Atheist Plans Lawsuit Challenging Motto on U.S. Currency

[jonny]

Let us go back to E Pluribus Unum?:woohoo:

I would support this since it more accurately describes our country, but isn't this a Mason phrase or something? (I might be getting that mixed up with something else)

 

[jonny]

It also establishes the right of individuals to enjoy the religion or non-religion of thier choice. It guarantees that religion will never be used as a test for holding office - and even that has been corrupted beyond measure.

I agree with this and it is the exact reason that I am finding it harder and harder to vote Republican. I would love to see Mitt Romney run for president, but I know he could never get support in the south because he is LDS.

And I would correct this as well. You can not take faith out of government because there will always be religious politicians. Religions are organizations which should not allowed in or allowed to sway government. It is bad enough that religious special interests are active in lobbying.

I don't make a distinction between faith and religion. To me they are one and the same. Why shouldn't religions be allowed to lobby the government? Decisions are made that effect them on many issues. Limiting the rights of religions is exactly what I am against.

I'm all for a fence - in fact, I wish it to be an impervious high wall. As it is today, the wall has so many stones missing, it is very difficult to keep religion out. It is obvious that some religions have no respect for the constitution and those it protects.

And it also obvious to me that many have no respect for people's religious beliefs. The constitution protects my right to practice my religion. The only limitation that it makes is that the state cannot establish a religion.

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

Here's a compromise; "in gods we trust", or, perhaps, "in dieties we trust".

 

[s2a]

While I would offer that legislative/court-imposed removal of references to "God" from US currency and the Pledge are pretty low on a lengthy list of much more pressing national priorities, I certainly would be pleased to see them (eventually) removed. It's not government's role to approve, sponsor, or support - religious beliefs, myths, or superstitions.

What I fail to understand completely is the continued motivations of Christians (I mean, let's be real. Hear of many Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or other monotheistic adherents voicing their wholehearted support?) to steadfastly defend the incorporation of "In God We Trust" on US currency.

On our money?

Do Christians actually believe that piety should be expressed on money?

Do they really believe that their God thinks that this is, devotionally, a "good thing"?

On money?

Matthew 6:24
[Jesus said] "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

But putting His name on money is OK?

Luke 16:14-15
"The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight."

Hmmm. "...detestable in God's sight." Hmmmm.

1 Timothy 6:3-6
"If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain."

How ironic.

How prophetic.

So, can some Christian advocate of retaining "In God We Trust" on our money explain to me, or righteously justify from Scripture, why they think it's a "good idea", or otherwise pleasing to their God?

Anyone?

[If I were a Christian, I'd be embarrassed and ashamed to think that money (or a sworn pledge of fidelity/allegiance to a representative icon) should be employed to profess my faith or trust in my God.]

 

[The Conspirator]

Fat Kat Matt, just cause something is a tradition doesn't mean its good nor dose it mean it should remain.

It has been my experience that people like to justify things by calling them tradition, that doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it wrong and should be no factor in determining anything.

Less enlightened? Since when is a belief in God less enlightened than a lack of belief? Are you equating intelligence with spirituality?

Cause lack of belief is based on provable facts and thought, not faith in something unprovable with no real evidence of its existence.

 

[Pah]

...I don't make a distinction between faith and religion. To me they are one and the same. Why shouldn't religions be allowed to lobby the government? Decisions are made that effect them on many issues. Limiting the rights of religions is exactly what I am against.

Many don't make that distinction. In a sense, faith is synonymous with religion but faith is what the individual holds - dogma is what the religion holds.

Religions shouldn't lobby because the spokesperson would "persuade" from dogma. It is a religious postition. Whereas the religious organization, can make the claim that it argues from secular understanding. Sectarian out - secular in. The risk of religious organizations is in being "outed" for promoting religious tenents. Anything that leads to a theocracy should be verboten.

And it also obvious to me that many have no respect for people's religious beliefs. The constitution protects my right to practice my religion. The only limitation that it makes is that the state cannot establish a religion.

I have little respect for religion but a whole lot of respect for faith.

There are limits placed on the practise of religion when it violates state concerns for issues such as safety and crime. Religion and those that practise do not get a free ride. And you are also wrong in making that assertion of only denying the establishment of a state religion is what is in the written. The Constitution forbids a religious test for holding office. and it protects religious freedoms. By the way, not establishing a state religion does nothing for or against individual religious freedom. You will find that in England and Sweeden for two such counties where the populace enjoys religious freedom and there is a state religion. The Soviet Union had no state religion and no individual freedom. America has no state religion and individuals have religious freedoms. However, the Vatican has a state religion and no religious freedom - you are either a Catholic or you go outside that country for your church.

 

[retrorich]

We should get rid of the motto, "In God We Trust," because it implies that ALL Americans trust in God. That is not the case. I know I don't. We should also remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance for the same reason.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

in the days the writing of the constitution Americans did believe in God.
The only matter in doubt was the religion they followed.
It was so much the norm that putting " in God we trust" on money was not even an isssue for them. The constitution was written in the belief that there truly was a God, but that the State should not take sides in how he should be worshiped. But never the less Americans should believe and trust in God.
At that time the same was true in all western counteries.
It never crossed any ones mind that allowences should be made for those who did not believe in God. and no provision was made in the constitution for them.
To day people seem to want to deny their past, and many do not believe in any sort of God.

We are now trying to fit modern beliefs and non beliefs into a constitution that was never intended to cover this. Of course we are finding this difficult, and contentious.
Rather than fiddle around with laws that flow from the Constitution, perhaps it would be better to revise the Constitution itself to clarify the status of belief systems and or the lack of them.

Terry________________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[jonny]

Rather than fiddle around with laws that flow from the Constitution, perhaps it would be better to revise the Constitution itself to clarify the status of belief systems and or the lack of them.

This ain't gonna happen any time soon. 2/3 of the states will not be able to pass revisions to the constitution that put limitations on religion. I think that the constitution covers everything needed...if we get the right judges interpreting it.

 

[jonny]

Anything that leads to a theocracy should be verboten.

Something we can agree on!

By the way, not establishing a state religion does nothing for or against individual religious freedom. You will find that in England and Sweeden for two such counties where the populace enjoys religious freedom and there is a state religion.

I don't think that the problem with state religions is that there is a lack of religious freedom, rather it is a climate that can be created in the country where certain sects are given special privledges by the government.

Anyway, I'm all for putting E Pluribus Unim on the money - especially after reading about why In God We Trust was put there in the first place on the US Treasury web site - but I think that Michael Newdow should be trying to get this accomplished through his senator and not by force through the courts. I'm sure that Barbara Boxer would love to take this on.

 

[SoyLeche]

Isn't E Pluribus Unim already on the money? I don't have any bills to check, but it's on the nickle in my pocket.

 

[jonny]

Isn't E Pluribus Unim already on the money? I don't have any bills to check, but it's on the nickle in my pocket.

I'm not sure. Now that you say something, I think it is. How many mottos do our coins need?

 

[spacemonkey]

I'd like to see all the athiests move to Canada where they would be much happier and leave us religious folk alone, but we don't all get what we want.

I think we should let the Christian zelots have everything south of Kentucky and east of the Mississippi River so they can set up a nice theocracy and have a Dark Age Renassaince. This country was founded on the princapal of FREE religion, and if you don't like that you can move out.

 

[spacemonkey]

"E pluribis unim" just means "out of many, one" and has no religous undertones.

 

[AtheistAJ]

Ok fine. Go ahead an remove the saying. But then every christian, including myself, or any one committed to American tradition will be fighting to get it put back on. The arguing and fighting over it will never stop.

I say keep it. Not only because I myself am Christian, but because no matter what anyone thinks, this country was built on religion. The founding fathers wanted that on our money. They wanted it on our buildings. Our country will always be that way. You would have to rewrite the US Constitution if you wanted this entire country to be secular.

The motto "under god" was added to the bank note in the 1950's by president Roosevelt. He hardly founded this nation. What about two of the Mount Rushmore presidents, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln? And how are you for American traditions if you want to change the constitution so that you can persuade the government to pay for endorsing your religion? Are you also for slavery?
If America really was like that, than I wouldn't want to be an American. Freethinkers don't restrict themselves to "traditions". Do you and Johnny want the country only ran by cultist zealots and only be inhabited by extremists?

 

[SoyLeche]

The motto "under god" was added to the bank note in the 1950's by president Roosevelt. He hardly founded this nation. What about two of the Mount Rushmore presidents, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln? And how are you for American traditions if you want to change the constitution so that you can persuade the government to pay for endorsing your religion? Are you also for slavery?
If America really was like that, than I wouldn't want to be an American. Freethinkers don't restrict themselves to "traditions". Do you and Johnny want the country only ran by cultist zealots and only be inhabited by extremists?

I think it's interesting that everyone seems to think that those who want "In God We Trust" to remain on the currency always seem to go back to - "Are you also for slavery"

I fail to see the relevancy of this argument. It seems to be along the lines of an appeal to Hitler - "That's something Hitler would do" - designed to stop an argument, not because of logic, but because of emotion.

 

[spacemonkey]

Sounds to me like the Christians in this counry are for freedom of religion as long as it is "their" rreligion. In reality the motto on our currency should say "In This I Trust" because money is really what drives this country.

 

[SoyLeche]

Do you and Johnny want the country only ran by cultist zealots and only be inhabited by extremists?

I think that all they want is for the statement on the currency, which still reflects the opinion of a majority of Americans, to remain there. I'm sure there are some people flying the Stars and Bars that think that Lincoln was evil and want him off of the $5 bill. Would you have his picture removed because it offends some people?

 

[almifkhar]

i never understood why they ever put such a saying on money in the first place.

 

[spacemonkey]

I think it's interesting that everyone seems to think that those who want "In God We Trust" to remain on the currency always seem to go back to - "Are you also for slavery"

I fail to see the relevancy of this argument. It seems to be along the lines of an appeal to Hitler - "That's something Hitler would do" - designed to stop an argument, not because of logic, but because of emotion.

While I have not used the slavery argument, I belive it stems from folks saying the motto should be on the currency to represent the religous traditions of the past. They are trying to make the point that not all traditions are good for everyone in the modern world.