An atheist from California has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to remove the phrase “In God We Trust” on American currency, claiming it is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Congress and Treasury Department by Michael Newdow, 62, a Sacramento attorney, on Jan. 11 in Akron, Ohio on behalf of 41 plaintiffs. Newdow claims that the phrase “In God We Trust” violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
He stated, “In this way, we are affirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future.” In this way he is reassuring that America is religious even though not every American shares the same faith or religion. A lot of other American's do not even have a religion. The essay, Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised also states that around 70-80% of Americans state that they are part of a form of Christianity. This is not the only piece of American culture that is controversial among its
He then proceeds to how we are a nation, the first with freedom of opinion. There are so many religions, which one would you choose then? For a government to force and predetermine the religious opinions of children is absurd. If our government is supposed to protect the rights of religion, isn’t it hypocritical for it to force one on its
Censorship in Todays America Censorship has been a topic of debate for decades. Despite the existence of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, the United States has a long history of censoring literature. Most Americans believe that it is unethical to stifle freedom of expression, but often some of the First Amendment’s biggest supporters are its worst enemies. It shocks many to see how rampant it still is in the present day. This paper will show examples of how governments, religious institutions, and schools try to limit first amendment rights through censorship.
What The Pledge of Allegiance Means to Me The Pledge of Allegiance means a lot to me. One thing the Pledge means to me is that we are all one nation. The words “One nation, under God, indivisible, With liberty and justice for all. Another thing the Pledge means to me is that we are all equal.
People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.
McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) was a case that was presented to the supreme court. The issue at hand was that two Kentucky county courthouses displayed the 10 commandments publicly. As a result, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that this religious display violated the first 10 amendments of the Establishment Clause and sued the counties. After that, the courthouse continued to post not one but two displays alongside with the 10 commandments relating to their reasoning assuring the citizens to be on the same page with them. Which according to law, the government must not in any way favor one religion over another, moreover in this case the displays clearly violated the Establishment Clause because they were presented with texts-scriptures from the Bible involving in a particular promotion of Christian religion.
Justice Abe Fortas believes certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting .Hugo black argues that one should not demonstrate when he pleases and where he pleases. Justice Abe Fortes argues that certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting. In the story there was plenty of points one is ,” The prohibition of expression of one particular opinion….is not constitutionally permissible. ”(Paragraph 8)
In her article, “Censorship 101,” West crafts her text through numerous court case experience and skill in rhetorical devices as her background expertise is used to her advantage. Sonja West begins her argument with the use of exemplification in a previous court case. The scene is set in 1962, and West garments the introduction with excessive details and biased language as readers quickly root for the victory of the Tinker case and share the celebratory state of their
The cartoon depicts the Prime Minister pouring tea, indicative of the Tea Act, down the throat of an American Indian woman, who represents America. She is also being held down by a judge, who represents the British court system, which did not serve true justice to the colonists in terms of protecting their liberties.
It further postulates that such commentary on public figures is not only legal, but also healthy — implicitly making the argument that Free Speech is an essential feature of participation in democracy, and that public figures must bow to such caricatures in exchange for the power that society has bestowed upon them. It summarises this belief with a quote taken directly from the Hustler v. Falwell judgement: "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas. Freedom to speak one 's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty, but essential to the quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. In the world of debate about public affairs many things done with motives that are less than admirable are nonetheless protected by the First
It does not however say that an individual in office may have no religious beliefs at all. The statements I have put in bold are those I believe can be explained by this, a persons’ personal belief. Though all these statements can be depicted one way or another depending on your own beliefs, my opinion lays that statements like that of the Declaration of Independence mentioning God further more shows that the founding fathers believed and practiced Christianity but just because they did, they were not imposing it on everyone else that would be affected by an official document like the Constitution. The fact that founding fathers quoted the bible again was a personal choice that does not need much more explanation.