Comments about ‘Atheists lose latest legal fight over ‘In God We Trust’’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 29 2014 3:40 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Murray, UT

Don't like "In God we trust"? (Whine whine whimper whimper)


Use plastic. In Visa or Mastercard we trust.

Salt Lake City, UT

Would the American Atheists (and Humanists) please publicize their humanitarian efforts in its many forms such as helping the needy? In SLC providing those services seem to be limited to SL Rescue Mission, St. Vincents, Salvation Army, LDS Humanitarian services, Catholic Charities and the outreach from many different churches. They all serve humanity and ask nothing, perhaps you could do the same.


“Tradition is a terrible excuse for any behavior,” said American Atheists spokesman David Muscato. “If we allowed ‘tradition’ to guide our views, what else would we uphold — slavery, denying the vote to women?”

Same argument as always - equating evil with religion. I fear that by repeating this false dichotomy, people may actually be duped into believing it. Slavery has no protections in the Constitution. Denial of the right to vote is not protected by the Constitution. Religious worship is protected by the First Amendment. Why is it that Atheists are so intolerant? Didn't they get the tolerance lessons from their public education curriculum? Do they not understand that intolerance is the center of the fight against "tradition" by those interested in "social justice?"

Mapleton, UT

The phrase is very exclusionary. It implies that if one doesn't believe in a god, then they aren't apart of the "We" subjugate, and by extension not American.
This is easy to see if you have ANY empathy.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Still not time yet, but it IS getting closer. The reliance on the weak argument of "tradition" suggests this.

Keep at it, defenders of the First Amendment! We are beginning to see more and more believers recognize that this work is in their best interests too. It is the religious and their bad habit of imposing their views on others that represent the greatest threat to religious freedom.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

The dominion and hegemony of religion is coming to an end, despite the loss in this small skirmish.

In that you can trust.

Salt Lake City, UT

Yet again, let's cater to a very small minority because they have tender feelers about (fill in the blank). In this case, God's existence, worship, name on money. Like the first comment said, use plastic if it is so hurtful. And like the second comment said, show us that you care for the poor and needy with a boat load of service and charity, then you might begin to gain the public trust that you aren't just about tearing down any semblence of religion, mostly in a condescending and disrespectful manner. You seek for tolerance yet so many of you are not tolerant. I have never had a pleasant conversation with an atheist. And no, it had nothing to do with them not agreeing with me, it's almost like the people I have spoken with have no social skills. They don't know how to respect others views and cordially disagree. Like at all.

Richland, WA

"In God We Trust" as our national motto is the literal fulfillment of the words of the Natinal Anthem. In the 4th verse of the Star Spangled Banner, it says "Blessed with victory and peace, may the heaven rescued land/praise the Power who hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just/and this be our motto: In God is our trust."

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

So when a person of faith goes to school and learns about Darwinism, that isn't imposing that point of view on the person of faith or is that tolerance?

If a person of faith expresses, shares their belief with others. Is that imposing their belief on others or in this tolerant utopia of atheism would that be tolerance?

It's a free country. If you don't like In God We Trust, then don't say it. Very simple. Now if you were forced to say it that would be something else. The same thing with a cross placed along a freeway to honor a fallen trooper. If that trooper wants to have a cross put in that spot as his/her marker, then why in your tolerant mind would you not let them? Does the cross talk to you and force you to denounce atheism? If that's the case then you have serious mental issues.

I'vehad theissue come up that peopledidn't want to enter achurch during elections. They told me the bricks and pictures influence the way they vote.Really?! You probably shouldn't be allowed to vote if bricks and pictures talk to you.

seattle, WA

One poster or another has said that atheists are disrespectful of the dominant religious culture of the country. Maybe. Those who seem to be show disdain for religion engage in free speech. You may not like what they say, but you have to allow that they can make comments that fail to show your religious sensibilities their proper "respect".

The flip side of this argument, and where religionists constantly engage in hypocrisy, is when their religionists show disrespect to those who don't tow their line. How many times have we seen headlines and comments to editors that defame homosexuals, woman with a mind of their own, and minorities? Do religionists get a pass on their hateful utterances when they invoke a deity, or some vague reference in the Bible?

The history of the phrase "In God We Trust" placement on currency (and really quite recently done) shows us that this was only vaguely tied to our national history. Frankly I am astounded that religionists fight this battle. I doubt their Savior would feel honored to have his name printed on money. Did not he chase money changers out of a temple?

Kaysville, UT

Setting aside all tradition, name calling, and assumptions about God or anyone else, I would like to assert my right to free speech by saying we should keep things the way they are. Because, moving forward, my free speech rights would be violated by removing verbiage that I wish to be left alone.

Leesburg, VA

>> It is the religious and their bad habit of imposing their views on others that represent the greatest threat to religious freedom.

And how is stheists suing to have a motto removed from the national currency because they disagree with it not "imposing their views on others"?

We live in a democracy. Democracies, like marriages, require a high degree of mutual toleration to function. Tolerance doesn't mean agreeing with everything someone says or believes; it means ignoring the stuff that isn't important and which has no significant impact on the association.

The simple fact is that having "In God We Trust" on our money has zero practical impact on the way atheists get to live their lives. Accordingly, it is the "aggrieved atheists" who are showing intolerance, not people of faith.

clearfield, UT

I think the real issue is if the term "GOD" is necessarily related to "RELIGION". I think a good case can be made that it is not. A person could claim that mother Earth is their god. God to some is nature itself. God is the great expansive universe of which we are just a small part. Some may claim that they are their own gods directing their lives for themselves. Nothing about the use of the term God is necessarily related to any specific religion or church. That is why I think its use on money or as the countries motto does not violate the wording of the 1st Amendment. In that, the term establishment of religion is what is prohibited, not the recognition of God persay.


That may be your hope, but it is doubtful that a day will come when humanity will agree with you.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "HelioTeller" we trust in the God of our understanding. For atheists the God that they trust is themselves. Webster's Dictionary gives one definition for God as "a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired". Don't Athiests trust a person who they greatly love or admire?

The problem here is that everybody commenting assume that the God to be trusted is the Christian God. Muslims may assume that the God to be trusted is Allah. The Jews may assume it is Jehova. Each religion (including atheists) can assume that the God mentioned is the God of their religion.


Here is the logic of today's liberal:

'If I impose my beliefs on others, I call that "progress" and they become "enlightened"'.

'If someone I disagree with tries to impose their beliefs on me, I call that "discrmination" and they are "bigots"'.

It makes the world so simple, doesn't it? (said with sarcasm)

Murray, UT

Redwings - So well stated!

Kaysville, UT

But a phrase on a coin is not an imposition of beliefs.

The phrase should be left alone, but if a change is forced upon us, let those who demand the change fund those changes through paying to re-tool the presses, paying for the cost of re-minting all the coins, and for any other cost of circulating the new coins.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ happy2behere

The purpose of officially adopting the motto was as a counter to the atheism of Soviet Communism, so it was most certainly a statement about a religious God. It simultaneously served as a rejection of atheism.

If the nation wants to officially reject atheism, then fine, do it. Throw out the case law that says we have a right to freedom from religion and amend the Bill of Rights so that it protects only believers. (And while you're at it, insert the condition that only Christian beliefs are sanctioned and then you can truthfully call the U.S. "a Christian nation.")

Until this happens, though, atheists will and should continue to keep the nation honest. Do we believe we are all equal or don't we? When we use the collective "we," do we really mean it or don't we?

@ mhenshaw

If the nation needs a motto, we had and have an unofficial one that includes everyone: E pluribus unum. "Out of many, one." This binds us together as Americans. The other divides us into two groups - believers and nonbelievers. Which is more appropriate for a national motto?

Phoenix, AZ

What is god: nature, luck, Allah, Jesus, money, wealth, zero, Obama, make it your choice.

seattle, WA

There is a constant stream of rhetoric here that asserts that removing reference to a deity from currency somehow infringes on their free exercise of religion. This illogical point of view also maintains that "liberals" (atheists too) are intolerant if they ask that a religious reference be removing from a piece of paper or a round lump of metal.

This is an exercise in the worst form of intolerance around. It basically says that if you don't like my religion (which is almost always of the fundamentalist sort), then you ought to leave or just shut up. We are the majority! We tell you what to do, think, say, and when to pray, take vows and all the rest.

All any liberal minded person (or atheist) in this debate wants is a return to the historical standard that omits the reference to the deity on money. It does nothing to stop your free exercise of religion.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments