Atheist Plans Lawsuit Challenging Motto on U.S. Currency

[Jaymes]

God only applies to some religions, though. Some have many or no gods.

You could just as easily say the same about the examples I gave. Maybe to me Thor means to me 'dude with the hammer', but to you he could mean God or science or nature or the UN.

 

[jonny]

I honestly don't care about the motto. If it came off the coins tomorrow, my life would go on and I wouldn't notice. You could even argue that having Gods name on something like money is taking his name in vain.

For me the bigger issue is that this is part of a war against religious people, spearheaded by organizations like the ACLU which would be perfectly content with destroying my civil liberties and rights to free speech. We live in a society where political correctness and the worry of offending someone has taken priority over our education, culture, and right to express ourselves.

For example, take Christmas. In my mind there is nothing wrong with celebrating religious holidays in school - especially if it is part of a cultural education. I remember growing up learning about different cultures in the world and how they celebrated certain holidays. One of the most defining part of many cultures are the holidays that they celebrate. No one has a problem with kids spending a day learning about Kwanza, but then when the school wants to do a Christmas program people freak out.

I'm sorry if its off the subject, but I don't think that the motto "In God we Trust" is really the crux of this lawsuit. There are much bigger issues surrounding it.

 

[The Conspirator]

Why is it when some one tried to enforce the separation of church and state so many christens try to tern it into a war against Christianity and freedom?
jonny no one is trying to take away your right to worship what you won't and say what you won't, they are trying to enforce the separation of church and state, religion dose not belong in government pereid, governments should be completely secular and have no religious opinions what so ever. No God, no Mohamed, no Buddha and not atheist ether. Now that said, the people who work in the government have the the same rights as the rest of us, if the president believe in God, let him say God, let him ask people to pray, let him go to church, he has the same rights to freedom of religion and speak as the rest of us.

 

[jonny]

Why is it when some one tried to enforce the separation of church and state so many christens try to tern it into a war against Christianity and freedom?
jonny no one is trying to take away your right to worship what you won't and say what you won't, they are trying to enforce the separation of church and state, religion dose not belong in government pereid, governments should be completely secular and have no religious opinions what so ever. No God, no Mohamed, no Buddha and not atheist ether. Now that said, the people who work in the government have the the same rights as the rest of us, if the president believe in God, let him say God, let him ask people to pray, let him go to church, he has the same rights to freedom of religion and speak as the rest of us.

The only thing that the constitution guarantees is that the government will not establish a state religion. You can not take religion out of government because there will always be religious politicians.

I think that some of the organizations have religious people playing defense. Because of stupid and unneeeded regulations that have been made or attempted, religious people are left defending stupid things (like a phrase on money) to build a fence around their rights.

 

[Pah]

The only thing that the constitution guarantees is that the government will not establish a state religion.

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.

You can not take religion out of government because there will always be religious politicians.

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 think that some of the organizations have religious people playing defense. Because of stupid and unneeeded regulations that have been made or attempted, religious people are left defending stupid things (like a phrase on money) to build a fence around their rights.

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.

 

[Yerda]

What's the fuss?

 

[The Conspirator]

The only thing that the constitution guarantees is that the government will not establish a state religion. You can not take religion out of government because there will always be religious politicians.

I think that some of the organizations have religious people playing defense. Because of stupid and unneeeded regulations that have been made or attempted, religious people are left defending stupid things (like a phrase on money) to build a fence around their rights.

The mention of God on the money is the adoption of an official stat religion however veg it may be.
You can take religion out of government, its simple, disallow any law or bill that is solely of a religious basis's.

 

[usnavy_matt]

Does anyone truly think that getting rid of every religious saying on every building and every piece of currency and anything else would stop all of the bickering over it? No one will truly ever be happy. The only thing that keeps people happy in this world is something to gripe about.

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.

 

[standing_alone]

You would have to rewrite the US Constitution if you wanted this entire country to be secular, would you? What about that first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I don't see why the Constitution would need to be rewritten.

 

[jamaesi]

Yes, because that would actually be establishing a specific state religion. God is a general term and means something different to everyone. I don't think it shows anything more than an admission by the country that there is something greater than us. What that is can be interpreted by everyone however they want. To me it means Heavenly Father. To someone else it might mean science and nature. If it makes people feel good they could even pretend that the UN is god.

I don't have any G-d, but thanks for trying to give me some. You know that it referances the Christian God so don't pull crap like that.

I won't be happy until every G-d and G-dess is listed on the currency or none at all.



This is not a Christian nation. Yes, it is a nation with a lot of Christians, but there are plenty of other religions here. Marginalising the rest of us so you can feel all warm and fuzzy and traditional isn't right.



Other traditions of this land include slavery. Mass murder. Genocide. Should be bring those back in the name of tradition?

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

i say keep it. Its tradition, it isn't hurting anybody.

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jon_murray/coins.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/pledge.shtml

An old problem resurfaced?

 

[greatcalgarian]

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

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

 

[greatcalgarian]

i say keep it. Its tradition, it isn't hurting anybody.

Tradition since 1861, about 145 years old:biglaugh:

 

[greatcalgarian]

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.

When you talk about religious folk, you mean Christians/Judaism, and not Muslim or Buddist or other religious folk?

What would you say, if instead of "In God We Trust", we replace it with "In Allah We Trust", or better still "In Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust":jiggy: :jiggy: :jiggy:

 

[greatcalgarian]

I say, how about a compromise:
"In American People We Trust"?

 

[greatcalgarian]

The first coin struck in this country that bore this motto was the New Jersey cent of 1786,​

. . .​

The motto was first used on the coins struck at the United States Mint in 1795.​

It can be clearly seen that the motto "E Pluribus Unum" meaning "One Unity composed of Many Parts" is a fitting motto to describe the Constitution of the United States as a document that was indeed the product of a unity of many parts from many minds. The fact that the Constitution contains no reference even to a deistic deity, unlike the prior Declaration of Independence, is profoundly and historically significant and should be taken into account in any symbolic recognition of the bicentennial of its ratification.

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

 

[Pah]

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

It is now fully evident that it was not tradition from the earliest days of our country. It was in direct conflict with our sense of religious liberty and distinctly not a national motto. Perhaps this is the first time the government bowed to religious pressure.

The current national motto implements the old motto in a perversely narrow, derisive unconstitutional sense. The suit seeks to correct that and, hopefully, restore E Pluribus Unum to it's rightful place as the encapsuling definition of the Revolutionary and Civil wars

[SIZE=1]http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/
"E Pluribus Unum" was the motto proposed for the first Great Seal of the United States by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. A latin phrase meaning "One from many," the phrase offered a strong statement of the American determination to form a single nation from a collection of states. Over the years, "E Pluribus Unum" has also served as a reminder of America's bold attempt to make one unified nation of people from many different backgrounds and beliefs. The challenge of seeking unity while respecting diversity has played a critical role in shaping our history, our literature, and our national character.[/SIZE]

 

[Darkdale]

I say, does it cost money to change? How much? Changing it to what? How about, "If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject." or... "Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think", or "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." I'd be happy with any of those.

 

[Katzpur]

Do you think we should should get rid of this motto?

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.

Why do we need to be reminded of a less enlightened past?

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