Totalitarians Want to Ban “God” From Our Currency

5
Share

freedom from religionA new lawsuit filed on behalf of several Atheist plaintiffs argues the phrase “In God We Trust” on U.S. money is unconstitutional, and calls for the government to remove it.

It is our national motto.

Sacramento attorney Matthew Newdow has sued the government twice over the use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

One of the plaintiffs said he is “substantially burdened because he is forced to bear on his person a religious statement that causes him to sense his government legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general, but against him personally.”

Give me a break.

Separation of church and state doesn’t mean the word “God” can’t be used when it is clearly part of our history and founding.

He has a whole pack of angry atheists behind him on this – at least 41 – all members of the Freedom from Religion Foundation which goes after God wherever they can find him.

The lawsuit absurdly claims, “The ‘In G-d We Trust’ phrase has continued to be a tool used to perpetuate favoritism for (Christian) Monotheism,” the 112-page lawsuit states, adding “It has also continued to perpetuate anti-Atheistic bias.”

There is no evidence Atheists are biased against. Quite the opposite – Christians are biased against.

Newdow is using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was used in the Hobby Lobby case, to say there is obviously no compelling government interest in having “In God We Trust” on our money.

Totalitarian atheists will not stop trying to ban “God” and we are always one judge away from losing our national motto or anything with “God” in it for that matter. Denying the historical impact of “God” on our history is absurd. It’s a rewriting of history and it’s petty.

His case against using the motto on currency in 2013 was thrown out of court.

In dismissing the suit, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr., wrote that “the Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto’s secular purpose and effect,” according to the Associated Press. Baer also ruled that the federal appeals courts “have found no constitutional violation in the motto’s inclusion on currency,” and that the placement of the phrase didn’t constitute a “substantial burden” on atheists.

Newdow took his case to the Supreme Court in 2011 but it was rejected.

 

Source: Fox news

Share

5 COMMENTS

  1. In God We Trust will always be my motto. One Nation Under God Is & will always be The American way of life.
    FUCK YOU !! You Atheists . Leave this Country & join the ones trying to destroy your freedom. It’s a free world here in the USA feel free to leave.

  2. The government’s inscription of the phrase “In God we trust” on coins and currency, as well as its addition of the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and adoption of the phrase “In God we trust” as a national motto in 1956, were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that “we trust” “In God.” Some of us do, and some of us don’t; each of us enjoys the freedom to make that choice; the government does not and should not purport to speak for us in this regard. Nor does the government have any business calling on its citizens to voice affirmation of a god in any circumstances, let alone in the very pledge the government prescribes for affirming allegiance to the country. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the pledge puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds, and it certainly has no business assembling citizens’ children in public schools and prescribing their recitation of the pledge–affirmation of a god and all–as a daily routine.

    But that’s just me talking. The courts, on the other hand, have sometimes found ways to excuse such things, for instance with the explanation that they are more about acknowledging tradition than promoting religion per se. Draining the government’s nominally religious statements or actions of religious meaning (or at least purporting to do so) and discounting them as non-religious ritual–sometimes dubbed “ceremonial deism”–is one way the courts have sometimes found them not to conflict with the First Amendment. Ordinary folks, though, commonly see things quite differently; when most read “[i]n God we trust,” they think the Government is actually declaring that “we” as a people actually “trust” the actual “God” they believe in. If they truly understood it as merely a ritualistic phrase devoid of religious meaning, they would hardly get as exercised as they do about proposals to drop it. As you can imagine, those more interested in championing their religion than the constitutional principle of separation of church and state sometimes seek to exploit and expand such “exceptions” even if it requires they fake interest only in tradition.

Comments are closed.