Athiest's Lawsuit Fails...

Makes very little difference to me, it's not my money. But I can't see how the argument of 'it's ok to have it there, because the country was founded by christians, even if it's no longer an officially christian nation now. It's appropriate because the reason it's there is because of our heritage' holds any water. As others have said, it wasn't put there by christian founders, it wasn't put there as a nod to those christian founders, it was put there in a fit of jingoism to differentiate the U.S. from the godless commies. While there's still no shortage of jingoism, there's no reason to try and officially emphasise that 'we're not godless commies' anymore. McCarthy is no longer with us, even if his legacy is.

The real question is why aren't american notes of different denominations easier to differentiate? Australian pesos use plastic notes, with different colours for 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 peso notes. Each one is also slightly longer than the smaller denomination, to help the blind differentiate them too. AFAIK, the only difference in american notes is the number and the face printed on them. Same colour, same size, so you need to actually look, rather than being able to tell at a glance, how much it's worth. Why is that?
 
warpus said:
It's quite clearly a reference to the Christian God.

I agree that is what it meant originally, but I also believe the meaning of things change with time. For example, hanging used to be considered an acceptable form of the death penalty; now it is considered 'cruel and unusual'. I would argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but we haven't won that one yet. In 1850 marriage was assumed to be between a man and a woman; now we rightly debate that because it shouldn't be. I would rather spend time in the courts on these two critical issues than worry about the words 'in God we trust', which I don't even see as Christian anymore, just a part of our American heritage that can now stand for anything the reader wants it to.
 
sanabas said:
Same colour, same size, so you need to actually look, rather than being able to tell at a glance, how much it's worth. Why is that?

Actually, the new tens and twenties are distinctly different from fives and ones in terms of color. And also fifties and hundreds. So, we're making progress in that area, I guess.
 
A'AbarachAmadan said:
I would rather spend time in the courts on these two critical issues than worry about the words 'in God we trust', which I don't even see as Christian anymore, just a part of our American heritage that can now stand for anything the reader wants it to.

I think most people interpret the word God as God, not some other...thing.
 
tomsnowman123 said:
I think most people interpret the word God as God, not some other...thing.
Yes, but there is no reason to consider it to be the Christian God anymore. My real point was that there are battles worth fighting (death penalty, gay marriage, even making the money different sizes for different amounts) and ones that aren't.
 
To be honest, I don't think it matters if it stays or goes. Better this than Prince Charles (as Britain will no doubt have in the near future).
 
The Last Conformist said:
Where, anyway, did the practice of saying "Allah" for "God" when talking about Islam come from? It's not like we use a Hebrew or Yiddish word when we talk about "Him" in the context of Judaism ...
"Allah" is Arabic for God. I believe the general consensus among scholars is that "Allah" is a derivative of "Eloh" as in "Elohim", as in "In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth".

Anyway, I think this lawsuit was a stupid idea. People who file stupid lawsuits like this should be fined for wasting the courts time, and the state's money.
 
I bet some people are even of the view that their god would be offended if they took that phrase out of their money.
I find it ironic however that the god-supposed patron of the weak and poor, has become the idealistic keeper of $$$. ;)
 
In Illuminati We Trust.

Eye.jpg
 
blackheart said:
I really don't care either way. But I see the reason why MobBoss posted this thread. I might be wrong, but fundamentalists think Christianity is under attack from Atheists?
Yes. Sad, isn't it? Though you really can't expect too much logic from people who believe in invisible men.
 
A'AbarachAmadan said:
Yes, but there is no reason to consider it to be the Christian God anymore. My real point was that there are battles worth fighting (death penalty, gay marriage, even making the money different sizes for different amounts) and ones that aren't.

Very true. What was it Congress was debating at one point last week? Wine tasting or something?
 
skadistic said:
No it is not a man forcing his views on others but instead he is atempting to get out from under the blantant christian stranglehold on America.

"In God we trust" may not be a required belief for Americans, but Christian stranglehold? :lol:

Since when did Christians have a "stranglehold" on America? What does this that look like?

I don't care where this goes either. I mean, if this was such an issue, why don't we Christians sue because the Masonic imagery? It's not like this affects our beliefs any.
 
^^^
Ummhmmam the Jesuslands are quite constrictive.
 
Cleric said:
^^^
Ummhmmam the Jesuslands are quite constrictive.

Ummmhmmmmmammmmmmmmmm: How so? ;)
 
MobBoss said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199211,00.html

Two comments on this.

How has having "In God We Trust" on our money harmed anyone in all the years it has been done?
Not good enough - having "In The Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust" won't harm anyone, but I don't see that being put on there. The burden is on you to show what benefit there is to having this false statement (and it is false, since not all US citizens believe in God) on there - money is not a vehicle for pushing your religious views upon everyone.

Secondly, isnt this a case where the plaintiff's relgious views are trying to be forced onto all the rest of us in the USA?
What religious views? Was he arguing that it say "We don't believe in God" instead, or something?
 
MobBoss said:
How has having "In God We Trust" on our money harmed anyone in all the years it has been done?

Not at all, as the court found. They're so common as to be meaningless in any religious sense.

Secondly, isnt this a case where the plaintiff's relgious views are trying to be forced onto all the rest of us in the USA?

Hardly. Its the case of an ego-maniac who loves the spotlight. For those who don't know, the litigant is the same guy who sued to have "One nation under god" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. He's essentially a pest.

I'm very much in favor of the separation of church and state, but this is nonsense.
 
MobBoss said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199211,00.html

Two comments on this.

How has having "In God We Trust" on our money harmed anyone in all the years it has been done?

Secondly, isnt this a case where the plaintiff's relgious views are trying to be forced onto all the rest of us in the USA?

Discuss.

I don't get how he got his case heard in one court, but then dismissed from another. But then maybe I just don't understand the nuances of law.

Be that as it may, it is a trend that's been around for a few years. If you read the Constitution narrowly, it states that the government will not endorse a religion. The phrase "in God we trust" doesn't endorse any specific religion, so it can be considered acceptable, by this narrow opinion.

My personal opinion is that if the US considers itself a secular nation, it shouldn't associate itself at all with any religion, even vaguely. Selecting a national motto that clearly favors religion is obviously religious gratuity.
 
Nanocyborgasm said:
Be that as it may, it is a trend that's been around for a few years. If you read the Constitution narrowly, it states that the government will not endorse a religion. The phrase "in God we trust" doesn't endorse any specific religion, so it can be considered acceptable, by this narrow opinion.

It think that reads a religion, as in any religion. Like a car, if you refer to a mitsubishi galant, or just a car, it's still a car. They refer to God, which is a religious figure, thus, it is referrring to a religion.
 
mdwh said:
What religious views? Was he arguing that it say "We don't believe in God" instead, or something?

The belief in nothing is a religeon. Atheism is a religeous view, whether you believe it or not.

I am glad that it was struck down beause it is a waste of time and money, he IS paying the lawyer with bills that have "In God We Trust" upon them, is he not? (And no, credit cards do not bypass the monetary amounts)
 
tomsnowman123 said:
It think that reads a religion, as in any religion. Like a car, if you refer to a mitsubishi galant, or just a car, it's still a car. They refer to God, which is a religious figure, thus, it is referrring to a religion.

But which one do you believe that it refers to?
Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Agnosticism? The "G" may be capitalised for the sake of the sentence, thus it does not signify a diety NAMED God, only A god that has it's name capitalised.

It COULD read "In Zeus We Trust". But it doesn't, only "In God We Trust". God can cover MANY differing religeons.
 
Back
Top Bottom