Bible-beater pilots

Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with
the
prayer before each session, for instance)?

It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the spirit
of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
presumptions and offensive.

"John Harlow" wrote in message


It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
spirit of the letter of the constitution.

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
More importantly, what makes it illegal? The "spirit" of the amendment was
to prevent state-sponsored religion. That has been strenuously adhered to
in the US.

I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.


If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is. "In God (or
Allah, Buddha, Satan or whoever) we trust" simply has no place on a
government issued document, no matter how many people it makes feel all warm
and fuzzy.

John Harlow wrote:

If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


John Harlow wrote:

If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is.


Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.

Actually they passed several such laws. The first was in 1864 and
authorized the use of the phrase on the new two-cent coin. Later acts of
Congress extended the use to other coins and finally an act in 1908 made it
mandatory on almost all coins. It wasn't until 1957 that it appeared on
paper money based on a joint resolution of Congress to that effect in 1956.
See
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fac...-we-trust.html
for details.

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.


Sure they did. One instance amont many is the 1865 law "An Act to
authorize the Coinage of Three-Cent pieces, and for other Purposes."
This includes the following...

"And be it further enacted, That, in addition to the devices and legends
upon the gold, silver, and other coines [sic] of the United States, it
shall be lawful for the director of the mint, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury, to cause the motto 'In God We Trust' to be
placed upon such coins hereafter to be issued as shall admit of such
legend thereon."

That ain't even CLOSE to state-sponsored religion.

For real examples of state sponsored or oppressed religions, try Iran, Iraq,
Europe in Middle Ages, Soviet Russia, Cambodia's Kmer Rouge, the Vatican,
etc for examples. The differences might be too subtle for you to see, but
to most folks, the difference is like night and day.


"John Harlow" wrote in message
...
I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In
God
we trust", for example, is illegal.


If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is. "In God (or
Allah, Buddha, Satan or whoever) we trust" simply has no place on a
government issued document, no matter how many people it makes feel all
warm
and fuzzy.

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"John Harlow" wrote in message


It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
spirit of the letter of the constitution.

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
More importantly, what makes it illegal? The "spirit" of the amendment
was
to prevent state-sponsored religion. That has been strenuously adhered to
in the US.

I do not want to see ANY
religious references on government issued documents; their presence
is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________



I argue that it is explicitly unconstitutional for Congress to make a law
placing "In God We Trust" on a government document or "Under God" in the
Pledge of Alliegance. Beginning a session of Congress with a prayer is not
the same thing as making a law. Now if the Executive were to simply direct
the Treasury Department to do something, or if there were some other sort of
decision making, fine. Congress is explicitly prohibited from making any law
whatsoever "respecting an establishment of religion".

Blus skies
H.
N502TB

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote in message


I argue that it is explicitly unconstitutional for Congress to make a
law placing "In God We Trust" on a government document or "Under God"
in the Pledge of Alliegance.

Not necessarily. As long as the law passed does not endorse any specific
religion, it is within the bounds of the US Constitution.

Congress is
explicitly prohibited from making any law whatsoever "respecting an
establishment of religion".

They have not done so. That's my point. It's fine if you want to make a
case that "In God we trust" should be changed. You just don't have a
Constitutional argument for your case.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?

The harm is that the whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority
against the tyranny of the majority. Lest this statement ignite a flame war,
consider that although decisions are made by majority (or enhanced majority),
the structure for making those decisions is designed to empower the minorities.

The president is not elected by majority vote. It is a several step process
(like the world series) which in effect elects the president based on the
majority of viewpoints.

Congress is not a majority entity either. The senate has equal (by state)
representation, and the house has equal (by population) representation, and
both have to concur.

Speech is not regulated by the majority. Freedom of speech means that a
minority of one can get his voice heard (though nobody is forced to listen)

The majority does not need protection. They can take care of themselves. It
is the minority which needs protection, and that's the function of laws.

The majority of people are afraid of little airplanes, and would be quite happy
with a total ban. We are in a tiny minority who fly these contraptions all
over kingdom come without so much as a flight plan or a radio, let alone
official permission and clearance to engage in such obviously wreckless acts as
aviation. Be careful in your thinking. Majority rule is fine as long as you
are in the majority.

Change "In God we Trust" to the equally pious "Allah Be Praised" and see how
people take it. Or pick a phrase from any religion you don't like, including
athiesm if that's your target. It doesn't belong on pilot certificates, it
doesn't belong in Congress, and it doesn't belong on money.

That said, I'll spend money no matter what is printed on it. So send me some
if you don't like what it says.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)