Atheist Plans Lawsuit Challenging Motto on U.S. Currency

[Quiddity]

When they are endorsed by my goverment, yes.

Your government? You mean our government. I was thinking there was something else to it. Silly me...

Sometimes, yes indeed. But you already knew that. What else do you hope to accomplish by debating here?

Grow, correct, understand, etc. Some of which do not have pleasure attached to it. May I recommend a regular sport?

Everything you do comes down to the happiness you're getting from it (or pain you're trying to avoid).

That's not the way I function. Certainly I move away from pain and toward pleasure. But doing what is right supercedes that.

~Victor

 

[jonny]

Let me answer by asking a counter-question: would you support having the phrase "In Jesus We Trust" on our currency? Why or why not?

I don't know if you already read the entire thread, but I already answered this question. I also stated that I don't care whether or not "In God We Trust" is on the currency. I lean towards the "it is taking the name of God in vain to have his name printed on something like money" position.

I still don't think it is discrimination because it has absolutely no impact on anyone. If someone can tell me how their life has been affected negatively because of a phrase on a penny I will gladly concede that it is discrimination. The only impact the topic has on anyone is to divide the country further.

 

[Faint]

Your government? You mean our government

Mine, ours, tomato, tomatoe...

Grow, correct, understand, etc. Some of which do not have pleasure attached to it. May I recommend a regular sport?

That's where you're wrong...happiness it the ultimate goal of everything (I will probably start a new thread on this). Why grow? Why correct? Why understand? These things are not ends in themselves, but stepping stones to something else that you want. Follow that trail long enough you'll see that it leads to what I'm talking about. Even the God you trust in is another step on this trail. Ultimately, you want to be happy--in this world and the next.

That's not the way I function. Certainly I move away from pain and toward pleasure. But doing what is right supercedes that.

And again, why bother doing what is right if not for the happiness/satifaction/pleasure it brings you? If you don't do what is right, you might feel some kind of pain...

Yeah, I'm way off topic now...new thread >>> > > >

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't know if you already read the entire thread, but I already answered this question.

You already answered "Would you support having 'In Jesus We Trust' on our money, and why or why not" ? Please direct me to your answer.

I still don't think it is discrimination because it has absolutely no impact on anyone.

Nor would it have an impact on anyone, I suppose, if it said "In Muhammad We Trust" or "In Jesus We Trust". But nowhere in the definition of "discrimination" do I find any requirement that it must "have an impact" on someone. Besides, as I said before, it is the principle of the matter. Once again, I defer to the words of America's founding fathers:

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens,
and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.
The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened
itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.
They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided
the consequences by denying the principle."
James Madison

Here's part of the problem, by the way: the motto was introduced to our money, and Buddhists, nontheists, Wiccans, etc. were too few and too repressed to do anything about it. Now the motto has been on our money for decades, and the "usurped power" of the dominant religious groups has "entangled the question in precedents."

If someone can tell me how their life has been affected negatively because of a phrase on a penny I will gladly concede that it is discrimination. The only impact the topic has on anyone is to divide the country further.

Well if you put a statement of religious faith on currency that conflicts with the beliefs of thousands of people, you can pretty much expect that the result will be division. That's why the motto should be taken off. (Not now, though, i.m.o.--there are a lot more important issues at hand.)

How would anyone's life be affected negatively if we had "In Jesus We Trust" or "In No God We Trust" or "In Muhammad We Trust" on our money? Would you be fine with having those phrases on all currency printed by our government?

 

[jonny]

You already answered "Would you support having 'In Jesus We Trust' on our money, and why or why not" ? Please direct me to your answer.

See post #20. I wouldn't agree with "In [insert any diety here] we trust" being on any money.

I don't know what you're trying to convince me about on the subject. I'm going to leave the debate to people who have an opinion on it because, as I've stated, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. If the phrase was taken off tomorrow I wouldn't care. I also wouldn't care if it stayed on the money.

The only thing I care about is that the case was taken to the courts rather than the legislature. I'm sure that Mr. Newdow could easily find a senator who would take it up.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

I don't especially care, honestly. Do I think it should be on there? Nah, probably not. I think there are better issues out there to concentrate on, though. And if anyone's too bothered by seeing that on their money, they're welcome to get rid of the money by sending it to me

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The only thing I care about is that the case was taken to the courts rather than the legislature.

That's part of the checks and balances of our system. The Judicial branch can declare laws made by the legislative branch (e.g. the law which requires currency to say "In God We Trust" on it) unConstitutional (which it is). By design, the Courts, not the legislature, are able to best protect the rights of minorities.

 

[s2a]

Just to echo Mr. Spink's comments (with my own embellishments ;-)), it's important to reiterate both the initial constitutional intent and ongoing role of an independent judiciary in an established and purposed triumvirate government of responsible/accountable checks and balances.

What possible beneficient purpose would an independent Judicial branch of government serve if it merely validated and rubber-stamped all actions and laws enacted by the Executive and Legislative branches?

The abject ignorance and stupidity evinced by those that routinely complain that there's no "accountability" (to "the people") for rendered interpretations/decisions of constitutional law by our (state and federal) supreme courts is embarassingly pervasive in a nation that is supposedly the sower and shining beacon of freedom for those that seek it's realization in their own countries and lives.

Those crazy, "unaccountable","activist", independent-minded courts and justices!

Well...DUH.

THAT"S the whole IDEA. Courts and judges are supposed to be independent, and not subject to bribe, threat, or coercion from the other branches of government...or the whim and fancy of momentary popular majority or polling opinion. The courts (not Congress, nor the Presidency) are the ultimate guardians of constitutional protections and freedoms for ALL citizens.

How many times must it be said that we do not reside in a "pure" democracy of "mob rule"? "Majority opinion" (when expressed as a matter of criminal law or enforcible civic policy) that patently violates or prejudices the inherent constitutional rights of the few, or the one - can only be countered by a fully and completely independent justice system...with empowered judges "unaccountable" to any "majority opinion".

Laws (and law makers) are subject to societal trends/pressures/opinions that demand "immediate action" ("Somebody should do something about that!"). Weak and ineffective politicians will immediately bend and submit to "majority opinion" - heedless of any short or long-term ramifications upon our most cherished individual liberties. Mr. Rogers says, "Can you say...Patriot Act?".

When local, state, or federal lawmakers and/or elected executive officials mandate or enact civic policy or legislation (either purposefully in some declared communal "best interest"; or some manifestly stupid and ultimately regrettable knee-jerk reaction realized of contemporarily rash and indeliberative haste), a citizen's lone source in redress of personal grievance is the courts. Indeed, politicians are "accountable" to "the people", which is why (so very often) they act as stupidly and heedlessly as "the people" (and evinced "majority opinion") they presumably well represent.

Exceptional personal character and courage of independent though and insight is requisite to challenge a popular lynch mob hell-bent on a righteous hangin'. If "majority rule" actually did [rule]...there would be no need or purpose for an independent, "unaccountable to the people", judicially "supreme" branch of government. None.

The President is not a King, and Congress is not an infallible body of diligent defenders/guarantors of equal justice under constitutional law and precepts.

Allegations (and interpretations) of what constitutes or embodies "judicial activism" is most certainly within the circumspect eye of the beholder himself. I note that the most ardent objections to pending and established legal precedents on the part of courts of appeal, are those that found their counter-arguments primarily predicated upon/within either "majority opinion", or some invoked superior "moral authority".

[Can those that object to "gay marriage" cite any legal, constitutional rationale for it's continued legal prohibition? Not really, no. The primary, impotently proffered, and irrelevant argument is reapeatedly put forward - simply that..."I think homosexuality is immoral", and..."most people are against gays getting married".]

Thank the Founders for their foresight, personal experience, and penultimate wisdom in crafting a secular, self-governing republic, comprised of equally empowered and enabled governmental branches - and a judicious gardener in the form of an independent judiciary, that can prune the ugly and wild growths from the tree of liberty/equality that shades us all.

 

[michel]

It is a great pity that it takes two members (s2a and Mr Spinkles) to 'State the bleedin' obvious' as a cockney would so aptly put it. Fruballs to both of you.:clap

 

[jonny]

That's part of the checks and balances of our system. The Judicial branch can declare laws made by the legislative branch (e.g. the law which requires currency to say "In God We Trust" on it) unConstitutional (which it is). By design, the Courts, not the legislature, are able to best protect the rights of minorities.

I agree, but I'm the type of person who likes people to try and work things out themselves before getting commands from the courts rammed down their throats. The court should be the last resort IMO. There are methods of getting things done that are less divisive.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree, but I'm the type of person who likes people to try and work things out themselves before getting commands from the courts rammed down their throats. The court should be the last resort IMO. There are methods of getting things done that are less divisive.

Let me get this straight: monotheists put a statement affirming monotheism on our money, and now you're telling me it's the nontheists and the polytheists who are being divisive? Come now....if anything, they're trying to end the divisiveness by getting rid of a divisive slogan. It would be like saying that Civil Rights activists were being divisive by trying to ram desegregation "down everybody's throats" throught the Courts.

I do sympathize with your feelings however, jonny, because I do recognize that some of the people who want "In God We Trust" off our money want it for the wrong reasons. Those kind of people are unfortunate because they obscure the fact that there are good reasons for getting rid of the phrase that have nothing to do with attacking Christianity or religion in general.

 

[Quiddity]

That's where you're wrong...happiness it the ultimate goal of everything (I will probably start a new thread on this). Why grow? Why correct? Why understand? These things are not ends in themselves, but stepping stones to something else that you want. Follow that trail long enough you'll see that it leads to what I'm talking about. Even the God you trust in is another step on this trail. Ultimately, you want to be happy--in this world and the next.

And what makes you think that doing the right thing won't lead to that?
Perhaps you are looking for instant satisfaction?

And again, why bother doing what is right if not for the happiness/satifaction/pleasure it brings you? If you don't do what is right, you might feel some kind of pain...

Yeah, I'm way off topic now...new thread >>> > > >

I have no idea how far you take this. I pray not too far.

~Victor

 

[AtheistAJ]

I still don't think it is discrimination because it has absolutely no impact on anyone. If someone can tell me how their life has been affected negatively because of a phrase on a penny I will gladly concede that it is discrimination.

This is not some shallow individualist issue, it affects the whole nation, and having such statement sponsored by the government has an impact of subliminally or consciously converting people who want to feel accepted to monotheism. Which considering how far the human world would have advanced to this day without superstitious restrictions makes me look at monotheism, or organized religion of any kind as a very bad thing indeed. The purpose of this debate is toestablish whether all the country's taxpayers should still pay to see such an outdated, separatist, and not entirely correct statement in their living rooms, proposed mostly by confederate bigots of the civil war. It separates minorities of other ideologies, and it violates the "Bill of Rights" on which the country was founded. The phrase is also not only embedded on a penny as you bluntly and ironically suggest, but amongst other coins also printed on all dollar bills, old and new in use today, and I think that without that commercial advertisement and the "under god" part of the pledge, our country today would have been far less god fearing and brainwashed and far more advanced.

The only impact the topic has on anyone is to divide the country further

The very point of this argument is putting an end to something that has divided this country for a long time. If you really don't care much about what the government tells us to do (especially when it promotes your exercises), then how come you spent so much time arguing here? I see your side as the one dividing us on this issue, not us. That is, unless you lied about not caring. If theists hadn't established the money-motto to begin with we wouldn't have been arguing and felt insulted, discriminated against and ashamed to have such concept established by our nation. And if you don't care what the money says as long as it's money then let the government remove the derogatory, prejudicial and redundant faith-based statement that especially in a capitalist society inspires anti-productiveness. That taken care of would leave us one less reason to argue about.

 

[uu_sage]

By removing, "In God We Trust", "God" and other god related material from our government, we are affirming the rich interconnected tapastry known as humanity. Further by doing this we are alllowing all people, regardless of background to be acknowledged as equal under the law. Naturally, I do not have a problem with a person's search for truth and meaning (and that is to be rewarded---if it is responsible) and as long as their actions harm none. However, by keeping everything "as is", the God based Pledge supporters are subjecting church-state separationists, non-Christians, rational Christians and other allies to second class citizenship. Far be it from me but I do not want to be taken advantaged of or have my patriotism questioned by own government. Under God was nothing more than a McCarthy era political ploy in our fight against "Godless Communisim" by the government's logic, the nation as a whole supposedly believes in "God" Unfortunately, not everybody does. You have a bunch of different variations of the divine and various philosophies that don't reference the divine. Comedian George Carlin in his "Two Commandments" musing, comes up with two commandments, "Thou shall always be honest and faithful especially to the provider of thy nooky" and Thou shall try real hard not to kill" But best of all he adds one more commandment for people to live by, "Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself!"

 

[spacemonkey]

Comedian George Carlin in his "Two Commandments" musing, comes up with two commandments, "Thou shall always be honest and faithful especially to the provider of thy nooky" and Thou shall try real hard not to kill" But best of all he adds one more commandment for people to live by, "Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself!"

One of my favorite Carlin bits. His new special is fantastic as well. Sorry bout getting of topic, but I had to give some love to Carlin.

 

[jonny]

If you really don't care much about what the government tells us to do (especially when it promotes your exercises), then how come you spent so much time arguing here?

I've spent so much time arguing here because I enjoy posting and watching you athiests freak out. It entertains me. Your passion over something that is so unimportant brings a smile to my face.

In my honest opinion, many athiests have a chip on their shoulder. They bring up lawsuits like this to prove a point. Many of them were raised religious, had an ephiphany that it was all a bunch of lies, and feel that it is their obligation to protect the world from these lies. Others are mad at a God they don't even believe exists. It isn't my battle. I can practice my religion regardless of what the government prints on money. Please forgive me if I fail to see how this debate is important.

 

[jonny]

If theists hadn't established the money-motto to begin with we wouldn't have been arguing and felt insulted, discriminated against and ashamed to have such concept established by our nation.

I'd be interested to know at what point in your life the phrase on the money first insulted you. Was it the first time you read it or was it when someone told you that you should be insulted by it?

 

[The Conspirator]

This debate is important cause putting in god we trust on money is a government recondition of an official religion which violate the separation of church and state. The government should be completely secular as in, if the government were a person and some one asked him "Dose God exist?" his answer would be " I don't know and have no opinion".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've spent so much time arguing here because I enjoy posting and watching you athiests freak out. It entertains me. Your passion over something that is so unimportant brings a smile to my face.

I hope you aren't referring to me....I thought we were having an earnest exchange of ideas....

 

[jonny]

I hope you aren't referring to me....I thought we were having an earnest exchange of ideas....

Of course not. I'm referring to people who call me brainwashed and stuff like that. If you go back to the begining ot the thread you can see that I wasn't taking it extremely seriously at first. I actually enjoy debating with you because you're pretty open minded.