Atheist Michael Newdow is at it again...

[Playinghardball]

Sacramento atheist files another challenge to 'In God We Trust'

WASHINGTON - Sacramento area attorney and dedicated atheist Michael Newdow is making another run at "In God We Trust," with a new Supreme Court petition challenging the national motto.

In an uphill battle, Newdow is asking the nine justices to review an appellate court's rejection of his claim that the invocation of God on official currency violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

More at: w.sacbee.com/2011/01/12/3319187/sacramento-atheist-files-another.html


Uphill battle is an understatement. Can you imagine the chaos if he won?

[Joe the Revelator]

1. He's right. I hope he wins.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Good for him.

We desperately need to take separation of church and state seriously.

[arbusto_baboso]

3. Yes, because removing a small phrase from our coins and currency would cause chaos.

Good night and thanks for playing the DU home game...

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

4. And even the atheists are sayiing 'Oh God!"

[SoCalNative]

17. Not THIS Atheist.

here's hoping he is able to win this time.

[Joe the Revelator]

25. +1

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

28. okay, then 'God YES!'

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I like when people use the fact that Atheists say "God" to minimize their lack of belief.

As if the fact that I say it during orgasm or when I'm stuck in traffic and have to pee really proves a secret faith.

Edit: I wasn't saying you were doing that, I just think it's funny.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

31. You've heard the comedian say the reason for population explosion...

During sex... and at that time...

'OH GOD!'


"BABY!!!!!!"


Your wish is granted! :)

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I hadn't heard that

but, funny. :thumbsup:

[sarcasmo]

39. +2

[Warren DeMontague]

26. No, we're not.

It's not my top priority, not when idiots are still trying to push creationism in public schools, but Newdow is right about this.

[Codeine]

37. Like hell we are.

I support him 100%.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

46. Okay okay! I give.... I give!

[Fumesucker]

5. You really have to tie yourself in rhetorical and logical pretzels in order..

To show "In God We Trust" is in no way a religious statement.

[PBS Poll-435]

10. But is it an official endorsement or establishment of a specific religion? nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. It's an endorsement of some religions over others, and over non-religion

It favours Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions in which there is one identifiable 'God' over polytheistic religions, atheistic religions, and the positions of people who do not believe in a 'supreme being'.

[PBS Poll-435]

13. I can appreciate that POV.

In Grumet religion is just as valid as irreligion.

But I don't see how that applies to currency.

[unblock]

32. i'm confused -- you're saying the establishment clause doesn't apply to currency?

the government could print the bible in its entirety in tiny, tiny font on currency?
just so long as they don't put it on, what? tax forms?

to what DOES the establishment clause apply that somehow currency is different?

[PBS Poll-435]

34. In all honesty, I am not sure.

I have no strong opinion one way or the other.

But I enjoy the debate. And I have an open mind.

[Fumesucker]

14. So rhetorical and logical pretzels are good for you?

I see it as a minor reason our country is so screwed up politically right now, almost all politicians of both parties support something which really requires some jesuitical level of rhetorical and logical distortion to even justify.

It really doesn't make for a great deal of rationality in the rest of our politics, I'm not saying it's a major factor but I think it has a role to play.

[PBS Poll-435]

18. No. It has been a long day and a long week.

An honest-to-goodness intellectual argument seemed like a good idea. Something abstract.


Just call me the devil and be done with it.

[Fumesucker]

21. Eh, well I put forth my thoughts on the matter..

You're right, it has been a bad week for a lot of people in many different ways.

I hope you have a good weekend.

:hi:

[unblock]

35. the word "specific" does not appear in the first amendment.

there is no loophole in the establishment clause that lets the government establish a set of religions (e.g., all of the ones that accept christ as lord) and favor them over all others. good thing, too, you could drive a truck through that one.

[bluestateguy]

6. This guy has a wacked sense of priorities

A national tragedy in Arizona, two wars an economy in trouble and he is worried about an inscription on the money.

[MindPilot]

8. This case has been moving through the courts for years.

Timing is not something one has a lot of control over when accessing the courts.

[Forkboy]

16. Yes, he saw the news the other day and then decided to do this.

[cynatnite]

20. So, should he wait when the economy is stable and there are no wars?

Maybe he should wait until everyone has health care or when global warming is reversed.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. It doesn't belong on the money.

The First Amendment may not be a priority for you, but it is for many of us.

[Codeine]

42. This is the continuation of a long battle for him.

It's absurd to believe only one issue can be dealt with at a time.

[Shagbark Hickory]

7. At 1st glance, I thought this was about raCHAEL madDOW.

I hope the guy wins.
I'm not an athiest but I dont see why a religious phrase needs to be on legal tender.
Maybe if this was pakistan.

[MindPilot]

9. His first name is Michael, not "Atheist"

You will never see a news report about Christian Pat Robertson.

[Forkboy]

19. Not until I write one, anyways.

:)

[FiveGoodMen]

27. "You will never see a news report about Christian Pat Robertson"

For a couple of reasons...

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. LOL

Google says "About 22,000 results (0.09 seconds)

Here's the second result... http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/hindus.htm

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22christian+pat+robertson%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=7b989c6c17f79c85

[yawnmaster]

41. wellll...except here at least...

"...Christian Pat Robertson Denounces Hinduism..."


http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3502

[Warren DeMontague]

53. I read a book by Hans Christian Andersen, once.

And I've been unfortunate enough to see several sucky-ass movies that starred Christian Slater, including that monumentally goofy one where he had a monkey heart.

...

...


How do you explain THAT? Hmmmm?

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. It's actually....

...damned if you do, and damned if you don't, for the religious Right.

Court holds for Nadow -- major disaster. Atheists win. World ends.

Court holds against Nadow -- minor disaster. Atheists don't really lose. The Court will probably find that the expression is a harmless exercise of content-free, watered-down 'ceremonial deism' -- a substance-less charade we go through with with a view towards humoring the God-botherers like cranky children.

The latter is, I think, more likely.

[SoCalNative]

15. Good.

Where can I send a donation to help him fight?

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Yes, it would cause unimaginable chaos, starting with the monumental task of taking 4 words off

of our money.

Seeing as we NEVER redesign currency or even alter text (i.e. the year) on our money designs, it just would completely upend our entire financial as well as social structure if the words "In God We Trust" were taken off our $.

Why, without the express admonition that our government trusts in an invisible, omnipotent being, how could our money even be worth anything? After all, it is only the clear mandate of divine reliance that conveys upon our little green strips of paper the magical mojo by which people will accept them as a viable exchange medium for, say, apples or car tires or lap dances.

Yes, the chaos would be simply... unimaginable. :scared:

[cynatnite]

24. You are so right! n/t

[JNelson6563]

47. lolz

[NYC Liberal]

30. I can only hope... nt

[girl gone mad]

38. Ohmigod, the ch405!!1!!

Won't someone think of the children!!!!!!1

[Dappleganger]

40. This christian agrees with him.

I find it insulting to have references to god on money which is often used for nefarious purposes.

[Soylent Brice]

43. chaos?

Lol.

:popcorn:

Oooookay.

[baldguy]

44. Good. Either the Establishment Clause means something, or it doesn't.

It should have the same weight as any other part of the Constitution.

[verges]

45. "Can you imagine the chaos if he won?"

No. What do you think would happen? Itwould only apply to currency made after that date.

[AnnieBW]

48. I agree, but he's still a douchebag

Michael Newdow - you're not helping.

[kath]

49. Good for him. He's right.

[Fleshdancer]

50. Wasn't "in god we trust" introduced on currency in the 50's?

I thought it was 1954 but my memory may be a bit off. It's funny to me that people think the phrase was always there. It's also funny to me that anyone would think it belonged there in the first place. I don't know many Americans who would trust god over the security of owning a certain number of dollars.

[Boojatta]

52. It was used in 1909, according to ...

this website

[Fleshdancer]

54. d'oh! It appears I was confusing currency with the pledge of allegiance

I managed to get the year right, but I was wrong about the actual topic. Not good! :blush:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

On Edit:

Found this:
https://ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Below is a listing by denomination of the first production and delivery dates for currency bearing IN GOD WE TRUST:

DENOMINATION | PRODUCTION | DELIVERY

$1 Federal Reserve Note | February 12, 1964 | March 11, 1964
$5 United States Note January 23, 1964 | March 2, 1964
$5 Federal Reserve Note | July 31, 1964 | September 16, 1964
$10 Federal Reserve Note February 24, 1964 | April 24, 1964
$20 Federal Reserve Note | October 7, 1964 | October 7, 1964
$50 Federal Reserve Note | August 24, 1966 | September 28, 1966
$100 Federal Reserve Note | August 18, 1966 | September 27, 1966

[MattBaggins]

51. He's right but will never win.

Like sensible gun laws; it's a lost cause.

[Quantess]

55. Awesome.

[Ter]

56. If he wins, we all lose

There would be a Civil War II, and potentially millions dead. No Democrat would ever win another election. Sorry, but keeping it on currency will benefit all of us.

[darkstar3]

57. Reducto ad absurdum?

:shrug: