Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Myra Adams

Bio

September 13, 2013 - 2:15 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Desiring more insight on this ruling, I turned to a friend of mine. Colby M. May  is the senior counsel and director of the Washington office for the ACLJ.  (This group has also taken the lead role in defending numerous Tea Party groups in the IRS abuse scandal. They are doing terrific work and always appreciate additional financial support.)

Here are two questions I posed to Colby along with his answers:

1.  Do you believe that this ruling by Judge Baer will be the end of such attempts to strip the national motto from our currency?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the national motto was appropriate and its placement on the currency presented no Establishment Clause concern. Likewise, every U.S. court of appeals that has ruled on the issue, namely the Ninth, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C., has found no constitutional violation in the motto’s inclusion on currency. One would like to think that is the end of the matter, but when you are dealing with rabid atheists it appears likely that they will just keep on trying and wasting everyone’s time and resources.

2. Could the plaintiffs try to find another judge or different district that may rule in their favor?

Yes. There are eleven appeals court circuits in the U.S. court system, and each circuit has several districts. As I mentioned, every circuit that has ruled on the national motto, a total of four, has upheld it against Establishment Clause claims. The Rosslyn Newdow, et al., case was in the Southern District of New York, which could be appealed to the Second Circuit. If that happens, the overwhelming odds are that it would agree with its four sister circuits and deny the challenge. That would then leave six more circuits, so I suspect this will keep kicking around for a few more years.

On behalf of PJ MediaI would like to thank Colby May for his expertise on this matter.

Furthermore, if you are interested in knowing when and why the motto ”In God We Trust” first appeared on our coins, it was due to increased religious sentiment during the Civil War. However, the motto has only been printed on our paper money since 1957.  Read more about this fascinating history at Treasury.gov.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Myra Adams is a media producer, writer, and political observer who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign, and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team. Her columns have appeared on PJ Media, National Review, The Daily Beast, The Daily Caller, RedState, BizPacReview and Liberty Unyielding. . Myra's web site TheJesusStore.com contributes all profits to Christian charity. Follow Myra on Twitter @MyraKAdams

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Atheists are trying to force religion into what homosexuality used to be: legal, but only in private and behind locked doors, while, at the same time, to make homosexuality (and other views about "lifestyle choices" which are, in effect, a secular religion - a set of dogmas, not to be challanged, about how one should live one's life, such as socialism and environmentalism) into what Christianity used to be, namely, publicly adored.

If it were in fact a matter of FREEDOM - no religion and no atheist dogmas in public (so we could all make up our mind without pressure) or alternatively everybody's dogma and views in public (and may the best PR man win!) I might have had some sympathy for it.

But the whole thing is simply an attempt to replace marriage with infidelity, parenthood with voluntary single motherhood, self-control (and the self-respect that comes with it) with hedonism, and independence with reliance on the all-giving state.

It's not freedom of religion the atheists are after - it is the destruction of religion, and, worse, of freedom of thought at all. Since the practical result of their belief in the "release from religious superstition" and "following reason wherever it may lead" means in effect, "believe without question any dogma currently fashionable among the chattering classes, you peasant - or we shall declare you unreasonable and unscientific and, if possible, outlaw you."

Isn't it funny, that the same people who consider it ridiculous to suggest that - say - the glorification of single motherhood or infidelity or violence in movies will have any effect on real life, go ballistic when they they see a nativity scene in the town square, as if that would cause some sort of instant mass conversion to Catholicism?
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
Congress shall make no law respecting;
- an -
not any
not the
AN
establishment of religion; Nor LIMITING the free exercise thereof.
.
These groups are NOT atheist. They simply cannot be. For them to be offended the way they are can only mean one thing. They do NOT disbelieve the existence of God.
They, in fact, HATE God.
It is impossible to Hate That in which the existence of you do not believe.
So stop referring to these Antitheist groups as Atheist.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am an Atheist, and the Constitution guarantees we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Besides, the national motto, "In God We Trust" works better than "Trust Us, We Know What We're Doing."
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (21)
All Comments   (21)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
In Putin We Trust?
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
They must be related to the Eco-fascist!


‘Alarming’ number of eagles killed by wind farms, new study finds How GreenPublished September 11, 2013 Associated Press

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/study-says-wind-farms-have-killed-alarming-number-eagles/?intcmp=features#ixzz2eguxj4Iy
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
I wrote "The cause for Abolition was fought by people adhering to their belief that others could be enslaved...." That read the opposite of what I meant to convey. The South sought to protect their economy and way of life against the those who advocated abolition.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
It doesn't mean that the H8ers are going to give up in trying to take it off. They live off H8.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
In the article, the word "rabid" stands out as that is what the acts of the poor, offended atheists clearly suggest. Our court system is heavily dependent on the "reasonable man" standard and the belief of a distinct minority runs counter to the reasonable man standard.

That being said, belief in abolition started with a minority and became main stream thinking. The cause for abolition was fought by people adhering to their belief that others could be enslaved, for profit, because of their skin color.

How are we to protect our right to religious belief in the face of the concerted attack by non-believers? I would say to the non-believers that it is as unreasonable for you to deny me my beliefs as it is unreasonable to make you believe as I do. If you don't like seeing buildings with a cross on them or don't like seeing "In God We Trust" on our coins, then you have the right to convince others of the rightness of your belief but you clearly do not have the right to deny me and others our beliefs since that was the clear intent of the Founders in writing the First Amendment. Freedom OF religion cannot be read to say freedom FROM religion by any reasonable man.

45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
while the plaintiffs might feel offended, they suffered no “substantial burden.”

SACRILEGE!!! In the Unicorn Age, there is no burden greater than feeling offended!!!
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've been trying to cash on "I feel offended that others fell offended" which should land me a settlement on infinite money according to my calculations. It would give me a permanent top spot in the victimology index too. All I need is a few judges willing to sign on it (the vig is good your honors! can we talk 20% of infinite?) What a country!!!
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
Atheists are trying to force religion into what homosexuality used to be: legal, but only in private and behind locked doors, while, at the same time, to make homosexuality (and other views about "lifestyle choices" which are, in effect, a secular religion - a set of dogmas, not to be challanged, about how one should live one's life, such as socialism and environmentalism) into what Christianity used to be, namely, publicly adored.

If it were in fact a matter of FREEDOM - no religion and no atheist dogmas in public (so we could all make up our mind without pressure) or alternatively everybody's dogma and views in public (and may the best PR man win!) I might have had some sympathy for it.

But the whole thing is simply an attempt to replace marriage with infidelity, parenthood with voluntary single motherhood, self-control (and the self-respect that comes with it) with hedonism, and independence with reliance on the all-giving state.

It's not freedom of religion the atheists are after - it is the destruction of religion, and, worse, of freedom of thought at all. Since the practical result of their belief in the "release from religious superstition" and "following reason wherever it may lead" means in effect, "believe without question any dogma currently fashionable among the chattering classes, you peasant - or we shall declare you unreasonable and unscientific and, if possible, outlaw you."

Isn't it funny, that the same people who consider it ridiculous to suggest that - say - the glorification of single motherhood or infidelity or violence in movies will have any effect on real life, go ballistic when they they see a nativity scene in the town square, as if that would cause some sort of instant mass conversion to Catholicism?
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
Congress shall make no law respecting;
- an -
not any
not the
AN
establishment of religion; Nor LIMITING the free exercise thereof.
.
These groups are NOT atheist. They simply cannot be. For them to be offended the way they are can only mean one thing. They do NOT disbelieve the existence of God.
They, in fact, HATE God.
It is impossible to Hate That in which the existence of you do not believe.
So stop referring to these Antitheist groups as Atheist.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It is impossible to Hate That in which the existence of you do not believe."

Actually, it is possible to Hate That in which the existence of you do not believe. I know because I hated May from Pokémon, even though she's not actually real, and thus clear that she does not exist. If its possible to hate a cartoon character who doesn't exist in real life, its certainly possible to hate an entity that people at the same time believe do not exist. God does exist, though.

Either way, the Communists, Marx, Rousseau, and the Jacobins explicitly referred to themselves as atheists, yet they clearly hated religion at the exact same time.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is impossible to Hate That in which the existence of you do not believe.

Bingo.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't know why anyone pays any attention to them. All they are doing at the ACLU is to pave the way for Communism. At this point that seems a little bit anachronistic IMHO. I am quite tired of them and offended little a$$es.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
In Nothing We Trust
In Big Govt. We Trust
In Dear Leader We Trust
In Money We Trust
In Stupidity We Trust
In Hope We Trust
In Change We Trust

Not quite the ring to it!
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
In Putin we trust?
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
"The inscription of the national motto . . . on the nation’s currency does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The national motto simply echoes the principle found in the Declaration of Independence that our freedoms come from God and not the state."

Our First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that Congress shall not enact laws which establish a national religious institution, nor shall Congress enact laws which interfere with non-subversive religious practice. Our First Amendment represents a separation of church and state but not a separation of God and state. In spite of the protests of radical atheists, reason God and state were all three officially united by the American Declaration of Independence - the law of secular nature and the law nature's God - both united to the American state. Besides, atheism, like religion, is based on faith, so an official separation of God and state would represent a unity of atheism and state, which paradoxically would be a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. So, as our Founding Fathers intended, we have a separation of church and state via our Constitution, while at the same time we have a unity of God and state via our Declaration of Independence (not via the Bible or Koran). Atheists can take comfort in the separation of church and state, but they must accept our Declarational unity of God and state because, as Thomas Jefferson said about our Declaration, it is “an expression of the American mind.”

45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am an Atheist, and the Constitution guarantees we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Besides, the national motto, "In God We Trust" works better than "Trust Us, We Know What We're Doing."
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
You may be an atheist, but I think you're Something Else.
At the very least, it doesn't appear that you're going to follow a false God!

Have a great weekend.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All