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

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Are you actually suggesting that their only concern was that one form of Christianity might take precedence over another, but that Christianity taking precedence over all other forms of belief would be okay? Seriously?

I'm not suggesting anything, I was making a statement of fact.

If that is indeed a statement of fact, you should be able to provide some support for it. Links to pertinent websites would be acceptable. In lieu of such support, I'll continue to assume that it's only your opinion, and continue to respectfully disagree.

Again, I submit that if the reference was to any other than your God, you wouldn't be so supportive of it. You aren't defending a reference to a god, but to your God. You can't see past your own bias.

Apparently you didn't read my post, or else you misunderstand. The portion about using the phrase "Our Almighty Father," instead of the word "GOD" was exactly what you claim it wasn't.

"Our Almighty Father" would still be a clear reference to the Christian god, so I disregarded it. You continue to refer only to your god.

Atheists can kiss my ________!

I meant every single word of that last statement.

I know you did. That's why it demonstrates my point that the official sanction of a specific religion is dangerous to all who don't share that religion.

This country was founded upon a belief in GOD...

No, actually it was founded upon a belief in the right of all to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That would certainly include, but not require, a belief in God.

...and whether or not someone does, or does not share that belief is their concern;

Absolutely. The government should have no say in the matter either way.

...however, it has absolutely no relevance to historical fact and should not even be considered as the basis for future actions designed primarily to abolish one of the bedrock founding principles of this country.

Actually, THE bedrock founding principle of this country is freedom for all to believe as they will. And removing officially sanctioned references to a specific deity from the legal tender of the United States would in no way "abolish" anything. You would continue to be able to worship exactly as you choose. The only thing that would be "abolished" is the tacit assumption that all either believe as you do, or somehow count for something less than you do.

Most of the people in America believe in a Supreme Being under one name or another, if you don't, that is your right, but do not expect us to accomodate your belief--or lack therof by striking all reference to ours.

Why not? I'm not demanding any reference to MY belief-- I have no desire to impose my values on you. Why should you be able to impose yours on me?

You did not found this country, Christians did--get over it.

First, just as a bit of context-- my family settled in Jamestown before the Mayflower even showed up, so I would be willing to bet that, if we're going to start comparing the nominal right to define what this country is, I have far more right than you do. However, as I already stated, I have no desire to impose my beliefs or my values on anyone else.

Second, you might want to do a bit of research into this. The truth is that many of the founding fathers were NOT Christian, but were Deists. They believed that God was undefinable, and that all attempts to define him/her/it were in vain. Part of the reason that they left England was to escape the oppression of the English government and it's officially sanctioned religion, and THAT is specifically why they included a ban on the government's establishment of any religion in the Bill of Rights. They recognized the danger posed by tying a government too closely to any one religion.

You probably would too, if this government sanctioned any religion other than yours.



[edit on 17-11-2005 by Bob LaoTse]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
You did not found this country, Christians did--get over it.

Actually the "Christian" forefathers of America made it very clear America was to be secular.

Article 11 of theTreaty of Tripoli

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

The Treaty of Tripoli was meant just to placate the Barbary Pirates, and it didn't work and we later dissolved the treaty and had to go to war.

Anyway, saying the generic "GOD" doesn't mean we're a Christian nation, it just means we're religious. As stated before, God can mean different things to different people.

Let me rephrase my basic argument to clear up any misunderstanding between us:

Where I used the term Christians I did not mean it in a literal sense, merely a figurative one. What I was trying to get across was the statement that our founding fathers believed in GOD--which they most assuredly did, as did almost everyone in the country at the time. (Please feel free to substitute any word you like to describe a supreme being). However, as you very correctly point out most of our founding fathers were deists and did not believe in any specific religion; indeed most of them roundly criticized organized religion and the Bible. Their beliefs, as well as those of most other Americans at the time were easily understandable since many of them were fleeing religious persecution when they came to America. (As an aside I will say forthrightly that I feel the same way.)

By the same token though they did not question the existence of such a higher power, nor feel it necessary to include any reference to GOD (or whatever word) in the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights. The belief in a higher power just was accepted as a given and not mentioned specifically, mostly for fear of sanctioning the establishment of formalized, State sponsored religions which had taken place in several of the colonies. If you'll look, you will see ample references to a higher power everywhere and in almost everything they did.

The problem of religion (i.e., the separation of church and state to the extent it has reached) did not really arise until the doctrine of incorporation was adopted by the Supreme Court following the passage/adoption of the fourteenth ammendment after the Civil War. Many, many scholars find the doctrine of incorporation to be unconstitutional. The Bill Of Rights, as adopted, were never meant to apply to the States and there are a ton of references showing that. If they had been, the republic would never have gotten off the ground as several states had laws on their books requiring state officers to swear an allegiance to GOD (in the Christian sense of meaning of that word).

For whatever its worth, I am providing links (as you requested) to back up my arguments:

www.albertmohler.com...

www.loc.gov...

www.loc.gov...

www.loc.gov...

www.loc.gov...

www.tfaoi.com...

www.absolutearts.com...

byustudies.byu.edu...

www.eadshome.com...

www.postfun.com...

If the references above do not satisfy you and get us on the same page, I'll find some more for you.

Peace.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Astronomer68]

Is this such a bad thing?

What if the Nation is shifting away from being primarily religious? Laws, Government and its Institutions are socially constructed if society shifts than these things will shift and this is just a reflection of them changing. It isn't a bad thing and people shouldn't see it as such.

Even the arguement, it is only a "term" on a "note" also can be used against you. If it holds no meaning there is very little point to it.

You also have one major possibility coming from this; people talking about the Federal Reserve and people finding out that it is not a Government body.

Originally posted by Odium
Is this such a bad thing?

What if the Nation is shifting away from being primarily religious?

Hypothetically, would not such a "shift" require a majority or growing majority to accomplish?
As such, the majority in the US are primarily religious.





seekerof

Originally posted by Odium
Is this such a bad thing?

What if the Nation is shifting away from being primarily religious?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Hypothetically, would not such a "shift" require a majority or growing majority to accomplish?

Source
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

Times are changing in the United States, already 1 in 10 people do not 'ascribe' to any Religion and another 1/10 do not worship a Judeo-Christian Religion.

In totel you already have 21% of the population who do not worship God, because the Islamic Religion doesn't ascribe to placing the name of 'Allah' onto things such as money, etc. [I think Judaism is the same but can't remember.]

That's already 1/5 of the people who likely do not worship 'God' but rather several 'Higher Beings' or 'None' at all. If you compare this with 50years ago, it is highly likely the U.S. had a population which was 'much more' Religious.

Time is changing and with it the shift will happen - not saying it will now, but just it is a natural change in a healthy society. Change can be good and normally is - stagnation tends to be ill for a society.

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, the majority in the US are primarily religious.

seekerof

But how many of them agree with it being on the bill?

Just because you worship God, doesn't mean you wish to have his name on everything that you own or that non-religious people/people of a different faith should be able to have such an item with your faiths name on it. Living in the U.K. the problems [foolishly] between Catholics and Protestants are clear... All you need is another 29% and it is half and half and from personnal most religious people can't agree to get along on anything.

Originally posted by Odium

Times are changing in the United States, already 1 in 10 people do not 'ascribe' to any Religion and another 1/10 do not worship a Judeo-Christian Religion.

Well Odium if you look back to the very early history of religion in the U.S. you'll likely find that those who did not ascribe to any religion was probably higher than 10%. That isn't to say they did not believe in a higher power though, because the vast majority clearly did. The use of the word "GOD" to describe such an entity was as good a word as any and had the advantage of satisfying the christians who were in the majority and were more than a little upset that "GOD" had not been recognized in the Constitution.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by Odium

Times are changing in the United States, already 1 in 10 people do not 'ascribe' to any Religion and another 1/10 do not worship a Judeo-Christian Religion.

Well Odium if you look back to the very early history of religion in the U.S. you'll likely find that those who did not ascribe to any religion was probably higher than 10%. That isn't to say they did not believe in a higher power though, because the vast majority clearly did.

Maybe, but who knows. However over the last 25 years there is a change. Over the last 50 there has been a much larger change for us all to see.

I agree the times and beliefs are changing. Religion in general is in decline, not just formalized religion, but even belief in a higher power. The equation has not shifted enough yet though to purposefully aggravate the christians in the country by removing such symbolic references to a higher power. Efforts to do so are generally divisive.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Astronomer68]

he does have a good point.money is a public exchange and there should be no worship of any kind on it.like they say church and state separate.there is a good reason for it.now other countires do it also and i find that it goes against there worship also.so why is this on money?it should say in people we trust...money needs reform and needs to be exchanged as the public for the public.this is why so many people feel that money they hold never really belongs to them because its gods money.now if god has ownership of money then he/she must live in my wallet.next time i want to talk to god i open my wallet instead of a place of worship.so look at the world currency out there and count how many countries do this and see how screwed up there message is to there people.........

And next will be changing the names of streets, buildings, even towns and cities.
Don't think it own't, there is already the stirrings of such in Las Cuzes (the Crosses), NM. They do not like the city's symbol (three crosses with a sun in the background). They are saying that they are not (yet) attacking the name of the city only the symbol.

Next comes the thought police and the censors for such things as saying Bless you" when someone sneezes.
This whole train of anti-religion is going a bit far I am sorry to say. Yes there is a separation of church and state, but there is the freedom of religion which does not mean making all icons and religious type statements illegal.
As I have put forth before, since we have such a strong separation of church and state, then do not our mayors, govenors, representatives, senators, and even the president not violate this separation everytime they put up (X)mas decorations, host (X)mas parties, give (X)mas gifts to family members when they are in residence? I mean, the housing that they are put in is after all govermental property!

kenshiro2012, there is no need to push things so far out as to make it laughable in an attempt to discredit other peoples arguements.

Yes, the Government has a Seperation between Church and State. However during your Private Life when you are not doing anything for the Nation you are able to worship who you desire as long as it is legal.

There is a seperation between State and a member of Government's Private life also. Which I am sure you know.

If you can't see the difference between money and this than their really is a problem.

AS for the cases of a City, so what? It is highly unlikely any Court will uphold the case and I doubt any real lawyer would take it and ruin their career.

I just have a few questions....

if he finds the money so offensive, what has he done to prevent himself from having to use it? does he use plastic as much as posible, only relying on the currency when absolutely necessary.....or did he just use it last night when he went to see that neat movie!!! just how strongly is he adhering to his convictions.....

and well, how much is he willing to chip in to help pay for the conversion of our currency so it's more to his liking if he happens to win? I don't care how offensive he finds those words on those coins, our national debt and current budget deficits should be much more offensive to him!

it's amazing, the more our country falls apart, the more stupid our bickering becomes!

Odium,
It was not an attempt to discredit anyone's argument for or against either side of this issue. Stating something that we have discussed before.
As for pushing things too far, bacl a few months ago, when California Supreme Court ruled the Pledge of Alliegence was un Constitutional because it had the phrase "Under God", I put forth that the next thing we would see would be an injuction against the US currency since our money has the words "In God We Trust". What I sad then was shrugged off and debased as it would never happen. It was suggested that I was pushing it too far by suggesting that.
Well, as I predicted, it came to pass. Sorry to say I told you so

You are correct in that what you do in your private life is private, unfortunately, as in the examples that I set forth, politicians who reside on govermental property are not afforded this "privacy" This is something that has bee accepted for generations.
While a politician resides on govement property, any religious celebrations will technically violate the separation of church and state rules. An example. a few weeks ago, in NY, a church was barred from using a public school on Sundays to hold their sermons. This same school is used by many groups including the BSA. But the church (who had outgrown it's own facilities and was looking for new ones) is no longer permitted to use the school simply because they were a religious organization.
As for the city names etc, there is already many news stories on this, and yes, technically, the man that does not like the name / symbol of Las Cruzes has a good deal of legal strength to standon the same as this story has. If there is even a little bit of religious connectation then it violates the separation laws and thus is illegal.

There is no longer just a simple

References to God on currency still exist in other countries, even in liberal bastions such as the Netherlands.

Some Euro coins minted by that quite liberal country still contain the words "God zij met ons’ [God be with us].

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Odium
Is this such a bad thing?

What if the Nation is shifting away from being primarily religious?

Hypothetically, would not such a "shift" require a majority or growing majority to accomplish?
As such, the majority in the US are primarily religious.
seekerof

Actually when it comes to certain aspect of religion many Americans are pretty much opinionated, and very dissatisfy when others try to make Religious decisions for them

Remember the Florida issue on death and life situations? it was pretty clear what most American felt about.

Most Americans like to call themselves religious to a point but only a minority will follow a strict religious discipline.

David Newdow is just a jerk who wants attention. It does not matter what his money says, it still holds its value. And please, Mr. Newdow, I dare you to tell me that everyday you roll out of bed, fearing the day because you know you will have to read that dreaded g-word on every piece of money you own. Please, Mr. Newdow, SHOVE IT.

Originally posted by Odium
You also have one major possibility coming from this; people talking about the Federal Reserve and people finding out that it is not a Government body.

Everyone seems to be overlooking this comment Odium, but wouldn't it be a hoot if this guy lost his suit based on the fact that money is a federal reserve note and as such is not issued by a government agency; therefore, the offensive phrase is legal since it is not being done by the government.

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by Odium
You also have one major possibility coming from this; people talking about the Federal Reserve and people finding out that it is not a Government body.

Everyone seems to be overlooking this comment Odium, but wouldn't it be a hoot if this guy lost his suit based on the fact that money is a federal reserve note and as such is not issued by a government agency; therefore, the offensive phrase is legal since it is not being done by the government.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a quasi-governmental agency, the notes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing which is a federal agency in the Department of the Treasury, and they are required by U.S. law to have "In God We Trust" on them.

Also, the motto appears, by law, on all our coins which are produced by the U.S. Mint, another fully governmental agency and not controlled by the Federal Reserve.

So I don't see how it could be dismissed on this basis.


[edit on 11/18/2005 by djohnsto77]