Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Samhain · 07-14-2002, 11:20 PM

Sorry if this point has already been brought up, but I regret I don't have the time to dig through all the threads on the Pledge topics in order to find competent arguments or rebuttals concerning ceremonial deism.

Does ceremonial deism pose a threat to the pledge fight? Any legal experts out there who can provide arguments for or against this in respects to the law?

A link to another thread would be fine as well; I'm just curious about this, it seems that we may be able to lose the battle in a legal sense to this clause.

excreationist · 07-15-2002, 05:58 AM

This is from a <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm" target="_blank">ReligiousTolerance.org article</a>:

Quote:

Is the motto constitutional?
The "In God we Trust" motto promotes theistic religion at the expense of non theistic religion and a secular lifestyle. It promotes the belief in a single, male deity which is followed by the Abramic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; however, it is foreign to the beliefs of many other religions: Buddhists do not believe in a personal deity; Zoroastrians and Wiccans believe in two deities; Hindus believe in many. It would seem to violate the principle of separation of church and state. Many Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, other Neopagans, and others are offended by the motto. However, the religious motto has been challenged by three lawsuits and has been found to be constitutional.

- "Aronow v. United States," 432 F.2d 242 (1970) in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit The court ruled that: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."

- "Madalyn Murray O'Hair, et al. v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of Treasury, et al" 588 F.2d 1144 (1979) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ms. O'Hair is (in)famous for successfully challenging compulsory prayer in U.S. public schools. The United States District Court, Western District of Texas, referring to the wording of the Ninth Circuit above, ruled that: "From this it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the primary purpose of the slogan was secular; it served as secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously secular function of providing a medium of exchange. As such it is equally clear that the use of the motto on the currency or otherwise does not have a primary effect of advancing religion." This ruling was sustained by the Fifth Circuit court. 1

- The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. conducted a national survey which showed that "In God We Trust" was regarded as religious by an overwhelming percentage of U.S. citizens. They initiated a lawsuit on 1994-JUN-8 in Denver CO to have it removed from U.S. currency and discontinued as the national motto. Their lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial, on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase! The Tenth-Circuit federal judge confirmed the dismissal, stating in part: "...we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase 'In God we trust,' would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion." 6

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review all of these rulings. It might be embarrassing to them, because the motto also hangs on the wall at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that: "[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." Allegheny, 492 U.S.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

Toto · 07-15-2002, 10:19 AM

The US Supreme Court has already put its stamp of approval on "ceremonial deism" in dicta. These holdings are not binding, but they indicate how the court is thinking. My prediction is that the Ninth circuit will rehear the case en banc, reverse it under the guise of "ceremonial Deism", and spare the Supreme Court from having to confront the issue.

I should emphasize that "ceremonial deism" is a political cop out. It has no great logic behind it, but as some important jurist said, the life of the law is not logic but experience. Experience has taught the courts that there are some potatoes too hot to grab. (Excuse my bad attitude)

From Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989):

Quote:

The function and history of this form of ceremonial deism suggest that 'those practices are not understood as conveying government approval of particular religious beliefs.'

relying on a footnote in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (holding that a creche as part of Christmas display does not violation Establishment Clause):

Quote:

Finally, we have noted that government cannot be completely prohibited from recognizing in its public actions the religious beliefs and practices of the American people as an aspect of our national history and culture. While I remain uncertain about these questions, I would suggest that such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form of "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.

There is a good discussion of ceremonial deism in <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/6th/00a0148p.html" target="_blank">ACLU v. Capital Square</a> (the 3 judge decision striking down Ohio's motto "In God All Things Are Possible", which was overturned by the Sixth Circuit en banc). Scroll down half way to "V. Ceremonial Deism".

Toto · 07-15-2002, 10:32 AM

You can also read this from the Newswire:

<a href="http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/jd070202.htm" target="_blank">US Senate Republican Policy Committee says Ninth Circuit was legally correct</a>

Of course, the conclusion that the Republicans would draw from this is that either the Constitution or the Supreme Court must be changed, and that is what they will be arguing in the next election (and in their fundraising appeals), unless the Ninth Circuit defuses the issue.

edited to add:

Also from the Newswire, this from Canada's National Post:

<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=28559C43-ABBB-4684-AEA9-69671E46301F" target="_blank">If you're serious about God, this is a disaster</a>

Quote:

But not even Nietzsche could have killed God off any more effectively than the Supreme Being's annexation to American patriotism. . . .

... the Supreme Court doesn't really believe in God. If they did, they would realize that the current wording of the Oath, whose god-free 1892 version by Francis Bellamy was altered by Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration in 1954, does indeed cut against the Constitution's famous -- you might say notoriously liberal --division between worship and government. It is only by invoking what the higher court has called "ceremonial deism" that any of the ubiquitous God-talk of American public life is saved from legal incoherence.

Trouble is, that doesn't save it from logical incoherence. Deism is the thesis that there is a God but "he" is neither interventionist nor, in some versions, an entity of any kind. The god of deism is more a philosophical principle, like Aristotle's Unmoved Mover or the fixed point of causality. In the 17th century, when smart European philosophers were trying to reconcile reason with faith, often in order to avoid persecution and punishment from the Christian authorities, they constructed deistic theories as a way of keeping God in a picture without giving up the hard truths of science. . .

. . . So when the Supreme Court invokes it to keep God in the patriotic picture, there are only two possibilities: either they know their position is unconstitutional and are using obfuscation and semantic trickery to keep that under wraps, or they haven't done their homework and are confusing two very different notions of what "God" means.

{emphasis added}

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

ohwilleke · 07-15-2002, 11:36 AM

"Ceremonial deism" is a dodge that may save the pledge and "In God We Trust", but at the cost of cheapening respect for the Courts to be even handed. People might not like at the moment an anti-pledge or anti-"IGWT" decision, but at least they would understand it. To support them with sophistic blather, in contrast, undermines the credibility of the judiciary in all matters.

Toto · 07-15-2002, 12:22 PM

After the decision in Bush v. Gore, how can anyone talk about the credibility of the courts? (I know, I really do have a bad attitude.)

Arrowman · 07-15-2002, 04:50 PM

"Ceremonial deism" is actually used as an argument by Christians who support church-state separation.

Their (imho correct, from their perspective) belief is that the "ceremonial deity" is a wishy-washy, vague, generalist god - one to which people pay lip service. They believe that it is better that the state stay clear of God altogether, rather than encourage this "vague and comfortable" view of religion.

Good on them, I say.

Berenger Sauniere · 07-15-2002, 07:24 PM

So in effect the U.S. Government is establishing Ceremonial Deism as the National Religion.

07-14-2002, 11:20 PM	#1
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	Ceremonial Deism Sorry if this point has already been brought up, but I regret I don't have the time to dig through all the threads on the Pledge topics in order to find competent arguments or rebuttals concerning ceremonial deism. Does ceremonial deism pose a threat to the pledge fight? Any legal experts out there who can provide arguments for or against this in respects to the law? A link to another thread would be fine as well; I'm just curious about this, it seems that we may be able to lose the battle in a legal sense to this clause.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2002, 11:36 AM	#5
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	"Ceremonial deism" is a dodge that may save the pledge and "In God We Trust", but at the cost of cheapening respect for the Courts to be even handed. People might not like at the moment an anti-pledge or anti-"IGWT" decision, but at least they would understand it. To support them with sophistic blather, in contrast, undermines the credibility of the judiciary in all matters.

07-15-2002, 12:22 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	After the decision in Bush v. Gore, how can anyone talk about the credibility of the courts? (I know, I really do have a bad attitude.)

07-15-2002, 04:50 PM	#7
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	"Ceremonial deism" is actually used as an argument by Christians who support church-state separation. Their (imho correct, from their perspective) belief is that the "ceremonial deity" is a wishy-washy, vague, generalist god - one to which people pay lip service. They believe that it is better that the state stay clear of God altogether, rather than encourage this "vague and comfortable" view of religion. Good on them, I say.

07-15-2002, 07:24 PM	#8
Berenger Sauniere Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: et in Arcadia ego... Posts: 406	So in effect the U.S. Government is establishing Ceremonial Deism as the National Religion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.