+21

Continuing from the preceding post:

In other words, the issue is different with that city than it is with the Congress chaplain example because even if the government of that city is certain that taking votes of all persons with right to vote in that city would approve the display of those establishments of religion, and assuming that would be representing the want for the whole city like how such process represent the want for Congress, unless this representation materialize and chooses those Christmas displays, the action of the government in making those displays would still be respecting those establishments of religion of those religious displays because it depends on the connection of those establishments to the people, in its decision to show those displays (This got to be the longest written sentence in history).
On the other hand, if for example, it is known that there is usually a traffic congestion on Christmas day and the government want to make that day a holiday because of that, or simply the government thinks that there is enough probability that there would be enough of missing work on that day because of being late to justify benefiting from counting it as one of the holidays it gives, then doing that wouldn't be respecting an establishment of religion even though there is a dependence on the connection of Christmas to people in recognizing the fact or probability that is the reason. The difference from the above situation is that the government in this is not doing something that is honoring or emphasizing the significance of a religious establishment (like a Nativity Scene or a Christmas Tree) and therefore needs the respect involved in doing that to be a pass through to another reason. Here, in the traffic congestion example for example, what the government interfacing is simply that traffic congestion or the probability for it to occur.     

+20

Continuing from the preceding post:

Here is a wikipedia LINK to an 1984 case in which the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts in their ruling that the Christmas decorations in question violate the First Amendment. I think that the court was wrong here and one can respond to the examples mentioned in the "Ruling" section there as follows. Yes, giving federal holiday on Christmas Day violates the establishment clause. But that practice began on 1870. The legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate, on the other hand, has much more importance here because of its proximity to the making and makers of the Amendment. However, that action does not necessarily violates the Amendment. That is because unlike the situation with the Christmas decorations of that city or giving Christmas Day as holiday, starting the action in question from the want of the same entity to which it applies and has the choice to accept or refuse can be claimed to be motivated by respect for the need or want of that entity without having that respect follows from a respect that was applied to the religious establishments first. Congress is good fit for that because representing its want is no different from making any other law.
The above was written with the assumption that the establishment clause also applies on the government there because I have not yet thought about the issue of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporating to this one.

+19

Continuing from post +17 and the issue of Congress making a law for printing "In God We Trust" on the money, as the main focus, I want to say that I cant see holding that as not in violation of the First Amendment except as clear denial and for a whole nation to agree on that, especially through out all this time, except as huge shame.

HERE is a link to the case of 1970.  Of course more can be said about that opinion but my focus here is on the two quotes from the final court at the end starting from "The course of constitutional neutrality...". One could easily point out here that the establishment clause could have been written as "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" and one could still argue that it prohibits the action mentioned above. But it was not even written like that. Instead, the expression "respecting an establishment of religion" gives more weight to the lack of none religious interpretation for the "In God We Trust" statement than to its harmlessness. That expression is impressive with how much it seems to hit things from far. Although expressing the effectiveness of this expression in the establishment clause in terms of distance might not be that fitting because it is more like that the word "respecting" changed the dimension of the conformity measure with the clause from effect to meaning.    

Unless you show me a behaviour contradicting this interpretation that was very wide spread and very close to the making of the Amendment, I really do not care much how far this "motto" goes back in history. The signs I saw in relation to the focus and the careful way this constitution was written make me feel even more confidence in that it was written to be sufficient through merely its own content without any additional help.

I thought that this was printed on only paper currency but it turned out to be even on coins.

         

+18

Where I lived before here I was oppressed  as a citizen which, as bad as it is, also makes it easier to escape moral responsibility for the actions of my government toward others in the world. Democracy on the other hand as much as it is better, also brings harder moral responsibility because it is the citizen who is the decision maker at least at the root level. For this reason I, as a citizen here, refuse that my government does the injustice of helping in installing or supporting the continuity of nondemocratic systems anywhere in the world. Furthermore, nondemocratic systems do not have the right to represent their people and therefore dealing with them should be as limited as possible and things should be judged by what we see as good for the people there not what those governments seek. As a citizen here, I want the protection of being on the just side and not only the material protection from the outside.

In addition to the moral obligation to conform to the above, it is much more closer to your identity than printing "In God We Trust" on all paper currency. Is there a better example of a country that was rooted in democracy and still has it ongoing than here? And of course this is also much more on the path to God.  

  

+17

Continued from the preceding post

While this is far from being as important as the issue with the Second Amendment, it still demonstrates another scary example for how much people may allow themselves to follow their wishes blinding themselves off the facts. So the mentioning of God has nothing to do with religion? Are you people serious? Could the excuses to justify the "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill be more lame? I cant see how something as purely religious as this can be seen in conformity with the First Amendment. But lets assume there is a room for a doubt here. Still, the question to the legislators is do you people really think that you are more on the side of God when you take such risk of violating the agreement on the Constitution? Or is it that you do not care about hijacking God's name like this just to continue with an identity established based on the contrast with the communists?  

+16

We have a constitution saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but still we put "In God We Trust" on the Dollar. For which one of those two things we should admit to just kidding ourselves? 

+15: Second Comma in A 2 S 1 C 5 of The Constitution 2

Again, better focus supported my original inclination and showed a strong argument for the second comma being not just correct to be there but also not needed. First, for the argument that the part "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" could be understood to also apply on the "natural born Citizen" one could ask why then the first comma was used? This counter argument will be strengthened by seeing the importance of the purpose the second comma could be serving. The second comma supports that the description" at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" applies to being a Citizen and not to "United States". Without this comma it could be argued that it is always permitted for person who is not a "natural born Citizen" to become the President of the country if he is from one of the States that formed the "United States" during the Adoption of the Constitution.