Michael Newdow rages on

[bascule]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/12/state/n153942D73.DTL&hw=judge+turns+down+atheist&sn=001&sc=1000

 

A federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit from an atheist who said having the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights.

 

Do you believe "In God We Trust" on our currency represents a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution?

 

I recall an episode of Hannity and Colmes hosted in front of a large audience where they invited Michael Newdow. Oliver North was also there (host of FNC's War Stories program) and has his go at arguing with Newdow, producing a bill from his pocket and asking Newdow to read what it said. It's one tool that Christians use to argue that the US is a "Christian nation," despite the founders intentions to the contrary.

 

I personally think that In God We Trust does not represent a "secular slogan" and does represent a statement that our government espouses monotheism. What's your take?

[Jim]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/12/state/n153942D73.DTL&hw=judge+turns+down+atheist&sn=001&sc=1000

 

 

 

Do you believe "In God We Trust" on our currency represents a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution?

 

I recall an episode of Hannity and Colmes hosted in front of a large audience where they invited Michael Newdow. Oliver North was also there (host of FNC's War Stories program) and has his go at arguing with Newdow' date=' producing a bill from his pocket and asking Newdow to read what it said. It's one tool that Christians use to argue that the US is a "Christian nation," despite the founders intentions to the contrary.

 

I personally think that In God We Trust does not represent a "secular slogan" and does represent a statement that our government espouses monotheism. What's your take?[/quote']

 

Without regard to whether the Supreme Court will find the slogan unconstitutional, it is an offensive slogan and I would happily vote to strike the text from our currency.

[Pangloss]

Offensive? Why is it offensive? I guess I could understand objectionable, but offensive seems a bit harsh. Do you mean because of the use of the word "we", implying that you believe in god as well?

[Nevermore]

I recall an episode of Hannity and Colmes hosted in front of a large audience where they invited Michael Newdow.

You watch Fox news channel?!

[doG]

IMO, the phrase "In God We Trust" is effectively a declaration that God exists because it is meaningless without a belief in God. I wonder if such cases are truly given an unbiased consideration by deist judges...

[JustStuit]

I don't see why it is such a big deal. Some of us do, some don't we are all different. It's not like we are paying homage to God or announcing our faith, just a little phrase of hope and well being. I don't find a problem with it.

[zyncod]

So is Michael boycotting money - that would show those Bible-thumpers a thing or two! Seriously, we have so much to deal with in terms of how retarded a worldview Judeo-christianity is (and I meant that literally, not in the pejorative sense) - reproductive rights, gay rights, et cetera, et cetera - that this lawsuit was an utter waste of time.

 

Plus, it all depends on who "we" means. If all the currency designers were Zoroastrians, I would have no problem in a quarter saying "In Mazda We Trust" (I had a Mazda 323 - it was awesome )

[Phi for All]

Personally, I don't think minting or using currency with those words on it constitutes a First Ammendment violation. It is not espousing a creed the way the Pledge of Allegiance does by including the words "Under God". That's a spoken pledge, a vow if you will, that shouldn't have any religious connotations if you want allegiance from atheists, the way I see it.

If all the currency designers were Zoroastrians, I would have no problem in a quarter saying "In Mazda We Trust" (I had a Mazda 323 - it was awesome )

Also sprach zyncod.

[bascule]

You watch Fox news channel?!

 

I used to watch it for comedy value in the days before YouTube and video.google. let me watch only the funny parts and ignore the rest. Nowadays, I don't watch any TV.

 

Hannity vs. Newdow was thoroughly hilarious, though:

 

Hannity: Who is the author of the Bill of Rights?

 

Newdow: James Madison

 

Hannity: Who hired the first chaplain for Congress?

 

Newdow: You were wrong when you did this on your web site and you're wrong now. James Madison was a member of a committee of six individuals, and he said later, "It was not with my approbation that this was approved of."

 

Hannity: You're changing the issue.

 

[...]

 

Newdow: [responding to Oliver North on the subject of "In God We Trust" on coins] That's why we have a Bill of Rights.

 

Hannity: The author of that Bill of Rights hired the first chaplain!

 

[...]

 

Newdow: Let me ask you a question. What was the first act of Congress?

 

Oliver North: What was it?

 

Newdow: The Oath Act. They took out two references to God from their oath.

 

Hannity: If you hire a chaplain...

 

Newdow: They hired a chaplain before they had an establishment clause.

 

Hannity: No, they didn't. It was right after the Bill of Rights, Michael.

 

Newdow: No, it was in April and May of 1789. It wasn't until June 8 that James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights.

 

Hannity: We've gotten to the point where we don't even allow our kids to read real historical documents like the Declaration of Independence!

[Pangloss]

You watch Fox news channel?!

 

Didn't you know? Half of FNC's audience is the population of the liberal blogosphere. (grin)

[Pangloss]

Hannity vs. Newdow was thoroughly hilarious' date=' though:[/quote']

 

That text was a riot, thanks for posting it. I wish I'd seen it -- there are few people in this world who are funnier to watch as they take a verbal beating than Sean Hannity.

[Jim]

Offensive? Why is it offensive? I guess I could understand objectionable, but offensive seems a bit harsh. Do you mean because of the use of the word "we", implying that you believe in god as well?

 

Objectionable, offensive, inaccurate, presumptuous, arrogant, silly - a lot of words could apply to the assumption by the federal government that it should declare that "we" trust in God. I'd have to think long and hard to single out one word that encapsulates all of the above.

[Mokele]

It's a waste of time.

 

I mean, there may be valid points, but seriously, why is *anyone* wasting time and money over what's on the currency when our own government is full of religious extremists seeking to force their moral views on the country as a whole, regardless of whose basic human rights they violate in doing so.

 

This case is like stopping to apply a band-aid to a minor cut in the middle of being chased by a huge, pissed-off grizzly bear.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Yeah I don't mind folks having opinions on it, of course, but I'd rather not see congress debating stuff like this right now. They've got more than enough on their plate at the moment.

[The Spith]

Maybe it would be more appropriate to have: "In money we trust".

It would be less offensive and make a lot more sense.

 

On my country's currency we have our monarch, promising 'to pay the bearer on demmand the sum of' whats on the note.

 

Although I believe in democracy I don't make a big deal out of it because in the end it's just money.

 

 

However if you seriously want your country to change what's written on its bills, why don't you lobby for useful information such as maps or periodic tables to be printed on one side of each note. It would improve the learning, and general intelligence of the population.

[GutZ]

So is Michael boycotting money - that would show those Bible-thumpers a thing or two! Seriously' date=' we have so much to deal with in terms of how retarded a worldview Judeo-christianity is (and I meant that literally, not in the pejorative sense) - reproductive rights, gay rights, et cetera, et cetera - that this lawsuit was an utter waste of time.

 

Plus, it all depends on who "we" means. If all the currency designers were Zoroastrians, I would have no problem in a quarter saying "In Mazda We Trust" (I had a Mazda 323 - it was awesome )[/quote']

 

I agree some people really need some...lives. It's more historical then religious. Back of the Canadian coin we have the silouette of Queen Elizabeth (or whom ever which one, never interested me). This is like that state they renamed because it had the word kill in it. It was a dutch word for something can't remember, point being it's overkill (haha, sorry).

[Sisyphus]

While we're at it, I think we should eliminate the penny. They cost almost 2 cents each to make, you can't use them in any sort of vending machine, and most of them never even circulate. No disrespect to Mr. Lincoln, of course, but he's still got the five dollar bill.

 

As for the actual point of this thread, do you really think taking it off is going to slow down the Sean Hannitys of this world? No, it shouldn't be on there, and it does offend me (a little!), but the backlash from the "persecuted" Christian right gives me a headache just imagining it.

[bascule]

As for the actual point of this thread, do you really think taking it off is going to slow down the Sean Hannitys of this world?

 

We could put "Let Freedom Ring" on them. Hannity would love that.

[Skye]

While we're at it, I think we should eliminate the penny. They cost almost 2 cents each to make, you can't use them in any sort of vending machine, and most of them never even circulate. No disrespect to Mr. Lincoln, of course, but he's still got the five dollar bill.

Oz got rid of 1c and 2c coins a while ago. Inflation makes them useless.

[AL]

I agree some people really need some...lives. It's more historical then religious.

Not that your claim would have any effect whatsoever on the issue of constitutionality, but what makes you think it's "more historical then [sic] religious?" Aside from the fact that those are two qualifiers that are not even comparable in that way, the U.S. Department of the Treasury states clearly that the phrase "In God We Trust" was added to the currency in the midst of a religous fervor.

http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html