Skip to comments.Atheist challenges ‘In God We Trust’(We need to Freep the survey!)
Posted on 08/14/2008 10:30:48 AM PDT by Devilinbaggypants
SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist who has spent four years trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited in public schools is now challenging the motto printed on U.S. currency because it refers to God. Michael Newdow seeks to remove In God We Trust from U.S. coins and dollar bills, claiming in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that the motto is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Oh Happy Day when the Newdows of the world cower at Judgment.
Sorry, nothing unconstitutional here. But thanks for stopping by, Mr. Religiophobe.
Before everyone comes in here and bashes all atheists, with a broad stoke, I just want to say something.
I’m an atheist, and I think this guy is stupid. The majority of people in the country are Christian, so of course there will be countless references to it in our culture. As long as government treats us all equally, why should I care?
Ugh, not this kook again.
Much as I hate giving MSNBC a page hit I have freeped.
I remember when this d’bag was fighting against the Pledge. I said to one of my Dem friends that idiots like that won’t stop until they’ve changed the motto on our currency. As usual, my Dem friend said I was nuts and that “no one” wants to erase In God We Trust. Uh, right.
109375 responses so far....
Yes. It’s a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.
Honestly I don’t think we should say the Pledge at all. Before you attack me and call me unpatriotic, let me explain why and what I think should replace it.
The Pledge was invented by a socialist who was inspired by the idea of uniting America under the banner of the state (centralization). What better way than through th public school system while their minds are still impressionable?
Instead I think we should be saying “I (state your name), do solemnly swear to uphold/defend/support/etc. the Constitution of the United States...” you know the rest.
Ultimately it’s not terribly important to me, just throwing that out there.
He wasn’t satisfied with only 15 minutes of fame, it seems.
It looks like that idiot Newdow got bored again.
Newdow is an idiot and gets nowhere with this crrap. This has been tried before and got nowhere
(Before everyone comes in here and bashes all atheists, with a broad stoke, I just want to say something.
Im an atheist, and I think this guy is stupid. The majority of people in the country are Christian, so of course there will be countless references to it in our culture. As long as government treats us all equally, why should I care?)
The problem is the Government does not treat us all equally
One moron can sway some idiot Judge to make a stupid ruling that effects 100’s of million of people.
One thing about Newdow, he’s consistent in that he always loses. What a turkey!
So who would be for changing it to, “In a God we trust?”
Doesn’t matter to me really, I’m Agnostic.
Have your Jesus or Wiccan shirts and belt buckles all you want just don’t force people to worship or swear an oath to any one religion.
I actually kind of like that idea. My son (USAF) and daughter (USMC) had to take a similar oath, as did my naturalized wife.
Of course, we “native-born” Americans do not.
LOL...thanks for the ping...wish there were more of you that felt the same way ;-)
Interesting isn’t it? I’m in ROTC so I’ve taken it, but I just think it makes more sense to swear an allegiance to uphold the laws of your country than it does to pledge allegiance to the state (or flag I suppose).
Good point...thanks for the post!
“Have your Jesus or Wiccan shirts and belt buckles all you want just dont force people to worship or swear an oath to any one religion.”
Last time I checked, it does not happen from within our government.
Look, I know this might seem a little out of line but since you atheists have no fear of “life after death” and the pain of punishment in Hell, maybe you could go discuss your feelings with this Newdow puke. Certainly you have nothing to lose (and neither does he).
And fight if we must
When our cause is just
And our motto shall be
In God is our trust
Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave
o’re the land of the free
and the home of the brave
Nice try there muawiyah, but seriously why all the hate? Come in for a hug, come on, hug it out. ;)
People should be free to say what they want, and there should be no liberty at all for anyone to be able to go to court to suppress the free speech of others (except for kiddie porn, of course).
Hate is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.
Well, said, my FRiend, and I agree.
I’m not opposed to this at all. I’m just saying that if we have some oath or pledge, I would rather it be the Constitution than the state.
How, unless you believe in some “evolving” Constitution,
can “In God We Trust” be deemed a Constitutional non-issue at ratification,
and without any textual changes regarding this issue,
now be even considered to be remotely unconstitutional?
Oh, forgot the effects of “libtardation”.
In God We Trust is the official national motto of the United States and the U.S. state of Florida. The motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.
I guess I’m not following what you’re saying MrB about an evolving Constitution.
Seriously, in the Big Picture,
why would atheists care if we killed a human or two, or 600 million (deaths communists/atheists responsible for in 20th century)?
I mean, humans are only in existance for around 60-70 years max, right? That’s just an eyeblink in history.
Why would it even matter if we snuffed the atheists, then?
I mean, they’re just a bit more evolved than a chimpanzee, and not worth much more anyway...
Or, you could look at humans as
the crowning glory of God’s Creation,
made in His image, with eternal life,
for the purpose of His Glory.
But, to say one view is superior to the other would be “intolerant”, now, wouldn’t it?
Sure....if one chooses atheism so be it. There is no formal discrimination against it. In this predominantly Judeao-Christian culture a few radical atheists with agendas should not be able tear down the practices of the majority. Glad you are not one of them.
Exactly - the Secular Humanists have figured out how use the government to impose their religion on the rest of us.
Leftists invented the concept of a “living Constitution” and “evolving standards” in order to get around the proscriptions on powers of the federal government.
I’m being highly sarcastic on this topic, because it disgusts me so.
In Great Britain MP’s and others are required to swear an oath to the Queen, and there has been a move afoot to make others (such as schoolchildren) do so as well.
I guess that’s why those folks are called “subjects”, while we’re called “citizens”.
Doesn’t Newdow have a freakin’ JOB to go to?
We all know Al Gore coined the phrase, but what does that have to do with the topic?
I’m simply saying, if we didn’t have “evolving standards,” the phrase, “In God We Trust” wouldn’t be on any coinage, or anything, yet you seem disgusted by that.
Along the same lines, women wouldn’t have the right to vote, does that disgust you too?
Wow. So atheists and saved Christians have something really big in common: no fear after death and no Hell. Who knew? We agnostics are just wishy washy, hedging our bets.
To my knowledge, Al Gore didn’t coin the phrase “living Constitution” - this has been used by judges long before algore was on the scene in order to bypass the onerous task of amending the Constitution.
I’m disgusted by judges (and libs) who have no regard for the written words of the Constitution or the methods by which it actually may legitimately be changed.
BTW, the 19th AMENDMENT conferred the right to vote on women. This is the proper way to change the Constitution.
At ratification, the “standards” were set, as well as a way to change those standards.
“In God We Trust” is not the result of an evolved standard, it is the result of a set standard. I’m not sure what you meant by that.
Hedging our bets is right DMZ. LOL.
600,000+ religions in the world, every human society no matter how remote on earth has some form of religion, and I just can’t figure out which one is the best for me yet. hah!
Seriously, my other friend who’s Agnostic like myself says he tells people he’s Agnostic because he doesn’t know the bible well enough to be an Atheist. A good Atheist must know the bible very well in America. Anyone want to know why? It may have to do with some kind of pressure or social brow beating perhaps?
Really? When did the storm troopers come and close your church, Mr. B? Are you jailed for your beliefs?
This canard that you have had anyone's religion shoved down your throat is just that, a canard.
Are you going to show your ignorance by denying the Secular Humanist indoctrination in public schools?
Case in point - man in Lexington KY dared to question the homosexual agenda indoctrination in his kindergartner’s classroom,
and WAS jailed as a result.
And, what would happen if someone dared mention God in schools these days? Fired. Lawsuit. etc.
Secular Humanism IS being shoved down everyone’s throat, and it has gov’t guns to back it up.
And living in terror all the while Fur Shur.
And living in terror all the while Fur Shur.
No terror here for this agnostic. I’ve got my speech already prepared for Peter should I have the chance to speak to him.
I’m in good stead vis a vis the 10 commandments (at least those that were not included at the behest of the religious authorities), so what? me worry? Not a chance.
This nameless nutjob obviously has a lot of free time on his hands...
It is the nutjobs of all religions and anti-religions that I can't stand.
Their insanity is simply unacceptable when it becomes mindless intrusive activism, serving no purpose other than their own ego.
so did we ever get a basis for the morality of an athiest? i have always wondered that too
I guess it’s whatever their “reason” and “intellect” tell them is right in any particular situation, ie, situational ethics.
After all, there is no objective standard since there is no objective source.