Religion
Related: About this forumSecular Group Objects to Quotes About God on US Passports
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has been protesting religious references on passports since 2007, a press release states.
"We've received so many complaints since the unnecessary intrusion of godly quotes in passports under the Bush Administration," FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. "The United States is governed under a secular and godless constitution, and our passports should be secular, too."
The letter, written by FFRF staff attorney Rebecca S. Markert, asks the State Department to provide FFRF with documents from when officials decided to add the quotations to the passports. Markert says the references to God are a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause because the documents are issued by the government.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/secular-group-objects-to-quotes-about-god-on-u-s-passports-101313/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And couldn't care less.
If it is offensive to some, take it out.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's not that people find the quotes "offensive."
It's that they give the appearance of a governmental endorsement of religious belief. And that's unconstitutional.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)It is government making religious pronouncements in the form of quotations, which is a huge no-no.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Not specifically religious ones - these seem like general patriotic quotes that happen to mention God; but why are they in the passport and where are they in the passport?
Bryant
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)are background printed with various patriotic images and quotations. The first pages, with the holders photo and information, feature a quite bright waving flag and giant Bald Eagle head, which seems just a little menacing, come to think of it . . .
My personal opinion is that they're ugly - the old style was plain, but clean and easier to see what's on the pages -that's just my opinion. All the quotations - those that include a reference to god and those that don't - are unnecessary. Presumably, if one holds a US passport, one is a citizen and doesn't need a primer on American Exceptionalism.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If made today, the address would likely have been worded somewhat different. But it's a historical document, and a record of a speech that actually took place at a momentous time in history.
Stamping religious stuff on my identification is entirely unwarranted and pointless intrusion of religion ISSUED by the Government, to me, and to represent ME. Unacceptable.
rug
(82,333 posts)Is the Gettysburg Address an historical document or a religious document?
If it's the former, do you want the remove the religious reference before placing it on a governmental document or building?
If you do, you indeed will need an exacto knife. Or a chisel.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's done. Over with. Different time. In fact, back when some states used to discriminate directly based on religion, something that has been mostly ended.
But you put religious language on my identification, to represent ME, and we have a problem.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And the people who put those quotes there did it on purpose, you can be sure.
Not fooling anyone.
rug
(82,333 posts)Have a good evenin' guv'nor. God save the Queen.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Again, historical document only. No relevance to the issuance of government identification.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)nation itself. The DoI is not. It is not in legal force. Historical only.
You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of our Government.
rug
(82,333 posts)Contracts were drawn, sentences were imposed, land was conveyed.
How do you suppose the United States courts, after 1783, determined which of those claims were valid? Which date and which document do you suppose they used to determine them?
You fundamentally misunderstand both law and history.
I don't think it's necessary - or productive - to discuss with you the relationship of the Articles of Confederation and sovereignty.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The Declaration of Independence was never a law to begin with, so it cannot have 'force' in law. Period.
The DoI is a statement only. Mostly to spell out our rejection of the Crown to OTHER nations. It was, at one time, held by Congress to be at the forefront of "The Organic Laws of the United States of America.", the Supreme Court does not. The court doesn't even afford it preamble status. The Supreme Court recognizes no Constitutional Right to revolution, for instance.
Hence, it has no force in law.
rug
(82,333 posts)Can you?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But again, the courts recognize no constitutional or legal right to secession or revolution. If the DoI was what you claim it is, surely you can demonstrate that the court DOES recognize the powers claimed within it?
They do not, amply demonstrated in the courts in the wake of the Civil War. In the eyes of the courts, the rebel states never ceased to be part of the union, because the right to secede is not recognized by the courts, not a part of US organic law, period, end of story.
You are inventing a legal fiction based on a handful of uses of that document in land disputes, property disputes, etc, in the IMMEDIATE WAKE of the revolutionary war.
A use that DOES NOT occur today.
rug
(82,333 posts)Plain and simple: the Declaration established the sovereignty of the thirteen states, irrevocably snipping the authority of English law in its former colonies and supplanting it with American statutes and jurisprudence. Period. And you say that had no legal effect?
From what mishmosh are you dredging secession and revolution?
I suspect you are confusing the enabling legislation that flows from a sovereign state with sovereignty itself.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)As you mentioned, we're on a different government now, a different state.
If you read the causes for secession by the various rebel states, you might note they read very much like the DoI itself. (At least some of them do.) The supreme court rejects the idea that they are so, that secession is a legal possibility for them, and that rebellion can be lawful. In the eyes of the court, despite the rebel states taking many of the same steps the founders did against England, no such break occurred during the war. The Rebel states remained part of the union.
There is a mechanism, a fundamental right detailed in the DoI that is directly relevant to this, and it is NOT recognized by the Supreme court as a right at all, and certainly not as part of US organic law.
That is why I said 'it has no force in law'. I did not say "And you say that had no legal effect?". Today, it has no force in law. The Congress could roust it from storage, and vote to burn it on the senate floor, and nothing would change. Nothing at all. Least of all, England coming for it's back taxes.
The Constitution itself is THE fundamental, organic law of the United States. Religious conservatives have, sometimes in late night sessions, attempted to pass legislation that WOULD cement the DoI as part of organic us law, because it is believed to be convenient to their efforts to 'recognize the us as a Christian nation' and things along those lines. (So far every measure has been defeated)
That is one decision, that you mentioned. Another Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 1830, which affixed the date the people of the US ceased to be British subjects, to determine the alien status of people who left the US after the DoI and returned before the 1783 treaty of peace. Something that does not grant the DoI force of law, or organic law status.
rug
(82,333 posts)Call Congress right fucking now!!!!11!!. We've been duped !
Oh, wait. Never mind.
The Declaration of Independence was utterly without legal effect.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Clearly you haven't read Texas vs. White.
"The Declaration of Independence was utterly without legal effect."
Again, this is not what I said. I said it has no force in law. TODAY. NOW. ZERO. NONE. I already acknowledged that it was used (rather arbitrarily, actually) in cases around the time the country was formed. It is not used today. There are two groups of people who WANT it to be used in such ways in modern times:
1. People who want to use the language of the DoI to establish that the US is some sort of Christian-origin nation.
2. People who want to use the language of the DoI to establish a right to secession/rebellion, to shelter themselves from legal repercussions when they try it.
In both cases the Supreme Court has rejected it. None of the language in the DoI that establishes a right to secede, or rebel, is recognized by the courts.
To paraphrase:
Call the Supreme Court right fucking now!!!111!1 We've been Duped!
(Call Sarah Palin's idiot Alaska-Separatist husband too, he'd love to know.)
rug
(82,333 posts)Now, to return to the original topic of the thread, it is a historical document of this country with legal significance. Do you object to the government of this country acknowledging its founding documents?
Your points 1 and 2 are pure speculation and opinion on your part. You're welcome to keep them.
As far as Texas v. White is concerned, it is entirely inapposite, concerning Reconstruction and the admission of states into the Union under the Constitution, issues entirely different from a declaration of independence and the creation of sovereignty.Texas hinged on the effect of a sovereign state joining the Union, not the establishment of sovereignty.
I am astounded at the muddle.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You are still not understanding what I am saying about Texas vs. White.
The Declaration of independence 'establishes' a right to secede. A right to rebel. A fundamental, inherent right.
The courts do not currently recognize such a right. They haven't since at LEAST the civil war, likely earlier. In the view of the courts, the union is binding. You can come in, you cannot leave. Basically we live in hotel California.
So, if the DoI WAS part of organic US law, that would tell us the Court has that wrong, right? And if the court is right, what does that tell us about the DoI's current force in law? Nonexistent right?
I'm not talking about the mechanism of a state joining the union, I'm talking about it's right to leave. The rebel states made the same (mostly) declarations of independence, including the cause for secession. The United States Government does not in any legal capacity, recognize the right to do so. If the DoI says you can, and the causes for secession followed the template of the DoI, and the courts DO NOT recognize that right established therein, then...
The inevitable conclusion is that the DoI is merely a historical document at this point. It has no current force in law.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Your point is clear, and valid, but you should know by now that you will never get him to admit it on any level. He also will not quit until he gets the last word.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)It is a foundational document but NOT A LAW.
rug
(82,333 posts)As shown above, the Declaration established the date of American sovereignty, which has legal effect across the board. In fact, without the Declaration, there would be no nation with the ability to enact any statutes.
When you say "law", do you realize that not all law is statutory?
struggle4progress
(118,234 posts)The courts have more or less uniformly held for years that such matters (like "In God We Trust"
are meaningless inscriptions that do not actually promote any particular religion
The quotes are all from historical figures, representing historical events. Several of the quotes are chiseled into DC monuments. No court will set a precedent forbidding the US from using such historical quotes. And no court will set a precedent allowing the plaintiffs to argue in the future that the quotes should be chiseled off the monuments
Moreover, any demonstrable harm to the defendants could only be so de minimis as to preclude standing
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)because every case of this type that they lose, adds to the body of case law that protects similar intersection of state/government in other areas.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)to use such a lot of real estate on our currency for meaningless inscriptions.