My question, for those that may understand better than I do how this makes sense is this - isn't this pure bunk?
Is there some legal technicality that explains this or does the decision really come down to justifications like this quote from the 1970 decision referenced: "the use of the motto on U.S. coins and bills is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
Patriotic? How can we say that this is nationalistic without saying that we are theocratic in nature?
Ceremonial? What ceremony?
Not a religious exercise? What kind of exercise is it then?
How does any of that survive any kind of scrutiny? Of course I'm not even close to educated on the legal intricacies here so I know there is LOTS I don't know. Maybe someone here can help me understand.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7