"Michael Newdow, an atheist, was offended by the phrase "In God We Trust" on the coins of American currency, believing that the phrase was a state-sponsored statement of religious faith - illegal under the separation of church and state.[15] He argued that he had a right to raise his daughter "without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers."[16]

Some of the judges in the 2002 ruling agreed that Newdow had a right to direct the religious education of his daughter.[17] Newdow explained his view of 'freedom of religious exercise' by asking whether Christians would be glad if the atheists were in the majority and if the atheists inserted into the pledge of allegiance the phrase "one nation under NO God."[16] In an interview with Connie Chung, Newdow stated, "The Constitution says the congress will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion which means that the Supreme Court says, and as you have said, nobody should be made to feel like an outsider. And I would only ask everyone of those people to ask themselves, if they had to say every morning when they pledged allegiance to the flag, that we were one nation under Sun Myung Moon, or one nation under David Koresh, or one nation under Jesus, or one nation under Mohammad, how would they feel?"

Thus Newdow claimed that the reference to God is meaningful, and hence the court should recognize, and correct, the resulting religious bias. Meanwhile, the "under God" clause is often defended as "ceremonial deism," acceptable because it is religiously meaningless."

 

I read this and thought Newdow was right on the money. We should definately take "God" out of the Pledge.

Tags: allegiance, atheist, god, government, of, pledge

Views: 383

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

These excuses are just like the ones used by lawmakers to make access to abortion difficult. Christian hypocrisy. You see it with the far right Republican candidates (e.g., Palin, Bachmann, Caine) who can't keep their stories straight. They lie to themselves and everyone else, though intellectual irresponsibility plays a part. Religion is a refuge for the worst.

Is the against the law to deface money but
 what if any form of protest we all took a
sharpie and drew a line through "in god we trust"

 I bet if enough people did this itis would be 
notificable 

It's only illegal if it renders the money unusable.

United States Code  TITLE 18 -
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE  PART I -
CRIMES  CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY § 333.
Mutilation of national bank obligations   
?Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.?

I've been doing it for a long time.

What's the most effective use of time and effort? Coinage is in circulation far longer. A small hammer and chisel in a convenient spot (garage table on the way out each morning?) makes putting a line through god on ten quarters a fairly quick, easy and lasting product. I'll bet a lot of people would notice some of your coins over the years and it might catch on, or better yet, lead to discussion.

so have I. I just see it as correcting an error and complying with the constitution.et al.

just correcting the error.

I've been doing that for more than a decade.

I mark out 'In God We Trust' too. If it is against the law, at least it'll be hard to catch someone doing it because they could just say: "It was already on there, I have no idea who did that!" hahaha

I just block out the "we" and print above it (neatly in green ink) "I don't".

Rudy, get gods out of government?

Religion teaches people to be helpless. What will America's helpless people do? No magic wand will grow their power.

And this: judges who say IGWT isn't religious are afraid of America's BILLIONS(?) of believers.

It means god is a dangerous element and one should be insured against his predations.  I don't know if any Atheists have taken their insurance company to court asking them to prove that "god" had any hand in the damage.

If you want to hear me rant, just mention ceremonial deism. The courts have stated the the god in In God We Trust is so meaningless that it is not religious. Yet, citizens still use the fact the In God We Trust (IGWT) is our motto to continue the myth that the U.S. is a Christian nation. Yes, maybe to you justices IGWT is so ridiculous that it is meaningless, but to millions of Americans, it says, "We are a Christian Nation." E. Pluribus Unim is much more appropriate for our diverse nation. We do not want to spend decades in congress arguing about whether salvation is predetermined or whether god is a trinity or a unity. We just want to minimize human suffering. Get gods out of government and let's solve some problems.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2012-05-the-dangerous-...

Rudy, I hope you have a rant in you for the people who want you to assume the "under" position in an "over/under" relationship.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service