Talk:Ceremonial deism

Spirit of deism

That they use the term "ceremonial deism" is disgusting, and dishonourable to the true spirit of Deism, which is secular and humanistic. The courts should change the phrase to "Ceremonial Theism", and we Deists need to pressure them to do so, we must get the word out that this ceremonial imposition has NOTHING to do with Deism in any way. And then once we've accomplished this, we need to also join with the Atheists,Agnostics, Humanists, and many others in fighting to remove this "ceremonial Theism" from existence in the free west.--Iconoclastithon (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just undid a reset to an earlier form. The current form unquestionably lacks some neutrality, but it has a few relevant facts that the other did not.

Yes, it's too one-sidedly critical of ceremonial deism, but it achieves this effect purely through mentioning a few objective facts with no rhetoric.

In order to restore neutrality, more such objective facts that could support the pro-ceremonial deism stance should be added, rather than censoring the opposition.--Rorrenigol (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just now saw your comments here (sorry I didn't reply before) -- but I reverted you because your whole elaborate thing about a period of 14 years being "long and customary" was simply historically factually false, since In God We Trust was used on COINS as early as the Civil war -- just not on bills (as is documented on the In God We Trust article). AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Freemasons

I think ceremonial deism has something to do with Anglo-American Freemasons, at least in Regular lodges, since in most Latin or Continental lodges, the name of God is always omitted per liberal lodge policy, which is agnostic/atheist. ADM (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I just added a few references to when the term has been used in supreme court decisions. If there are any objections (style, formatting, content, neutrality, citations, &c.) please let me know -- this is my first edit to a Wikipedia article, and I'm sure I'm guilty of plenty of gaffes, but I'd like to learn.Nitsua60 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the article mentions that the term was coined in 1962 and has been used by the Supreme Court since 1963. However, I just reread the 1963 Abington v. Schempp opinion, and find no mention therein. Brennan, in his extensive analysis of possible future First Amendment issues, includes a section entitled Activities Which, Though Religious in Origin, Have Ceased to Have Religious Meaning which mentions explicitly both the U.S. motto and the Pledge (374 U.S. at 303). Can someone either find the 1963 usage or advise me on how to clarify that? Thanks. Nitsua60 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nussbaum quote

I find it a little unsettling that the Nussbaum quote is pulled from a paragraph-ending parenthetical statement in the referenced article. While Dr. Nussbaum lays out a compelling history of both "under God" and "in God we trust" and their treatment by the courts, I'm not sure why we're holding her up as an authority on what Deists think and endorse.

The sentiment--let's consider what Deists think about the phrase "ceremonial Deism"--is certainly laudable. I'm going to take some time to try and find material from Deists on the matter; if anyone out there has more-extensive knowledge than mine of Deist tenets please do chime in. Nitsua60 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We Need an NPOV Here

The lede says

Ceremonial deism is a legal term used in the United States for 
nominally religious statements and practices... 

It seems incontrovertible to me that the use of the word "nominally" is POV in favor of the notion that these practices are not actually religious but only "nominally" so. Further, I strongly I disagree; the notion that a reference to a deity like "In God We Trust" can be anything but religious is absurd. If it were not religious, it would not contain a reference to a deity; if it contains an affirming statement about a deity, it's religious, QED. To assert otherwise, IMO, is only possible from a POV that presupposes religion as the default, which it ain't.

Unfortunately, it could be said that removing the word "nominally" is also POV. I think it's more accurate, and less POV than the current lede, but I don't know if I can defend its removal as completely NPOV. Anyone have any suggestions of a better way to word this sentence?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

By saying "the notion that a reference to a deity like In God We Trust can be anything but religious is absurd" you're accusing the U.S. Supreme Court of absurdity. Ceremonial deism is far too religious for many committed atheists, but not remotely religious enough for many committed Christians. AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Absurdity" is the least of what I can accuse the court of, but in this context, yes, I am.

"Ceremonial deism" should be too religious for every American; the very concept is an absurd and blatant rationalization. And no, I'm not an atheist, for the benefit of anyone who has not subjected themselves to my user page.

But feel free to actually suggest a better way to word the sentence, which is the reason I commented here.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

I included a section, much like the one in the article on the Pledge of Allegiance, for pointing out legal, social, even grammatical controversies related to this subject. Please contribute more examples with references.