First the Pledge, Now...

Seems like a waste of time and money to me, but it probably should be done eventually.

Newdow said his efforts are not spurred by an atheistic agenda, but rather by a desire to see the government adhere to the U.S. Constitution.

"What it is, is these people want to get their religious views in our government," he said.

Hey, look at that. Sentence 2 is basically confirming that sentence 1 was a lie. Whoops, looks like you're a dick, bub. Again.

This guy must have his head pretty far up his ass to think he can get away with a slip like that, and that's not even counting the extra distance it requires to make an issue out of something so completely inocuous for the second time.

It probably shouldn't be on it, but it matters so little that I really don't see why you would care.

What they don't realise is that every religion has their ow god. Maybe they should change the saying to "In my God I trust"?

Not Atheism. Personally I think this guy is being a dick, but technically he is right. I just don't think this is worth our time worrying about one way or the other.

Dart Zaidyer wrote:Hey, look at that. Sentence 2 is basically confirming that sentence 1 was a lie. Whoops, looks like you're a dick, bub. Again.

This guy must have his head pretty far up his ass to think he can get away with a slip like that, and that's not even counting the extra distance it requires to make an issue out of something so completely inocuous for the second time.

I think he was saying that that's what he thinks the Christians are feeling about the money...Still idiotic of him though...^_^

It may seem petty, but he is right. The Constitution is totally godless, as should be the government created by it. For the government to favor any religion, or group thereof, in favor of the others is unconstitutional. "In God We Trust" implies an absolute preference for monotheism. Leaving polytheism and atheism right outside in the cold.*
Statements like "Under God" and "In God We Trust" also open the door for further intrusion of religion into government. Often the argument "Why do they forget this is a nation Under God?" is used by those espousing some religious or psuedo-religious bill.

*important distinction: in this statement I am refering to the appropriate Greek prefixes:
(mono- one; poly- many; a- none/no) Meaning that "atheism" refers simply to any religion or belief that does not incorporate a god, not to the modern belief system which is more accurately refered to as "freethought" or "secular humanism."

It isn't hurting anything. I don't see any atheists running into my fire station screaming bloody murder because they touch a dime that says "in god we trust" so until it is actually hurting someone in a physical way or even mentally that can be proved it's a problem then forget it. It's four simple words, it's not hurting you in any way shape or form and it's not doing anything bad. Why the hell should we waste money just to remove four words from money?

EVERYBODY, even atheists, believe in something. Actually, I had this discussion with a friend of mine the other day, and my view was that I want a word that can be used, regardless of religious beliefs, to stand for the Creator. After all, even an atheist must believe that something created the universe (even if that something is simply the laws of nature or something to that effect - actually, when you look at it a certain way, it's not all that different from God - alleged sentience aside, which to me isn't as important as people make it out to be), and there needs to be an all-encompassing term for that.

Anyway, what it ultimately came down to was that I wanted to use the word God to signify this force or power which created the universe, regardless of one's beliefs. My friend, however, was convinced that any word I used would have baggage associated with it. Finally, her conclusion was that I should just use the phrase (insert personal religious belief here). It just doesn't have the same ring to it, though. I mean, while accurate, you can't say something like "One nation, under (insert personal religious belief here), indivisible...." Or, "In (insert personal religious belief here) we trust."

But anyway, I just kinda like the idea of some all-encompassing word, you know... I mean, come on, even if one's an atheist, it doesn't mean this Creator-force is any less amazing, simply means that it's not acting with purpose, or at least the kind of purpose that we can readily understand. The universe is really a much more incredible place than we give it credit for sometimes, I think - maybe this word would give it a little of the respect it deserves.

Back to the topic at hand, though, I do agree, because of what it represents. I'm all for upholding the Constitution. It's not the act itself, it's what it symbolizes, you know... There are dangers in setting precedents.

If millions of people started to complain, ... fine. ... ... Just make them fund the change themselves. 😛

Honestly, I think this is the most idiotic thing in the world. If you're an Atheist, and you don't believe in a God, then you should stop worrying that there's "God" printed on your money. If you don't even believe in God, then you really have nothing to worry about then. Nobody is actively trying to change their beliefs through the shifting around of money. That's like saying that people are trying to get you to buy their perfume by spraying it into air somewhere in the world. It's going to happen eventually, .. may as well ignore it.

THat's so dumb, who the fuck feels oppressed by dollar bills.

Lilith wrote:THat's so dumb, who the fuck feels oppressed by dollar bills.

uh..the ghetto, lower class america...immigrants perhaps.

america is a country divided by money however i find it quite pointless
for people to actually use large amounts of their time lobbying about
something written on green paper. i say leave the dollar the way it is,
its not hurting anyone in that regard.

Monica wrote:Maybe the Atheists should get their own money like in the UK? I heard England and Scotland and them have their own money, correct me if I'm wrong.

I see where he is coming from. Seperation of church and state should apply to everything. But the cost to redo all of the money would be such a high amount I don't see it being worth it.

Glitch wrote:I see where he is coming from. Seperation of church and state should apply to everything. But the cost to redo all of the money would be such a high amount I don't see it being worth it.

Excatly I'm not sure that he has thought it all the way through...

He doesn't need to think about the practicality of it. That's not his responsibility. He's probably doing this more as a way of showing his disapproval of the pervasiveness of religion in government.

Anyway it'll probably take effect on new money being printed if he wins this.

You guys just need to get plastic dollar bills, like Australia.

The majority of U.S.A. is Christian... I don't see why we have to give up our religion just to please them... If it was the other way around and Christianity was a minority and Atheism was a majority I wouldn't be offended if they took the phrase of the money.

Now I'm not a Christian, but I don�t really give a shit that it is there, probably cause I�m cool enough to have friends and a life and have much more important things to worry about, but anyways, I do see his point and agree somewhat. Yes, this country was formed by Christians, but Christians who were seeking religious freedom, where they could practice whatever and however they wanted and not get any shit. They didn�t want anyone else�s views thrust upon them, and it�s kinda fucked that these views are now the ones being thrusted. I�m not saying that anyone is trying to force anyone else to try and become a Christian or that anyone is being persecuted (except for the Muslims), but it�s kind of like the Christians saying, �Well put up with you, but you�re a douche bag and wrong.� And nobody completely sees the historical significance more than me, but you can�t really manage the government today the way it was managed 200 years ago just because it was managed that way 200 years ago. We are a land of religious freedom where it means shit that the majority is Christian, what matters is that you don�t have to be a Christian, because religion is supposed to have no place within the government. *shrugs*

Lord Cheese wrote:The majority of U.S.A. is Christian... I don't see why we have to give up our religion just to please them... If it was the other way around and Christianity was a minority and Atheism was a majority I wouldn't be offended if they took the phrase of the money.

When did he ever order Christians to forsake their religion? He simply wants the phrase off a government issued bill. Unless your religion is center around god labelled money, I don't see how this is forcing you to give up your religion.

Monica wrote:I just feel sick that people arte trying to kick God out of the country..

You think he's trying to kick God out of the country? What's the matter with you?

Havent you guys seen mircale on 34th street, In God We Trust because of Santa dont you see!

copsgotguns wrote:uh..the ghetto, lower class america...immigrants perhaps.

america is a country divided by money however i find it quite pointless
for people to actually use large amounts of their time lobbying about
something written on green paper. i say leave the dollar the way it is,
its not hurting anyone in that regard.

LIBERAL'D, way to miss the point.

Axel wrote:It may seem petty, but he is right. The Constitution is totally godless, as should be the government created by it. For the government to favor any religion, or group thereof, in favor of the others is unconstitutional. "In God We Trust" implies an absolute preference for monotheism. Leaving polytheism and atheism* right outside in the cold.
Statements like "Under God" and "In God We Trust" also open the door for further intrusion of religion into government. Often the argument "Why do they forget this is a nation Under God?" is used by those espousing some religious or psuedo-religious bill.

lol, reminds me of a robin williams joke when he was liek they shoudl just change the pledge to, "one nation, under canada, above mexico..." f'n hilarious

Well... this is pretty stupid... I can see where hes coming from, but its not that big of a deal... its like when I was on the way home from a trip with the debate team, and one guy said man, why is it raining? I leaned over and said "because god is peeing" a stupid little joke someone told me in kindergarden... now 2 of the debaters just jumped at me for it... (the odd thing was one of them was chinese and refered to himself as the minorite no joke) saying I was insulting thier religion and I shouldent say anything like that... it wasent even a big deal, nor was it directed at them as a insult, but yet... iyeyeye.

If we could all just stop bieng so p.c. maybe wed live in harmony :P

Disclaimer, yes I know I and everyone else won't convince anyone, except maybe babies or children, they are right.
It's still good for debate though.

We, yes I am an agnostic/atheist person who want it removed also, do not want all traces of god removed from public. We want all traces removed from gov't. The gov't should have nothing to do with god or any kind of religious aspect. The people can do whatever they want but the gov't should not.
Just because it had some relation to religion, 450 years ago of course, doesn't mean it should be included today.
[insert usual slave reason, if different explain without useing the generic, slavery is bad of course it's not a good analogy]

@Rainman: "waste of time and money to me"
It's funny that you use the word money.

@Dart Zaidyer, how are those contradictory?

@biggiy05: "It's four simple words"
Pornography is simple pictures.
Sex in public is simple acts.

@MacWeirdo42: "and there needs to be an all-encompassing term for that."
"any word I used would have baggage associated with it."
So you when you hear the word god you don't thing of a religious being? Whether the Christian/Jewish creator or a Roman/Greco being or a Hindu version.
Most people think that. Even if they didn't they will think that the gov't does.

Perhaps there should be but god is not it. Most people don't thing of "God," capitalized or not, as a generic creator of scientific stuff but a specific religious one. I know I don't.

@Britannianhero4:
"Just make them fund the change themselves"
"If you don't even believe in God"
"That's like saying that people are trying to get you to
buy their perfume by spraying it into air somewhere in the world"
I don't think a change per se should be made. I just think no new money should be made with it.
And why should citizens pay for removing a Christian being from a 1st amendment prevented gov't object?
And if you don't believe in god then remove it.
What if you believe in a different god or in gods?
Then it is wrong.
Yes, people are trying to get you to buy perfume. Does that mean the gov't is trying to get you to belive in god?

Would you want "In Allah We Trust?"
Face it, God in this case means the Christian god. It does not mean the creator, scientfic or not. It does not mean a personal version and another religion's one either, well except maybe for Judism.

I hate it when people who don't like this use the excuse, "remove from public."
We don not want it removed from public. We want it removed from gov't. I, at least, want the "of" part, not the "from" part.
For all you people who are using the 1st amendment,

US CONSTITION wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..."

"Respecting" can have several meaning pertaining to this:
1. bias, preference
2. consideration
3. differeing
etc.

"Establishment:"
1. something established [made]
2. organization
3. "the recognition by the state of a church as the state church"
etc.

As far as I can tell that translates to, "Congress shall make no law biasing one organization of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise [from the people, not from the gov't] thereof."

I don't see why this is such a big deal. Okay, there seem to be three camps. The "We need to keep God on our money, or He'll lose his power" camp, the "Oh dear God, you've offended me with your religion" camp, and the "OMG LOLZ TAHT'S RETARDED!!!111" camp.

So what's the deal? Do people really think God cares if He's on money or not? Will He be offended if He's removed? Or are you just trying to feel better about your own sinful lives with some small, petty gesture? If you feel bad, why don't you go volunteer at a food kitchen, or sign up to help build a house with Habitat for Humanity? Frankly, to me, that's a FAR better way of honoring God than some trite phrase. I think God would appreciate it, too.

As for the offended group, on the plus side, it's really easy to ignore, it doesn't convert anybody, and I really don't think that anyone could honestly use that as precedent in arguing for bringing more religion into the government.

Finally, to the last group, just... never mind... not even gonna bother.

Frankly, I don't care. I mean, I'd personally be happy for the phrase to be removed, but I'm not gonna die if it's not. I vote we just let the courts decide on this, and just happily accept whatever ruling they pass down, because a loss really isn't all that terrible for either side. It's a question of Constitutionality, which is a bit fuzzy in this case, so let's just let the experts handle it.