Indeed, however the Courts didn't create a big problem as they have no choice but to be involved in the issue. It was the shallow weak mindedness of self-interest politicians 60 odd years ago who caused and created the problem, not the Courts. The very fact that the Establishment clause had to exist in the first place to specifically address, restrict and contain religious belief by Constitutionally separating it from the state in law, is a strikingly powerful thing in itself and reason why the Court will inevitably be obliged to return regularly to what is an obvious constitutional whitewash. As you will have noticed by now I do so appreciate the utter irony in the way the use on money etc of "In God We Trust" has so spectacularly backfired into God having to be stripped of its divinity and declared secular, along with the phrase itself having to lose all claim in law to connections with any religious or Christian heritage, just to keep the status quo. Gotta love America, as always, a land of contradictions. Mandated diversity training is a contrast but not comparable unless you're considering the way apples compare to bananas. It is not a religious belief. If it is a belief at all then it is a political one only. I agree right back at ya. "In God We Trust" is clearly religious. You say no one is being forced to do or say anything, to affirm any sort of belief or anything else by its use. But no one trusts in something they don't believe in so may I suggest it is the state which is confirming and affirming and establishing religiousness on behalf of We The People, by declaring a trust in something religious that a large and growing minority of Americans would never endorse. No government Congress state or politician is going to tell me what I do and do not have trust in. I suspect you feel the same.
Agreed. I thought it was terrible when Google decided to eliminate "Do No Evil" from their corporate code of conduct. I guess they figured they are indeed doing evil things all the time? As for morality, yes, it can come from rational humans, but do you see any out there in numbers?
Well if I don't see it, having "In God We Trust" stamped all over everything hasn't worked. But if morality isn't coming from a good number of rational humans, then there's even less chance it is going to be coming from irrational ones with silly religious mottoes, in my view.
I disagree with 'hasn't worked'. It made people believe and respect morality for 200+ years and 2000+ years as a whole, if you take it all the way down. I am not saying that has been ideal, far from it, only that things would have been and will be much worse if you don't give humans something to believe in. The decay in the moral fabric of society we are seeing is not just an accident, but the consequence of letting people decide on their own what is good or bad relative to what they see around them.
Well there's a myth if there ever was one. If there is decay in the moral fabric of society it's nonsense to say it's from people deciding on their own what is good or bad. All societies of every kind pretty much inhibit that in general and always have. To say religion , specifically Christian religion, made people believe and respect morality means it is based entirely upon a code which requires the sacrificial death of another person for people to be redeemed of something they may not have done. That is some fkd up idea of morality. People have made good moral decision despite that crap and other such wacky beliefs. Morality is instinctive. It may be delayed or abused or misunderstood (by religion for example) or sometimes ignored altogether, but nevertheless it is instinctive. That's why people in a common consensus can make good moral decisions without and despite religious edict. Law based upon people being free to develop democratically reasoned moral standards is something to believe in and what this country is based upon,and what best forms the fabric of society when it is properly maintained. Religion is nothing but a distraction from that and always has been.
the funny thing is we just found out that the States must respect the religious convictions of a private baker. The Federal Reserve is a private baker of Federal Reserve Notes. (except I believe for most recently the 1964 United States Note) Federal Reserve Notes are owned by the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System is owned by the Regional FED banks who are owned by private shareholders. you can read about who owns the FED system here.... however note when they say the privately owned minority banks on have a say because they only have 5 of the 12 board members. Understand for the board to change policy it must be unanimous. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/ --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note The authority of the Federal Reserve Banks to issue notes comes from the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Legally, they are liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks and obligations of the United States government. Although not issued by the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve Notes carry the (engraved) signature of the Treasurer of the United States and the United States Secretary of the Treasury. At the time of the Federal Reserve's creation, the law provided for notes to be redeemed to the Treasury in gold or "lawful money." The latter category was not explicitly defined, but included United States Notes, National Bank Notes, and certain other notes held by banks to meet reserve requirements, such as clearing certificates.[8] The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 removed the gold obligation and authorized the Treasury to satisfy these redemption demands with current notes of equal face value (effectively making change). Under the Bretton Woods system, although citizens could not legally possess gold (except as rare coins, jewelry, for industrial purposes and the like), the federal government continued to maintain a stable international gold price. This system ended with the Nixon Shock of 1971, and starting in 1975 Americans were allowed to possess unlimited amounts of gold with its value dependent on the market price. Present-day Federal Reserve Notes are not backed by convertibility to any specific commodity, but only by the collateral assets that Federal Reserve Banks post in order to obtain them.[9]
Agree and disagree with aspects of your post. But I definitely disagree with the 'morality is instinctive'. That is totally wrong. If you are raised in a society that is immoral, your 'instincts' will tell you that immorality is correct.
I hate people who do that. Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee USA TODAY analysis finds 3,500 legal actions by and against Trump, fighting everyone from the government to the vodka makers. Nick Penzenstadler and Susan Page, USA TODAY Donald Trump is a fighter, famous for legal skirmishes over everything from his golf courses to his tax bills to Trump University. But until now, it hasn’t been clear precisely how litigious he is and what that might portend for a Trump presidency. An exclusive USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits. The sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements. Just since he announced his candidacy a year ago, at least 70 new cases have been filed, about evenly divided between lawsuits filed by him and his companies and those filed against them. And the records review found at least 50 civil lawsuits remain open even as he moves toward claiming the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in seven weeks. On Tuesday, court documents were released in one of the most dramatic current cases, filed in California by former students accusing Trump University of fraudulent and misleading behavior.
I think you would find it hard to maintain that in any society where say for instance defenseless children were being harmed, there would not be a majority of those who would instinctively and naturally be reacting against it, irrespective of societal pressure or being told what to do or not to do or what to trust. If a person couldn't do right in that situation then it is not religion or religious edict that they lack, rather it is those things which are known to occur naturally - altruism and empathy. Had you never heard of religion, never even seen things like "In God We Trust" which tells you bugger all really, you'd still instinctively understand what was happening and that it was bad, wrong, not good.