A 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.