities. If a person's faith is truly so fragile that it cannot live without constant reminders from everywhere, government actions included, then that person is in worse shape than he thinks and the government needs to stop coddling him.
quote:
It is my opinion that any attempt on removing it is bound to fail.
Indeed. It's already gone through the court system and while the Newdow case was officially rejected on grounds of standing (claiming that he, as the non-custodial father of the child, didn't have the right to file suit on behalf of his daughter), the arguments presented in the case clearly show the inability to see past their own theistic trappings: The word "god" somehow doesn't actually mean "god."
Again, if it really doesn't mean that, then get rid of it in order to avoid the appearance of establishment (which is actual precedent). But clearly most people think it really does mean that because look at their reactions upon hearing that it might be removed. Therefore, it really is establishment and is patently unconstitutional.
There really is no way for the government to invoke god, no matter how trivially, without violation of the establishment clause.
quote:
The only way "God" can be taken out of everything governmental is if God stops being such an important aspect of people's lives.
Huh? For more than 100 years we never had "In God We Trust" on the money. The country seemed to function just fine without it. The Pledge of Allegiance didn't have the words "under god" inserted into it until the 1950s when the administration was trying to make a distinction between Americans and those "godless Soviets." All of these insertions of god into governmental work are recent.
What's so difficult about going back to the way things were?
And if the people whose faith is so delicate that it cannot survive without having god engraved on the money get upset, then so be it. We are not here to placate them.
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.
™ Version 4.2
