Freedom From Religion sues US Treasury for stamping "In God We Trust" on currency.

[KurtDog]

Rather than quote one professor out of tens of thousands with varying opinions, I will quote someone else. And with this, again, I say unto you that the out-of-context term "separation of church and state" is intended to keep the government out of religion, not religion out of the government.


"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

Thomas Jefferson
2nd Inaugural address
Monday, March 4, 1805



Class dismissed...

"Everything you read on the interwebs is true."

Abraham Lincoln.

 

[BRNG ITT]

"Everything you read on the interwebs is true."

Abraham Lincoln.

Lucky for you I do after school tutoring:

Political memorabilia on display at museum - SunGazette.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Williamsport-Sun Gazette

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

I don't see how the cross is a violation of church and state.

Either way, I wouldn't want to see that cross come down because its meaning is not just religious. It's a memorial for the fallen troops but it's also a tribute considering that a portion of them (if not most) took to the cross for inspiration in the midst of a war that robbed them of life. It also took a lot of elbow grease to put it there.

.

My post is mostly frustration and while it relates, the degree is different. I appreciate your understanding but my frustration still lies with groups such as these that seek division when there can easily be unity from such symbols.

 

[RedRocketMike]

People should be more concerned with the Fed devaluing our currency.

Dane Cook had a good skit about things like this.

Enjoy this video

Dane Cook- Athiest Sneeze - YouTube

Random, I'm in that crowd. not a Dane Cook fan for the record.

 

[Mr.Bolt-on]

I can understand the pettiness of this on the outset, but I think it's a step in the right direction with respect to FFRF's mission to keep government neutral in matters of religion. I am onboard with them and this goal.

I don't see the push to remove religious verbiage from our currency as a case of having a belief shoved down your throat. This is a push towards religious neutrality in government. If the push was for a change in the verbiage that said In the Absence of God We Trust, then we would have a case of belief shoving.

As for taxpayer dollars consumed by this trial, it won't come anywhere near to what taxpayers have paid to defend education from Christian fundamentalism (we're losing in Texas, by the way, where it really counts). The landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover case and those similar before it accumulate up to a terrible burden that has affected us in ways well beyond finance.

This latest FFRF lawsuit is a case to remove religious text from our currency as a means to achieve religious neutrality in the political sphere. If God resurrected them, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be at the forefront of this movement, clamoring the loudest.

.

I think it's a case of Americans becoming more and more beta.

 

[bad360rt]

The problem with the "In God We trust" phrase is which God?

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Or is it a just a general phrase to attempt to appease certain people?

I mean we talk about the "In God we trust" phrase, yet we overlook all the pagan and esoteric symbols on the money.

Is the "In God we trust" phrase really that big of a deal? I'm not sure it really is. Especially when we have so many Christians embarrassed and even reluctant to talk about Jesus or mention Him in public because they are so concerned about being labeled as "one of those guys."

So again, you'd be ok if it said, "In Satan We Trust"? Because it doesn't really mean anything, right?

 

[SecondhandSnake]

''In Obama We Trust''

is what needs to be on there

Just because a large number of people equate Obama with God...:lol1:

We need to change it to, "In Fonz We Trust."

Heyyyyyyyyyy!

I think our country jumped the shark.


And since we're all about getting bent out of shape because of what's on our currency, what about all the other symbolism on it? Why don't we get pissed off about that as well? It's not quite as explicit as "in god we trust" but it's there.

We are a nation of chronically offended people.

 

[A-L-Perspective]

This is all B.S.

My money has platinum debit card, Wells Fargo, some random numbers, my name and Visa written on it. No where does it say "In God We Trust."

 

[VictorySong]

VictorySong, the history I presented from Eddie Tabash about the framers of the Constitution supports my argument that the first amendment is there to ensure that the government remains neutral in religious affairs. Again, the history of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison demonstrates this.

Calling this bullshit does nothing to challenge it.

I then presented a case in point where a federal judge APPLIED the constitutional separation of church and state you are denying the existence of.

Calling this bullshit does nothing to challenge it.

.

It is bullshit. All I claimed was that the constitution never stated the separation of church and state. Why are you showing me the opinion of a court as evidence to the contrary? It doesn't exist in the constitution and some retard's misuse of the phrase in regards to the establishment clause doesn't change the original document.

 

[low03tb]

Does this mean our money is possibly hypothetical also?

 

[wurd2]

It is bullshit. All I claimed was that the constitution never stated the separation of church and state.

The expression separation of church and state is an accepted translation of the intent of the first amendment. The history of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison demonstrates that the intent was to ensure that the government remains neutral in matters of religion and sees the believer and nonbeliever as equal before the law (it also aims to ensure that the minority voice is not shut out by the majority voice).

Calling this bullshit does absolutely nothing to challenge or change it.

Why are you showing me the opinion of a court as evidence to the contrary?

I presented a case where a federal judge exercised the constitutional separation of church and state you claim doesn't exist.

Please note that this is not my opinion.

Perhaps you can contact this judge and argue your case with him. Although I don't think he'll be receptive to unsupported calls of bullshit.

.

 

[wurd2]

I think it's a case of Americans becoming more and more beta.

Yeah, heaven forbid should our science students be capable in the laboratories.



.

 

[wurd2]

Rather than quote one professor out of tens of thousands with varying opinions, I will quote someone else. And with this, again, I say unto you that the out-of-context term "separation of church and state" is intended to keep the government out of religion, not religion out of the government.

"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

Thomas Jefferson
2nd Inaugural address
Monday, March 4, 1805

Please highlight the portion(s) of the quote that supports your argument that the first amendment only intends to keep government out of religion and not vice versa.

And since we've begun the Thomas Jefferson quote game, let's not avoid how Jefferson really felt about the religiosity of those he addressed:

.

 

[Black*Death]

Jefferson as an Atheist does not "prove" that God has no place in government. He has free will to decide his beliefs. remaining "neutral" as you put it means not basing decisions on religious dogma.

Judges do this everyday? They interpret the law regardless of their religious backgrounds? that does not mean they are Atheists/agnostics.

Atheiests have extrapolated this to mean any mention of God is unacceptable...I strongly disagree..

 

[Klay]

It seems this thread is in need of some history. Here's professor Eddie Tabash on the subject of separation between church and state:

If you think separation of church and state isn't about the government remaining neutral in matters of religion, you don't know what you're talking about.

.

You still didnt show where it says seperation of church and state in the constitution. When i get some time i will find the evidence that in fact does prove the constitution is trying to protect us from the government interfering in religion as opposed to the other way around.

 

[wurd2]

You still didnt show where it says seperation of church and state in the constitution.

FYI: You won't find "seperation" in the dictionary either.

It is an accepted expression that describes an intent of the first amendment.

Your line of argument is akin to me telling Christians that Jesus is not my savior because nowhere in the bible does it say "Jesus is your savior". This is an extremely poor argument.

When i get some time i will find the evidence that in fact does prove the constitution is trying to protect us from the government interfering in religion as opposed to the other way around.

Such evidence will have to EXPLICITLY satisfy BOTH of these conditions:

• Draw the distinction between government interfering in religion and religion interfering in government.
• Favor one distinction over the other.

Good luck to you, sir.

.

 

[WireEater]

I hardly ever see printed money anymore anyways, who gives a flying ****. There are better ways to prove your points.

 

[wurd2]

Jefferson as an Atheist does not "prove" that God has no place in government.

If you read Thomas Jefferson's autobiography, you will read about him and James Madison fighting to ensure that laws didn't apply to only Christians, as work toward the ultimate goal of ensuring that the government remains neutral in matters of religion and sees the believer and nonbeliever as equal before the law.

This isn't a historical account you get to disagree with. You've merely the capacity to accept, deny, or ignore it.

I am amazed at the number of Christians that would disagree as a matter of preference. Okay, let's assume the theocrats are victorious in their assault on the division between church and state. Let's assume they establish a theocracy and find it isn't so bad after all.

Where will we be when the religious ruling majority bows to Allah and draws their core beliefs from a different book? History paints a terrible picture of what's likely to ensue.

Whether our forefathers intended for a separation between church and state, we are better served by keeping religion out of geopolitical decisions. You cannot build a sustainable long-term civilization on the basis of conflicting faiths. Differing faiths clash in a non-reconcilable manner precisely because they're not derived from logic or evidence. They're not derived at all. They're entirely man-made.

.

 

[KILRSVT]

You gotta be kidding me get a better hobby ... You don't have to endorse any religion or have your religion infringed upon = freedom of religion no tolerance the result of ignorance

 

[LogiWorld123]

in america, god is money so really its a self-serving statement.