San Francisco atheist Michael Newdow, the guy behind the “under God” challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, is expected to file a lawsuit in federal court today demanding that the motto “In God We Trust” be removed from U.S. money. It’s the American way to sue people at will, even if it’s for bad reasons. But in his misguided zeal to get any hint of God out of the public square, this guy only makes it harder for those concerned about more willful and contemporary attempts by specific faiths to get government and public schools to do their bidding. “In God We Trust” hurts no one.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
35 Comments
There is a balance, I do not nor should I have a right to force my religious believes on another person. It would do no good anyway, for their afirming of my believe would be false.
But neither should someone be able to force upon me their non-believe. They have a right not to worship in church. But they have no right to be free from seeing a cross in front of the church.
Nor is there a right to be free from any reference to God. That is part of being an American. If he is offended by the words on the money. Then simply do not have any! The only concern he should have is the number on the bill.
I am not offended by his non-believe. Please allow me the same consideration for my believe.My dad told me,”your rights end and the rest of the worlds begin. Right at the tip of your nose!”.
I hear you dog, this guy needs to find something that’s actually a problem for society and go after that.
TRACY..Yeah.. like the ACLU! Oh, I forgot.. he’s probably on their payroll!
Who uses cash anymore anyways? You can do every transaction for everything you need with a credit/debit card.
His problem is solved.
If that is too inconvienent for him, we can always embed a chip in his arm to do the same thing.
If he wants to change the money, let him replace every bill & coin in circulation with a godless version.
Let the RW christian fundies go after this guy.After all, he’s a MONEY CHANGER!
The white house is full of oil men. Harken Energy and Haliburton!We fight wars that kill thousands for oil. Satan is in control and by George he planned it that way!
Yeah, in today’s climate, he probably should not have bothered. He won’t win, it just inflames the activists, and monotheists who may have doubts about the practice lack the courage to side with an atheist.
But it’s not about the position he’s taking (which everyone actually agrees with, if they believe in consistent principles) but rather the person who’s taking the position, and who’s defending it. Think about it: Would “In No Gods We Trust” be okay with everyone? Or would you object to this statement of official atheism (I would, and I’m an atheist myself!).
And how many times have heard religious loons invoke this slogan to argue the lie that America was founded as a “Christian nation”? The purpose of such small gestures is to gradually advance theocracy by attrition.
The movement to add Deity references to our money began, unsurprisingly, during the turmoil of the Civil War, when Rev. M.R. Watkinson wrote Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase in 1861. His reason? “From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.” Sound familiar?
This only applied to coins, and only some coins, for a while. Then, quite fittingly, during the waning days of the McCarthy era, Congress changed our national motto from “E Pluribus Unum” (”Out of many, one”) to “In God We Trust.” And the paper money followed.
Any time we face an intractable conflict, many Americans feel we need to officially promote our piety, perhaps to somehow curry favor with the man upstairs (as if such phony showboating is somehow a legitimate expression of piety!).
I prefer religious freedom for all. E pluribus unum!
Rage, nice post.History is always interesting to me.If it becomes a costly issue maybe we should just go back to E pluribus, but only when the feds see fit to re-issue the currency.
These folks are the wacko’s. In the same ballpark as the wacko left and right. Even the wacko’s worship something (from Webster; Extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem . SO, you can take away all the references to GOD you want, but GOD will be replaced by (fill in the blank), so for those of us who don’t have a problem with GOD, we will be offended by (fill in the blank). Come on people! Read your history on what happens when civilization looses their moral compass.
Thanks, TRACY!
ID:Huh? Once again, in English?
I have faith in humanity (despite recent developments), but I don’t need to see it affirmed on my money. Nor am I interested in adding anything to our currency at all, particularly if it causes an uproar.
And what, exactly, does any of this have to do with a “moral compass”? You mean the same one that our God-chosen Christian president uses to guide his kidnapping, torturing and murdering without conscience?
Ouch! that’s going to leave a mark.
Go Rage!
Your feable attempts at revisionist history just isn’t going to hold up, Rage, xxx, Galahad.
Somewhere I heard that one should render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which belongs to God. I think it was the same guy who said “when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” ?
I suspect that if there is a God he could give a flying fig if reference is made to him on currency. I think that St. Francis of Assissi had it right when he said “Preach the Word of God! If all else fails, speak!”.
Wearing God on your shirtsleeve by erecting 10 Commandment monuments, lobbying for public prayer in secular surroundings (like public schools with the pledge), etc. are, I’m sure, unimportant to the Deity. The “moral compass” of a nation is apparent in the compassionate actions of its citizens. Words are easy, actions are hard.
ID,What good is a moral compass that only points to Falwell’s belt buckle?
Nice post rage. Changing the money (bills) was an idiotic attempt to show that we were more godly than those godless Soviets.
Rage n’ KThe pain you must be feeling everytime you are forced to look at a dollar. My God (sorry . . . had to include that) man, how do you stand it? Goes the word actually leave a mark on your hand whenever you touch it? Like in the movies?This whole thing is so idiotic. We got sons and daughters dying in Afganistan and Iraq. We have gangs in most of the major cities preying on the weak. We got homeless people sleeping in the streets, and poor people that can’t feed their children, let alone themselves, and we’re moaning about the word “God” on a dollar bill”?
Somewhere along the way the word “priorities” got lost in the lunacy. Yep, sure makes me want to be a Liberal!
Walker, Should I tell you,,,,,,Never mind.
Ed,Tell me what, that there’s a zionist under my bed? I don’t care.
All right.
J.M. Walker, I’m going to ignore your straw-man attack, and stay on subject. I’m also not going to repeat what I’ve already said.
You’ve got a point. Since this is such a trivial matter, the government should end it immediately by agreeing to remove the phrase on the each next printing.
Heck, why not, if it’s no big deal? Easy enough to do; they redesign the currency all the time. What’s the harm?
One purpose of infusing religion into government is to make the leaders divine and thus immune to criticism. This is how Kings of old used to rule. It’s profoundly dangerous to democracy.
When the King can do no wrong, you eventually end up with problems like, say, poverty, homelessness, crime, and perpetual war.
Rage,In other words, how can we trust god, if we can’t trust the government that prints “In God we Trust” on all our money?
A Change isn’t going to happen and it’s a non-consequential issue. So why bother with it, when important issues need attention?
I wouldn’t say that, Jed. It’s precisely because governments are human institutions that we shouldn’t trust them. Whether one trusts God is a personal matter, and government should stay out of it.
Ed, Newdow sees himself as a civil rights crusader. He’s pointing out hypocrisy, but I take no joy in this lawsuit, as it’s very likely to result in a dangerous Supreme Court decision which goes beyond the bounds of the original issue (Want to see activists? Look at the conservative justices).
In fact, I may just try to talk him out of it.
Rage,I like that: “Since this is such a trivial matter, the government should end it immediately by agreeing to remove the phrase on the each next printing.”
Anything else the government should do because you said so? I’m sure you have the answers for everything. You are so profound, it’s . . . trivial.
Now, Walker…..Be nice, no matter how much it hurts.
Ed,I donwanna!
I figured you’d weasel out of that one. Your hypocrisy is showing. To point out the obvious: It’s a trivial issue when someone wants the slogan removed, but not trivial at all when someone demands it remain, no matter what it takes. You can’t have it both ways. Is it unimportant or not?
Any one with ability to read (are you dyslexic or something?) can see this isn’t about what I want. I had nothing to do with this lawsuit, and didn’t even know about it until I read it here. I have no control over Michael Newdow, but the government works for us.
How nice that you apparently favor wasting thousands of taxpayers dollars on a ridiculous crusade to keep a slogan. You obviously have your reasons, but you’ve curiously avoided stating them.
ID, attempts at revisionist history? Is that the only argument you can come up with? If our money was originally designed without the In God We Trust, why did it need to be changed to include that? You doubt our Founding Fathers had the good of the people and the country in mind by NOT using a reference to religion?
I notice that as soon as GW or Cheney or a bunch of neocons uses a new phrase (revisionist history, cut and run, etc.), all the little wannabe neocons make it the new catch-phrase. Can you not think for yourself?
Rage, you’re right on. JM, your attacks are senseless, meaningless, and extremely immature. Much like our national schoolyard bully, George W. Bush. (Just taking a page from JM’s book, folks.)
Money is money to me. I’m more concerned with the devaluation than the words printed on it. If I could choose, I’d rather not have a reference to any God on it, but as long as it spends…
RDbI will state it again for you who think my posts are “senseless, meaningless, and extremely immature.”
The whole senseless, meaningless and immature argument about whether or not the word “God” is on our money is pointless. The word “God” is not going to break your leg, it is not going to keep you from spending said money, it is not going to make your neighbor attack your children, it is not going to fill that crack pipe you all been smoking, it is not going to force any reasonable person that it is signifying the acceptance of any religion by the government, it is not going to feed the homeless, it is not going to cause us to invade a foreign country, it is not going to put or take food for or from the poor, it is not going to educate the children, it is not going to keep you from getting a job, nor is going to get you fired.
The lawsuit was brought by some moron who thinks that looking at a dollar bill with the word “God” on it insults him. And therein lies the crux of the matter: We have become a nation with no backbone whatsoever. We bow and cater to any idiot that comes along and thinks he or her has been insulted. PC has become the norm, instead of the frontier spirit that made this country what it is.
So, you say that I am “”senseless, meaningless, and extremely immature.”? I suggest that you take a real good look in the mirror, son.
Ah, JM, it would be impossible for me to be your “son”. I’ll let you figure that out on your own. Apparently you didn’t read on. I’d prefer the words were not on our currency because they make it appear that this country was founded on Christianity, which it was not. Other than that, the money spends, and I don’t read it when I get it or when I hand it over as payment.
“…it is not going to fill that crack pipe you all been smoking” Not immature, huh?
“it is not going to force any reasonable person that it is signifying the acceptance of any religion by the government” Oh, but it does signify the acceptance of Christianity as “our” religion. The proof is in how loudly you protest removing it. And if it didn’t, why is it there?
Obviously, RD, you failed to read my post. I am in no way arguing for OR against the word “God” inclusion on our money. What I am arguing about is the fact that the issue is even being brought up. It is a complete waste of taxpayers money.
As for you being my son . . . which is it RDb or RD? With so few people here using so many nom de plumes, it becomes difficult to know who is male or female, or if they even belong to one or the other sex.
And if you’re one of those who feels it necessary to use more than one name and email address at this blog, you probably are smoking crack.
Michael Newdow’s position is PC?
Hahahahaha! Thanks, JW. I haven’t had a laugh like that in a long time. Nice attempt at a save, so I’ll let it go.
Since you say you’re not fore or agin’, I assume that means you agree the government should settle the suit if Newdow won’t drop it. Fair enough.
Rage,Am I to assume then, that you are indeed RD(b) as well? You really should wear a longer skirt.