ACLU Versus Ohio Motto

Westex,

LMAO! :D

Duck Hunt,

You're not alone -- see Byron's messages.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The motto was taken directly from the New Testament, ostensibly a direct quote from Jesus Christ.[/quote]

True. Even so, it's a very bland statement that's probably present, in slightly different form, in the texts of other monotheistic religions. I don't think most Ohioans who see the motto immediately think, "Hey, that's a quote from the Christian Bible!" I know I didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So I suppose it would be fine with you if your state chose the motto "With gun control, peace is possible?" [/quote]

That's an interesting question. A motto, according to Webster's dictionary, is "a short expression of a guiding principle". Since peace through gun control isn't a guiding principle for most Ohioans (even the antis probably don't center their lives around it), it would be inappropriate for that reason, regardless of my personal feelings about it. I don't think anyone would want to have such an awkward phrase engraved in public anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And what about polytheists?[/quote]

There, I think, is a serious objection. I doubt that more than 0.5% of all Ohioans are polytheists but there definitely are some and the state should respect their beliefs.

What would you think about, "With faith, all things are possible"? That wouldn't be a Bible quote (as far as I know) and each Ohioan could interpret "faith" as he or she sees fit. The religious folks could think of it as faith in God (or Vishnu, or Gaia, or whomever) and the non-religious could think of it as faith in the Ohio State football team, the Federal Reserve, yoga, Marxism, or whatever else gives meaning to their lives.

Or how about, "We can't agree" as the new state motto? I'd like to hear someone argue against that. ;)

By the way, I checked and found that "With God, all things are possible" wasn't adopted until 1959, so it's not quite as time-hallowed as some might think.
 
For those of you who object to state sponsorship of Christianity:

What do you think about Bibles being used to administer public oaths? That, in my humble opinion, is a much more direct "establishment of religion" than using "With God, all things are possible" as a state motto. Doesn't swearing (or affirming -- what's the difference?) an oath of office or an oath to testify truthfully in court on a Bible strongly suggest that the state derives its authority from a Christian God?

And what about the U.S. House of Representatives having a chaplain? Isn't paying a salary from public funds to someone for the explicit purpose of providing religious services a flagrant "establishment of religion"? I can see why the armed forces have chaplains, since pamphlets from the ACLU aren't going to do much to bolster morale ;) , but that argument doesn't apply to the House. There are plenty of ministers in DC to attend to the spiritual needs of our congresscritters.

And whose eye is that peeking out over the pyramid on the back of a dollar bill? :confused:
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt VDW:
And whose eye is that peeking out over the pyramid on the back of a dollar bill? :confused: [/quote]

I always assumed it was Charlton Heston's. :D



------------------
*quack*
 
This is becoming more and more amusing.

The collectivist whining..." It doesn't represent my beliefs, I don't like it, so get rid of it"

Truthfully, how many of you are affected by your state's motto?
Mine is "Eureka, I have found it"...I recall it maybe every 5 or 6 yrs or if Alex Trebek asks it. It doesn't represent me, hell, I can't think of who it may represent. Oh my, I'm so wounded because I'm not part of some collective hive.

In my opinion, it is pathetic that certain groups feel so threatened by perceived non-inclusion and are so willing and forceful to spend public monies in order to enforce mere symbolic inclusion.

God! (and I intentionally mean that in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense) we so need a new Civil War



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Quote: The collectivist whining..." It doesn't represent my beliefs, I don't like it, so get rid of it"

Want to see some collectivist whining on a truly grand scale? Let's change the motto to "There is but one God, and His name is Allah." Or, how about "God is Dead." Maybe change the coin motto to "In Astrology We Trust." In a similar New Age vein, the pledge could say "One Nation, Over the Rainbow". Or, "Under Darwin" in a nod to the science-minded.

The reaction should provide a nice test of whether Government-sanctioned symbolism like state mottos, etc. don't matter to people.

Let's have enough common sense to keep Government out of the piety business -- it's a suit that doesn't fit in the first place.
 
Matt: You are not required to use the Bible in swearing an oath. I once stood as a witness for a friend at his citizenship ceremony. He was an atheist and had asked in advance for an alternative oath. I forget what was done, but his oath was entirely non-religious and did not involve a Bible (this took place in a private office with just him, me, and the INS guy). Actually, this makes sense, since swearing an oath on a Bible would have no special meaning to a non-believer, anyway. You also have to wonder about someone who is Jewish (Bible with New Testament?) or someone who is from some African animist religion, a Buddhist, etc. Courts may operate entirely differently, I don't know.

As to the House Chaplain, of course it should not be a public expenditure, but it is. I can't imagine it would survive a court challenge. Personally, I wouldn't care if they had six chaplains, as long as it was on their time and their nickel. See: http://users.hit.net/~cgarman/young.html

Didn't some recent President insert the words "So help me God" at the end of the Inaugural Oath, and now they all do it? And it's become de riguer for every President to end every formal address to the public with "God Bless America" or some such. This all strikes me as political pandering of the most transparent and trivializing sort. If I were religious, I think I would find it offensive.
 
As a truck driver that has driven across Ohio many times I think I have a motto that all can believe in . "In Ohio Speeding Tickets Are Very Possible" .

------------------
TOM SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
DC right on

------------------
beemerb
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world;
and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men
every day who don't know anything and can't read.
-Mark Twain
 
I was not heretofore aware that all things were not possible with the God of the Jews, the Moslems, or other religions that believe in a supreme being. "God" is a generic term unlike Jehovah or Yaweh.

I wish the Ohio government would tell the feds to stuff it whereupon the feds would tekll them they would get no more school, highway, or other funds whereupon the state could tell them they would not be getting any income taxes. Yahoo!

If there are no federal highway funds, tell the feds to get them the Hell out of our state. Better yet, close them as unsafe due to disrepair.

Bet you'd get some attention then.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Duck Hunt,

There are some actual principles of federalism at work here rather than what you or I or anyone else likes. Such as where does an unelected federal judge get off telling any state what their motto can or can't be. Find that part of the Constitution would you.

We have a federal government that is out of control, passing unconstitutional laws left and right, taxing the heck out of us and then doling the money back to the states with all sorts of strings attached.

If anyone has a problem with a State motto, then there are plenty of avenues to deal with it on the State level. Contrary to what they'd have you believe, the Federal government isn't some big brother with unlimited powers and it's time that the States start to throw their weight around for all our good and liberties.
 
For those interested www.greatseal.com explains the symbols used on the great seal of the USA.
The term "In God we Trust" has been around since the Civil War, but wasn't adopted to paper currency until 1955.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Or how about, "We can't agree" as the new state motto? I'd like to hear someone argue against that. [/quote]


Outstanding!!! ROTFLMAO! I second the nomination.



[This message has been edited by RAE (edited April 29, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top