Atheist Plans Lawsuit Challenging Motto on U.S. Currency

[s2a]

Jonny said:

"...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."

An interesting position of ambivalence regarding what may be (in your estimable leanings) a veritable mortal sin in light of your god's own proscribed Commandments.

"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."

[Ironic that the inverse of that argument is often lent regarding equality under law for homosexuals to marry. "Gay marriage" would undermine the institution itself, and manifest irreparable harm!" Yet, when called to illustrate (specifically) just how legal gay marriage would negatively impact married straight couples, opponents are dumb-struck for any specifics, merely citing spurious slippery-slope fallacies. But that's another topic.]

Would you entertain (in contemplation of your invited challenge) the expressed sentiments regarding the motto "In God We Trust" from a former Republican, Bible-believing, ex-President?

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege....it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
Excerpt from letter to William Boldly on November 11, 1907 - Pres. Theodore Roosevelt

Teddy was just one of those kinda folk inclined to give-a-damn about "unimportant" issues.

"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."

"Freak out?" That strikes me as a particularly self-serving hyperbole. You should see us atheists in our best mime make-up. That always brings down the house in top-flight entertainment value.

Your insouciance over something that is notably (and purposefully) divisive, and of import not limited to atheists alone, but to those of religious belief as well, is regrettable.

"In my honest opinion, many athiests have a chip on their shoulder. They bring up lawsuits like this to prove a point."

Not just atheists, and not just to "prove a point" (which you imply is otherwise unimportant - at least to you).

In "Minersville School District v. Gobitis" [1940], a Mormon family petitioned (on grounds of religious beliefs) against state mandated student salute of the US flag. They lost their case, but three years later that decision was reversed by "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette" [1943] (again, those pesky and "pointless" Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge).

And wouldn't you know it? A family of chip-wearing Muslim-Americans have the pointless audacity to petition (bring suit) against their local Indiana school district even now in the 21st century, on the grounds that a (student's refused acceptance of) mandated Pledge recital is contrary to their religious beliefs! Crazy!

The petitioning father wrote:
“Participating in the Pledge of Allegiance or the ’Star Spangled Banner’ ceremonies would not be honoring the creeds and principles of our forefathers. As Moorish Moslems, our allegiance is to ALLAH ... It will be a clear and hypocritical rejection of our Islamic faith and our Moorish nationality if we pledge allegiance to a flag out of fear that if we do not, the very 'liberty and justice for all’ which is purported in the Pledge shall be denied to us.”

"Please forgive me if I fail to see how this debate is important."

Ignorance is understandable, and forgivable. Ambivalence is commonplace. Selfishness is human nature (though not very "Christian"). Abject stupidity goes to the bone. I may look to the jury to get a deliberative ruling on this...

"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."

Ya know, the reason why these cases continually appear in courts is because any biased/prejudiced ideologically-driven elected representative (or politically motivated/pressured sate/federal legislature) can introduce a an unconstitutional bill for ripe passage that merrily tramps upon the civil rights of unpopular or minority groups or individuals. If we could just get those "laws" from ever seeing passage...

Here's some "points" from Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson to ponder:

"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the reach of majorities and officials. One's right to worship, life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend upon the outcome of no election."

"...The very essence of the liberty which they guaranty is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say, at least where the compulsion is to bear false witness to his religion. If these guaranties are to have any meaning they must, I think, be deemed to withhold from the state any authority to compel belief or the expression of it where that expression violates religious convictions, whatever may be the legislative view of the desirability of such compulsion."

Amen.

 

[jonny]

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 mentioned earlier in this debate that I see this as part of a larger attack on religious people. I don't believe that attempting to remove the phrase in itself is devisive, rather I believe that a devisive atmosphere in the country has been created by radicals on both sides of the debate.

There was a time that religious people ran around putting God on anything possible (with little resistance). I don't know why they did it. I just wish that there was more of an attempt to work things out before resorting to 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.

Great point. I don't believe it would be hard to convince the majority of Americans that the phrase should come off, but I guarantee that the day that Mr. Newdow wins his case (if it happens) will trigger outrage from the religious right. It doesn't have to be that way, but there are people who enjoy stirring the pot on subjects like this.

 

[jonny]

An interesting position of ambivalence regarding what may be (in your estimable leanings) a veritable mortal sin in light of your god's own proscribed Commandments.

I never said it was a sin, and (even if it were a sin) I don't believe I will be held responsible for other people's sins.

Would you entertain (in contemplation of your invited challenge) the expressed sentiments regarding the motto "In God We Trust" from a former Republican, Bible-believing, ex-President?

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege....it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
Excerpt from letter to William Boldly on November 11, 1907 - Pres. Theodore Roosevelt

Teddy was just one of those kinda folk inclined to give-a-damn about "unimportant" issues.

Thanks for sharing that - it's an interesting quote. Do you agree with him? I'm not sure how someone who is not religious could find something sacreligious. His quote gives my position on the subject almost perfectly.

"Freak out?" That strikes me as a particularly self-serving hyperbole. You should see us atheists in our best mime make-up. That always brings down the house in top-flight entertainment value.

Your insouciance over something that is notably (and purposefully) divisive, and of import not limited to atheists alone, but to those of religious belief as well, is regrettable.

Everyone has different priorities in life. There are things that I care deeply about that you most likely care less about. That doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong. I just means that we care about different things.

Not just atheists, and not just to "prove a point" (which you imply is otherwise unimportant - at least to you).

Would it surprise you if I said I have a similar opinion about everyone who files lawsuits or passes laws that are simply to prove a point? I don't agree with it and I think it is a waste of our courts time. I don't have anything against athiests, but it bothers me when people are overly sensitive about anything.

Ignorance is understandable, and forgivable. Ambivalence is commonplace. Selfishness is human nature (though not very "Christian"). Abject stupidity goes to the bone. I may look to the jury to get a deliberative ruling on this...

Are you calling me stupid because I don't care about something that has no impact on my life. I have more important things to worry about.

I'll just let the courts decide and accept their decision either way. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

 

[AtheistAJ]

Are you calling me stupid because I don't care about something that has no impact on my life. I have more important things to worry about.

I'll just let the courts decide and accept their decision either way. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

You just highlighted the answer to your question. If it has no impact on your life, even though it impacts a lot of minorities' civil rights, such as George H. W. Bush calling atheists "non Americans" and "non patriots", then why do you so take it to heart and present bigoted statements to oppose our perspective, while claiming you don't care about the case whatsoever?
Instead of continuing the argument solely on the grounds "what's the point (harm)", head your "LORD God"'s word and "lock yourselves in a closet and pray quietly" that nothing is ever changed in the country because you like it just the way it is, not caring about those who don't share your "faith".

 

[jonny]

You just highlighted the answer to your question. If it has no impact on your life, even though it impacts a lot of minorities' civil rights, such as George H. W. Bush calling atheists "non Americans" and "non patriots", then why do you so take it to heart and present bigoted statements to oppose our perspective, while claiming you don't care about the case whatsoever?
Instead of continuing the argument solely on the grounds "what's the point (harm)", head your "LORD God"'s word and "lock yourselves in a closet and pray quietly" that nothing is ever changed in the country because you like it just the way it is, not caring about those who don't share your "faith".

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time following your post - I think it's missing a couple periods. Go back through this thead and point out where I've taken "bigoted statements" to heart.

I love how this debate has gone from removing the phrase from the currency (which I am not necessarily opposed to) to convincing me that it is important.

P.S. I don't like the country just the way it is, but the design of our currency is one of the least important problems I can think of right now.

 

[AtheistAJ]

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time following your post - I think it's missing a couple periods. Go back through this thead and point out where I've taken "bigoted statements" to heart.

Didn't you suggest all atheists move to Canada and leave you Christians alone?

P.S. I don't like the country just the way it is, but the design of our currency is one of the least important problems I can think of right now.

Or rather it would be, if people like you who "don't care" didn't make such an issue about it. In my first post on this thread I plainly explained why the motto should b removed with no argument, you came here and started it.

 

[jonny]

Didn't you suggest all atheists move to Canada and leave you Christians alone?

Yes, and if you thought I was serious at all I apologize. Sarcasim doesn't translate on the computer very well.

 

[Mathematician]

I know someone commented on this before, but I really don't see how this is a debate. To the Christian, putting God on things that produce so much greed has to be a sin.

The issue of America being predominately Christian doesn't matter; America is also predominately white. Shall we define America as a white nation? Better yet, shall we define America's 'God' as a white 'God'?

The other excuse, America being founded on a Christian nation, refers to my previous point. America was also founded by homosexual-hating, Native American exterminating, and overly sexist bigots.

 

[ChrisP]

Yes, and if you thought I was serious at all I apologize. Sarcasim doesn't translate on the computer very well.

You should use this Jonny .

 

[s2a]

Hello jonny

Please recall your saying...

"...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."

To which you subsequenly replied:

"I never said it was a sin..."

You don't need to; the Bible and the Ten Commandments say it's so.

Deut. 5:32 -
“Therefore you shall be careful to do as the LORD your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.

"...and (even if it were a sin)..."

Is there really any doubt? Need I quote basic Biblically dogmatic C&V to eviscerate your suppositional doubt?

"...I don't believe I will be held responsible for other people's sins."

Well good for you. To Hell with all sinners then! Woo-hoo!

How fortunate for you that you are not a "called" high priest...

Hebrews 5:1-4
"For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness. Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins. And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was."

When I shared Pres. TR's quoted sentiments regarding placing the motto "In God We Trust" on currency, you said:

"Thanks for sharing that - it's an interesting quote. Do you agree with him? I'm not sure how someone who is not religious could find something sacreligious. His quote gives my position on the subject almost perfectly."

I agree with TR that such conclusions should be obvious to self-professed believers and adherents of unequivocal Biblical Commandments.

I consider religious beliefs, mythologies, and superstition...as unmitigated bunk, so I have no philosophical position as to whether anything religious in nature appropriately qualifies as being "sacrilegious".

You poorly conclude that TR's comments accurately reflect your current stated position.
Pres. Roosevelt's position is clearly "opposed".
Yours has repeatedly been (in effect), "I don't care enough to care one way or the other."

Teddy Roosevelt was a man of steadfast conviction; both in bold words, and mighty deeds - and he spoke plainly and clearly about what he believed was righteous, worthy, and true. He had little time (and even less tolerance) for men of timidity, equivocation, evasion, or suppositional doubts.

"Everyone has different priorities in life. There are things that I care deeply about that you most likely care less about. That doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong. I just means that we care about different things".

All too true. But I'm not constrained by dogmatic "priorities". I'm merely advancing the position that you should care, based upon those same priorities.

"Would it surprise you if I said I have a similar opinion about everyone who files lawsuits or passes laws that are simply to prove a point? I don't agree with it and I think it is a waste of our courts time. I don't have anything against athiests, but it bothers me when people are overly sensitive about anything."

Do frivolous lawsuits bug must people? Well, duh.

But is a claim of governmentally sponsored/mandated bias/prejudice regarding one's own right to free exercise of religious beliefs a benign and frivolous matter, unworthy of judicial petition and redress of grievances? Remind me of your prospective conclusive estimation the next time some Christian-affiliated group or individual brings civil litigation that their protected rights to free practice/exercise/expression of their beliefs is being abridged by the State. (Oh, I forgot! Those types/kinds of cases far overwhelm and outnumber those brought by the ACLU, atheists, Mormons, or Muslims).

Sure. It's popular and easy to illustrate the absurd nature of overreaching "political correctness" (I know, since I readily tread such thin ice). The US Constitution does not guarantee that no one shall ever be offended (or take offense); not have their feelings hurt; nor rightfully expect their beliefs/philosophy/ideology remain unquestioned in any confrontational/challenging way.

I'd like to believe you when you claim that you "don't have anything against athiests", but I don't. Your previous comments do not support such a benign, magnanimous claim.
But hey, that's OK. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want you on my team anyway.

Are you calling me stupid because I don't care about something that has no impact on my life. I have more important things to worry about.

No (albeit that was a particularly poor conclusive inference for you to formulate). My comments in that particular vein were of/within the illustrative, more comprehensive abstract; not personalized for you (though I find it mildly ironi/amusingc that you perceived it as such).

Is it "stupid" not to care about things (or priorities) that should be of greater importance to you? Is willful/imposed ignorance, or abject apathy..."stupid"? I suppose it depends on what you hold most dear and true...and whether or not your words, deeds, and behavior are a true and accurate reflection of your interactive "priorities".

I can not make any valid estimation of your unconcerns regarding any personalized importance or relevance of the topic at hand. I have no method/measure of qualitative reference from which to reliably ascertain (or confidently assert) the level of your capacities in recognition of relative importance or religious/personal priorities. As well as I can determine, you may be utterly ignorant of Biblical Scripture or the tenants offered by the Book of the Law of the Lord. You certainly strike me as neither expert, nor especially edified, in the very foundational precepts of your own professed faith/belief and it's proscribed "priorities".

Consider me...unimpressed. I have encountered 19-year-old, "door-knocking" LDS missionaries that have evinced far greater insight and grasp of evangelizing "priorities" than yourself (within REF).

All I can do is present argument as to why you should care, predicated within the context of the dogma/doctrine and rigors of personal faith that any self-professed LDS adherent might righteously claim as their own.

 

[jonny]

Consider me...unimpressed.

Finally - something we can agree on!

Thankfully, my purpose in life isn't to impress anyone. I am who I am. Take it or leave it. If it doesn't impress you, you can always put me on ignore. I don't see what personal attacks towards me have anything to do with this debate. They sure won't help you convince me, especially since I won't be reading your posts anymore. I don't come here to be insulted by anyone. I guess I should just be grateful that you've consended from your throne of superiority to attempt to enlighten me on the subject.

First, I think I made it clear from the statement, "I lean towards" that I had not made up my mind on the subject. The question about "In God We Trust" is something that I never thought of before this thread started. I still have not made up my mind and that is my right. Until I decide what my position is I will continue not to care about whether or not it is removed.

But is a claim of governmentally sponsored/mandated bias/prejudice regarding one's own right to free exercise of religious beliefs a benign and frivolous matter, unworthy of judicial petition and redress of grievances?

I guess that this is where I am having the problem. I really don't see how the phrase hurts anyone. That's why I don't feel bad about not getting emotionally invested in it and why I don't feel it is an extremely important debate. I have been unimpressed with Mr. Newdow from the interviews I have seen with him and see his motives as less than honorable. If the lawsuit were filed by someone else I might have another opinion on the matter, but I don't believe that he has really been damaged by the phrase. Rather, I believe that he doesn't like Christians.

There are cases that I believe are worthy of "judicial petition." For example, there was a case last month where the only non-LDS teacher was fired from a school in a small town in Utah. This made me angry and is the kind of thing that I believe belongs in the courts because someone was actually hurt.

 

[s2a]

Hello jonny,

You said:

Thankfully, my purpose in life isn't to impress anyone. I am who I am. Take it or leave it. If it doesn't impress you, you can always put me on ignore.

And you see, here we also share something in common. ;-)

I don't see what personal attacks towards me have anything to do with this debate.

I can only comment upon what you post (say). Efforts to mischaracterize my commentaries as "personal attacks" will be exposed for what they are, and facts will readily acquit themselves. My comments (and subsequently proffered conclusions) are predicated solely upon what you say here. I don't know you personally, so I am ill-equipped to offer any personal attacks of any meaning or credibility in/of your regard. I have offered no direct "attacks" upon your personal character, age, gender, appearance, race, creed, or intellect (any of which would indeed qualify as "ad hominem" argument).

They sure won't help you convince me, especially since I won't be reading your posts anymore. I don't come here to be insulted by anyone. I guess I should just be grateful that you've consended from your throne of superiority to attempt to enlighten me on the subject.

Proverbs 12:15-16
"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice. A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult."

First, I think I made it clear from the statement, "I lean towards" that I had not made up my mind on the subject. The question about "In God We Trust" is something that I never thought of before this thread started. I still have not made up my mind and that is my right. Until I decide what my position is I will continue not to care about whether or not it is removed.

The "right" to decide for yourself is patently obvious, and not in question.

I offered up rationale that was intended to appeal to a faith-based sensibility (so that you could best "make up your own mind"). Obviously, you inaccurately interpreted such appeals as personalized "attacks", and that is unfortunate.


When I inquired:

But is a claim of governmentally sponsored/mandated bias/prejudice regarding one's own right to free exercise of religious beliefs a benign and frivolous matter, unworthy of judicial petition and redress of grievances?

You said:

I guess that this is where I am having the problem. I really don't see how the phrase hurts anyone. That's why I don't feel bad about not getting emotionally invested in it and why I don't feel it is an extremely important debate.

As Yoda might say, "That...is why you fail."

I have been unimpressed with Mr. Newdow from the interviews I have seen with him and see his motives as less than honorable. If the lawsuit were filed by someone else I might have another opinion on the matter, but I don't believe that he has really been damaged by the phrase. Rather, I believe that he doesn't like Christians.

And thus, your personal bias is laid bare. Whether or not Mr. Newdow "likes" or "dislikes" Christians should have no bearing in evaluating the merit and substance of his claims. To do so would be to apply an ad hominem argument ("He doesn't like Christians, that's why we should consider his claims insincere, dishonorable, and unworthy of due consideration").

There are cases that I believe are worthy of "judicial petition." For example, there was a case last month where the only non-LDS teacher was fired from a school in a small town in Utah. This made me angry and is the kind of thing that I believe belongs in the courts because someone was actually hurt.

Your applicable double-standard of merit is noted, and dare I say, most predictable. You can "feel the pain" (and perceive the hurt) of (alternately) faith-based "persecution" (or bias/prejudice), but how can any atheist claim equal consideration and status as equally validated in claimed grievance and harm?

You proclaim (correctly) of your "right" to make choices for yourself. That "right" equally extends to all citizens, including those that (correctly) feel that an established secular government has no business: imposing; mandating; or tacitly approving of any religious belief - in acknowledgment, adherence, or acceptance - especially as a matter of "patriotic/civic duty/expression".

You exercise your own bias and prejudice in estimation/qualification of any personally claimed/perceived (legal or civic) "harm" in equivocating a (supposedly) "belief bias" vs. a "non-belief" bias. Our Constitution (and subsequently ruled, legally applicable constitutional precedents) guarantee and protect all citizens from imposed (or denied) religious acceptance/adherence/acknowledgment of any particularly specified or applied State mandate or qualification.

Who are you to accurately/incisively gauge the sincerity/degree of an aggrieved's claimed perceptual "harm" once the State seeks to impose a specified or generalized religious "belief" in monotheism as civic policy/mandate/law?

No doubt you are familiar with the prevailing and popular misconceptions/mischaracterizations/"conventional wisdoms" associated/presumed with Mormonism and the LDS doxology. Many Protestant and Catholic sects regard LDS as little more that a "cult" - and decidedly un-Biblical and "unchristian". Is this perspective founded in some entrenched personal bias, simple ignorance, or abject stupidity and intolerance? Does it "hurt" when other Christians can't or won't even accept you as peers within their own community of (ultimately) shared beliefs? If your government assumed a similar "official" posture, would you feel hurt and aggrieved? Would you exercise your right to a redress of your grievances? Would you feel your "hurt" to be fairly described/defined as "less than honorable"?

Wel...nevermind.

Since you have chosen to ignore (nor read) any further postings I may offer within REF, I retain no expectation of acknowledgment or reply on your part to any inquiries I may pose.
[Note: I am neither so causally timid, nor "personally offended", to effectively elect to (electronically) "ignore" any member's contributions to REF.

In concordance with your previously entreated and earnest declaration, I can echo that I am not here to "impress" anyone. I claim no element or expertise in authority or superiority. I claim only personal experience, and elements of acquired wisdom in the minimal years of living a mortal and limited existence. That's it...that's all.

I remain unwaveringly and assertively satisfied/justified in my initially stated motivations and purposed contributions here within REF. Perhaps others that you will "rightfully" choose not to ignore will reference you this link as testament and validation.

 

[AtheistAJ]

Thankfully, my purpose in life isn't to impress anyone.

That makes all the sense.

I am who I am. Take it or leave it. If it doesn't impress you, you can always put me on ignore. I don't see what personal attacks towards me have anything to do with this debate. They sure won't help you convince me, especially since I won't be reading your posts anymore. I don't come here to be insulted by anyone. I guess I should just be grateful that you've consended from your throne of superiority to attempt to enlighten me on the subject.

So what you're saying is you're here to debate with yourself and/or post your comments like this is some sort of personal blog, and if anyone disagrees with you you will feel your integrity is under attack and disregard their future views. Yep, nothing to be impressed about.

 

[jonny]

That makes all the sense. So what you're saying is you're here to debate with yourself and/or post your comments like this is some sort of personal blog, and if anyone disagrees with you you will feel your integrity is under attack and disregard their future views. Yep, nothing to be impressed about.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

This is what I am refering to. Tell me what this has to do with the phrase "In God We Trust." I just saw the comments as low blows.

You certainly strike me as neither expert, nor especially edified, in the very foundational precepts of your own professed faith/belief and it's proscribed "priorities".

I have encountered 19-year-old, "door-knocking" LDS missionaries that have evinced far greater insight and grasp of evangelizing "priorities" than yourself (within REF).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

*** MOD POST ***

Please do not make personal comments/attacks on other posters. Let's get back on topic please, folks.

*** MOD POST ***

 

[greatcalgarian]

I believe any effort to put motto onto any thing nation wide, such as currency note or coin, is to instill a sense of unity among the citizen. If the "In God with Trust" brought around so much heated arguement and disagreement, let us pray that all may accept the orignal form of :

E Pluribus Unum

And forget about this debate.