Comments on: FFRF sues over “national motto”

By: The Ridger

The Ridger — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:18:34 +0000

Ah, yes. The old “it’s not really religion, just culture” argument. One thing I wonder: If you argue that it has no religious purpose so it SHOULD be there, aren’t you essentially arguing for having the country take God’s name in vain? Isn’t there a commandment or something saying that’s bad?

By: Crudely Wrott

Crudely Wrott — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:17:55 +0000

I noticed this story earlier today.

While there is little hope that hammer wont meet chisel and the lintels will remain pristine, there is some hope for this suit to serve an instructional purpose. That is, a more precise definition of propaganda. A definition that refers to familiar values proffered dishonestly in addition to foreign ones proffered dishonestly.

Gives new meaning to “all men are created equal”.

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:27:20 +0000

The last time this came before the U.S. Supreme Court, they had a chance to rule on the merits but chose to sidestep the issue and dismiss the case for lack of standing (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow).

As I see it they’ve got two options–rule that the slogan has no religious purpose but is essentially a hollow symbol sort of like the Christmas holiday, or rule that it’s a violation of the establishment clause.