Atheist Plans Lawsuit Challenging Motto on U.S. Currency

[jamaesi]

I don't know. Maybe we should put it on the ballot. My guess is that the majority of the people in this country actually do trust in God. Therefore, it probably represents the beliefs of the majority of us. I don't see it as a big of a deal either way. I know I certainly don't need to see it on every dollar bill I handle to remind me that in God I trust.

I don't know. Maybe we should put slavery on the ballot. My guess is that the majority of the people in this country actually do want slavery. Therefore, it probably represents the beliefs of the majority of us. I don't see it as a big of a deal either way. I know I certainly don't need to see it on every dollar bill I handle to remind me what I think of slavery.




The majourity hardly ever protects the right of minourities.

 

[SoyLeche]

I don't know. Maybe we should put slavery on the ballot. My guess is that the majority of the people in this country actually do want slavery. Therefore, it probably represents the beliefs of the majority of us. I don't see it as a big of a deal either way. I know I certainly don't need to see it on every dollar bill I handle to remind me what I think of slavery.




The majourity hardly ever protects the right of minourities.

That's something Hitler would do

 

[spacemonkey]

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?

Having President Lincoln's portrait on the $5 is not a direct contradiction of the 1st Ammendment like "In God We Trust" is. How happy would all you Christians be if it said "In [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Confucius We Trust".
[/font]

 

[SoyLeche]

Having President Lincoln's portrait on the $5 is not a direct contradiction of the 1st Ammendment like "In God We Trust" is. How happy would all you Christians be if it said "In [font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Confucius We Trust".
[/font]

If Confucious is God to you, it already does

 

[spacemonkey]

No, Confucius was a man, whose teachings are followed as a religion in China. You may know him as the fortune cookie guy.

 

[SoyLeche]

No, Confucius was a man, whose teachings are followed as a religion in China. You may know him as the fortune cookie guy.

I know who he was.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have a couple of things to say here:

1) I would like to see some Christians answer the questions posed by s2a: namely, why on Earth would you want "In God We Trust" on money, the "source of all evil"? I agree with s2a here. If I were Christian, I would view that as incredibly sacreligious--it's like giving money--the thing so despised in much of the Bible--the status and sanction of God. I would think Christians would be outraged to see God so disrespected as to have His name on money.

Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the money for the tax." And they brought him a coin. 20 And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21 They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

2) This isn't about "restricting religion" or "limiting religion". Reality check, people: Buddhism is a religion. Wicca is a religion. Taoism is a religion. Confucianism is a religion. This is about the government treating these religions as equal. "In God We Trust" does not accurately reflect the beliefs of many religions. That phrase clearly endorses the monotheistic religions over others, which is not Constitutional.

3) Yep, the majority of Americans believe in a god. But our government is not in the business of trumpeting the opinion of the majority simply for the sake of alleviating the majority's insecurities with the onset of rising minorities. Most Americans believe Jesus is their Lord and Savior, too. So why don't we put "In Jesus We Trust" on our money? Most Americans would agree with that phrase.

The reason we don't put that on our money is the same reason we shouldn't have "In God We Trust" on our money now: it endorses particular religion(s) over others, and it is totally superfluous to the duties and responsibilities of our government, which is not concerned with God or Jesus but with protecting peoples' rights and taxing us and placating us with public-funded football stadiums. The majority of Americans have plenty of forums to express their views (public access, radio, TV, internet forums ) ....they don't need the government's help. And if the majority of Americans were atheists, I would not want our money to say "In No God We Trust" either.

4) The Constitution is not simply about keeping the government from creating a State religion, though that is certainly one facet. Let's take a look at what the founding fathers and other luminaries thought about religion:

"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" From Jefferson's biography

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." John Adams, Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

from http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/

5) I agree that this is not a very important issue. I also agree that "political correctness" is in some ways a rather silly philosophy that, when carried to its extreme, inhibits harmless activity like teaching religious traditions in the classroom (in the proper context, ie a religion class). In fact, I don't even agree that people should be trying to get the phrase removed, if for no other reason than that any attempts right now will probably fail, and many in our country will interpret that as a sign that our government really is a Christian government.
​

 

[Pah]

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.

It is thought by some who advocate this and are working toward this goal that the State of South Carolina is sufficent. They propose taking over the state government and succeeding from the union.

On out part, we ought to let them. And then seal the boarder

 

[Darkdale]

It is thought by some who advocate this and are working toward this goal that the State of South Carolina is sufficent. They propose taking over the state government and succeeding from the union.

On out part, we ought to let them. And then seal the boarder

Sounds like the antithesis of the Libertarian Free State Project.

 

[spacemonkey]

I'm not an athiest, I just want the rights I'm told that I have.

 

[Katzpur]

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

At one time, Conspirator, there was no "evidence" that the earth was round. The vast majority of mankind was certain that it was flat. That was, after all, what the available evidence for centuries seemed to imply. When were the first dinosaur remains discovered? I'm not actually sure of the date, but I do know that dinosaurs were a reality long before anyone proved their existence. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I personally find your attitude very condescending.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't know. Maybe we should put slavery on the ballot. My guess is that the majority of the people in this country actually do want slavery. Therefore, it probably represents the beliefs of the majority of us.

I think that's an absurd analogy for starters. And it's even more preposterous to think that the majority of the people in this country want slavery. Just out of curiosity, just what kinds of things do you believe the majority should have a say on? What kinds of things are legitimately put to a vote, in your opinion?

 

[ChrisP]

I think that's an absurd analogy for starters. And it's even more preposterous to think that the majority of the people in this country want slavery. Just out of curiosity, just what kinds of things do you believe the majority should have a say on? What kinds of things are legitimately put to a vote, in your opinion?

I wonder if anyone would advocate slavery if it was open to members of any race?

 

[Katzpur]

I wonder if anyone would advocate slavery if it was open to members of any race?

Of course there are always people who would. I just don't believe it's at all reasonable to assume that the majority of US citizens would want it today.

 

[greatcalgarian]

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

Read this web:
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

Repeat here for those who did not read the entire thread.

 

[greatcalgarian]

in the days the writing of the constitution Americans did believe in God.
The only matter in doubt was the religion they followed.

Not really. Some believe in Gods, and some are atheist, Agnostic, theist, deist etc.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_buckner/unchristian-roots.html

This country went on not only to found what is likely the first entirely secular government in human history but also to guarantee religious liberty for all in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that in any way restricts the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government, a flood of editorials, articles, and letters protesting the ruling is sure to appear in the newspapers. Many protesters decry these decisions on the grounds that they conflict with the wishes and intents of the "founding fathers."

http://www.iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000373
Many good discussion on intent of Founder Fathers.

Of course many Christians will have the opposite view:
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/04-29-05.asp

And then you might want to learn more on this article by Jim Walker:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."​

​

 

[Quiddity]

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.

And how exactly does a statement on currency take that away?

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And how exactly does a statement on currency take that away?

Would someone please answer s2a's question as to why one would want the government to presume endorsement by God of its currency? Don't any Christians, Muslims, or Jews out there view the slogan on US money as sacreligious?

 

[s2a]

At one time, Conspirator, there was no "evidence" that the earth was round.

In what time was that? The evidence has always been existent. It's only when free inquiry was suppressed that accurate representation of what the available evidence empirically suggested has their been "official" doubts.

Anyone in millennia past could have readily observed that the earth's shadow, cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse, was round, not flat. Recorded history attributes (with modest substantiation) that observant "philosophers" (there was no such thing as "scientists" in such days) in the period of 600 - 450BC (most notably Thales of Milete, Pythagoras of Samos, Alcmaeon of Croton, and Parmenides of Elea) postlated a sperical Earth. Aristotle (of Stagira - 384-322 BC) was (is) the first quotable source of merit in proposing a spherical Earth (by the observable means lent above).

The vast majority of mankind was certain that it was flat.

The vast majority of mankind was ignorant and purposefully kept so by the corrupt and self-interested few (almost exclusively religious priests).

That was, after all, what the available evidence for centuries seemed to imply.

No, it's what the churches in power mandated as "fact" (and freely persecuted those that chose to suggest differing "heretical" views).

How sad and unfortunate is the contemporary realization that predominant religious censure and persecution were matters of sanctioned law - that "scientific heresy" was a "crime", both enforceable (without appeal) and punishable by death. If religion had not reigned supreme as State power and authority for nearly 1800 years, just imagine to what heights our knowledge and understanding of the cosmos might have achieved by present day? Just 500 years ago, Galileo and Copernicus were branded as religious heretics, for suggesting (scientifically) a spherical Earth and a heliocentric order of planetary motion.

When were the first dinosaur remains discovered?

The first dinosaur to be described scientifically was Megalosaurus. This genus was named in 1824, by William Buckland. However, the first "discovered remains" most probably occurred thousands of years ago (by Romans, Greeks, and Chinese); leading to the many myths and legends of veritable folklore/superstition - dragons, griffons, trolls, and ogres.

I'm not actually sure of the date, but I do know that dinosaurs were a reality long before anyone proved their existence. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I personally find your attitude very condescending

I will proffer a religious modification upon that aged axiom.

"Absence of ignorance is not necessarily ignorance of absence".

To deny empirical evidence is to promulgate ignorance itself.

Many today may take offense (perhaps, even rightly so) at "condescending attitudes" extended towards those defenders/adherents of religious "truths" - but the historical record of "undenaibale" claims of "religious fact" (it was "defenders" of Biblical "truth" that INSISTED, to the point of regular religious persecution, that our sun revolved about the Earth, and that our planet was planar, not spherical)...versus those of substantiated/demonstrable (even most painfully obvious) "scientific fact" - that those resolutely and immutably held "beliefs" were (and remain) so pathetically and consistently (and embarrassingly) WRONG...that it's difficult for anyone of reason and critical thinking to take ANY religious claim of "fact" with even a modicum of serious consideration.

The Bible is not today, nor ever was, a science textbook. It is a compilation of poetry, anecdote, metaphor, simile, and ordered guidelines of imposed strict obedienc...in order that the select erudite few might master and direct the erstwhile simple minds of the "great unwashed" majority.


"Confused about life? Don't know whether you're coming or going? Can't write your name on a contract? No problem. Allow me to tell you what to think; where you're going (and why); where to sign; and what to fear and reject...and what to accept and embrace. Trust me. I know what's best for you because I'm fiscally and politically empowered and...you're just ignorant and stupid."

Just whom has condescended to who (and how many) for how long?

Paybacks are a b*tch.

Just try not to take it personally...

;-)

 

[SoyLeche]

Would someone please answer s2a's question as to why one would want the government to presume endorsement by God of its currency? Don't any Christians, Muslims, or Jews out there view the slogan on US money as sacreligious?

Shootin' from the hip here, but here's an idea. Perhaps for some the slogan is a reminder that, although in this day and age money is important, God is more important. Kinda like saying to your money - "Sure, I can't buy things without you, but I don't trust you. I place my trust in God"

I'm not sure if anyone really thinks that, but it is an idea.