It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: California Atheist Sues Over "In God We Trust"

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Michael Newdow, the California self-avowed athiest who has been fighting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the courts for years, has now turned his attention to our currency. He wants the U.S. national motto "In God We Trust" that appears on all U.S. coins and notes removed from their designs, claiming that its presence is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. "In God We Trust" made its first appearance on a U.S. coin in 1864, but wasn't mandated by law for all U.S. currency until 1955.
 



www.nbc11.com
An atheist who has spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is now challenging the national motto printed on U.S. currency.

Michael Newdow said Sunday that he planned to file a federal lawsuit this week asking for the removal of the national motto, "In God We Trust," from U.S. coins and dollar bills. He claims it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and "excludes people who don't believe in God."

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer who is an avowed atheist, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "under God." He took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 said he lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




I wish this guy would just go away. He may be able to find sympathetic courts in California, but Supreme Court precedent allows these mentions of God, and I have no doubt that it'll continue to allow them.

Related Link:
U.S. Mint

[edit on 11/14/2005 by djohnsto77]

[edit on 11/14/2005 by djohnsto77]




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
This guy is just asking for some nutjob to take a shot at him. What makes this guy think he's so special? Nobody cares what it says on our currency dude! The only thing I care about is how much of it I have in my pocket.

Peace



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
oooooookay

I mean, you dont believe in god? fine. Why the hell are you launching a crusade against something you don't even need to subject yourself to? I am amazed to see what ppl will do in order to get their 15 minutes of fame.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I suppose it doesn't matter which "god" is meant....just as long as it doesn't say in YHWH we trust....

But it does make one ponder...WHICH "god" are they actually referring to? The "god of the Jews" in the Bible? Shiva? Vishnu? Osiris? Hapi? Zeus? Wotan? Dionysius? Orpheus? Pazzuzzu?

Maybe they should alter it to "In God/Goddess" we trust, I mean, after all, YHWH had a wife at one time, or perhaps the hoi polloi in the US Govt have forgotten all about Asherah in the preExilic period...or maybe never even knew she was worshipped right alongside her husband in the 1st Temple of Solomon?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I think if this guy wins any of his suits, there'll be a huge movement to amend the constitution to specifically allow these generic references to God in the Pledge, on the currency etc. I've already seen some stirs in this direction.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
This guy has certainly got some cobwebs upstairs to think that the mention of "God" on our currency is an governmental endorsement of religion.

Something tragic obviously hasn't happened in his life to call upon "a Higher Power" for help.

Maybe the tragedy will strike after he's left this life.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
But it does make one ponder...WHICH "god" are they actually referring to?

thats why they leave it open...it refers to whichever god you believe in.
if you dont believe in god.....I guess you call it "In Gov We Trust".


Theres far to many crazy people in Cali.

I personally dont believe in god...so I guess that makes me an athiest, but I like the "In God We Trust" phrase...So I wouldn't mind smackin this wacko upside the head.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
lol, i think he is some kind of extremist, i am an atheist myself, but saying in god we trust every morning doesn't borther me nor to the point where i have to sue over it lol.

you see what happens to people who have no life?


[edit on 14-11-2005 by ulshadow]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
This man really needs to get a life.


All he wants is attention if you ask me. His wife left him because she realized he was wacko, what can ya say, other then lock him up in some loony bin and throw away da key


[edit on 11/14/2005 by shots]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
What if the God in question here was the currency itself.
Money is worshiped by millions of people in one form or another.
Everyone wants more of it and most will do anything for it.
How ironic would that be.

On a serious note though, how ambiguious is the term god?
It can refer to almost anything.

As such I see no problem with it in schools or on currency.
Everyone believes in a god, be it jehova, allah, or any other of the assorted flavors of gods in various religions around the world.

Even if you are atheist, you can be thought of as being your own god.

This guy's just gone off the deep end after losing his daughter in a court battle with his christian wife.
He's doing it just to make their lives miserable.
Sad really, anyone that hell bent on making someone miserable really needs psychological help.


[edit on 14-11-2005 by mrjones]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Uh, Dr. Love, he is the nutjob.
Those who believe in God don't take shots. We know better.

He needs to prove to me how real he is. He needs to refuse to use the currency.
After the Rapture and before the 2nd coming at the end of the Great Tribulation, those who do not take the Mark of the Beast will not be able to buy anything. They'll have real belief. He needs to show me his!



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Well taking in consideration how we see money, many call it evil, I guess it should be an abomination to have God name printed in such filthy paper as money.

But we know that, that is not what is question in here, I agree that In God We Trust is open to any denomination unless you believe in multiple deities.

It doesn't bother me and it doesn't body most normal Americans regardless of what they believe or not, we all believe in money. Right?

I don't think that he is going to get away with it, I believe that he wants his name to go into history as been the one stirring things around.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Ok, while I may pride myself on being politicaly correct for the most part, he's really just doing more damage than good, for one he's giving atheists a bad name, and for two, very few even care what is on the money except for the numerals of course. I myself would like to see it removed, but I know it's not gonna happen for a good long time. I mean he should just deal with it like I do, I dont' like the whole "one nation under god" thing in the pledge, so I just dont do the pledge, what I'm really trying to say, is that this guy should spend less time scrutinising currency and more time *does humping movements*, because from the sound of it, he really needs to get laid.


Ok, so the end's a bit crude, but I'm just making my point.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
In his previous series of lawsuits over the pledge, I thought that one court threw out his case because he had no standing to complain - i.e. his son was being "forced" to recite the pledge and he objected because he thought it was doing harm to his son, but it turned out later that he didn't have custody and had no legal standing to sue on behalf of his son. Maybe I'm gettting the cases mixed up. At least in that case he had a "plausible" argument - it isn't inconceivable that forcing someone to recite a pledge that they have an objection to may be something worth suing over.

In the case of the "In God We Trust" on currency, it is very difficult to understand what the problem is - what harm would the plantiff be claiming?

And isn't the absence of religion a religion of itself? Should the govt. be permitted to indireclty endorse athiesm by eliminating all mention of God altogether?

I think they guy is just a nacissist and needs help.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Funny but don't you think that is no morally right to endorse money with the name of God printed in it.

Actually it should no be atheist the ones making such a fuss but it should be Christian people the ones making a fuss, after all money and greed that is link to money it is an abomination.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
You're missing the most important point...

He's right.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Yeah, he's a fame-crazed nutjob, but "In God we trust" really is an endorsement of religion, and as such really is unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter how many people think it's okay, and actually, the fact that many people would think that such a thing is okay is specifically why the Constitution states emphatically that it is NOT.

Our forefathers came here in the first place because they were second-class citizens in their homeland because they didn't adhere to the officially sanctioned religion of that land. That's exactly why they tried to make certain that this nation would never officially sanction any one religion, but, despite their efforts, that's exactly what this nation has done. The fact that a seeming majority of citizens support this official sanction doesn't excuse it, and in fact is simply the reason that it has been allowed to continue.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Actually, Theodore Roosevelt opposed the placement "In God We Trust" on money.




President Theodore Roosevelt, whose term of office started in 1901, was a staunch admirer of the sculptor Saint-Gaudens, and he persuaded Treasury Secretary Shaw to commission Saint-Gaudens to provide new designs for the nations' coinage. Saint-Gaudens, however, disapproved of the use of "In God We Trust" on coins for aesthetic reasons, and it turned out that Theodore Roosevelt also disapproved of the motto "In God We Trust" on coins, but for religious reasons, not aesthetic ones. Roosevelt thought that having the "In God We Trust" motto on common coins that were abused in all sorts of manners was close to sacrilege.

When these views attacking the use of the inscription "In God We Trust" were made public, there was a huge public outcry, and the White House and members of Congress were deluged with protests and petitions from the religious sectors demanding the restoration of "In God We Trust" to the coinage. Quickly caving in to the public outcry, Roosevelt notified the House and Senate leadership that he would not veto a bill specifying that "In God We Trust" be inscribed on all coins if it passed both houses. A bill was indeed passed by the House in March and by the Senate in May of 1908; the bill became Public Law No. 120 when signed by Roosevelt on May 18, 1908. The law said in part, "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the motto 'In God We Trust,' heretofore inscribed on certain denominations of gold and silver coins of the United States of America, shall hereafter be inscribed on all such gold and silver coins of said denominations as heretofore."

home.flash.net...


But the fact is that I'm getting just a little tired of these atheists who cannot abide the expression of faith in the public arena. None of these references, whether on money or in the Pledge of Allegiance, amount the establishment of a state religion and are about as generic as any references might be.

The vast majority of Americans believe in some form of God, whether they be Jew, Christian, or Muslim and a good many who don't fall into any established category.

I think it is time for there to be a national referendum on these matters and that they should be removed from the purview of the courts. How many people except numismatists pay close attention to more than the denomination of money.

They could remove the motto tomorrow and it would probably be ten years before anyone would notice, even atheists, if the mint and the numismatists would keep it quiet.


[edit on 2005/11/14 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
marg - whats so disgusting about money???



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I'm not marg, but..
perhaps not money itself is disgusting, just the love of money.
..which, in my opinion, seems to be encouraged and celebrated..



new topics




 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join