Don't like "In God we trust"? (Whine whine whimper whimper)Simple.Use plastic. In Visa or Mastercard we trust.
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
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.
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
The dominion and hegemony of religion is coming to an end, despite the loss in
this small skirmish.In that you can trust.
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.
"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."
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.
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?
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.
>> 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
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.ScientistThat may be your hope, but it is
doubtful that a day will come when humanity will agree with you.
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)
Redwings - So well stated!
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
@ happy2behereThe 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?@ mhenshawIf 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?
What is god: nature, luck, Allah, Jesus, money, wealth, zero, Obama, make it
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.
Given the last two decisions from the Supreme Court regarding the place of money
in elections, I would think, in the minds of the uber-wealthy who are trying to
buy the government lately, the god some trust is the almighty dollar. Thoughts?
ordinaryfolksExactly right. Which proves that religionists do not
want "freedom", they want Dominion!
What does the Constitution really say about religion and government? The first
clause of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"Did Congress force any establishment of religion to change its
doctrine?Those who failed English may have a hard time understanding
that "an establishment" is not "the establishment". Contrary to
what some people believe, the Founding Fathers understood English and properly
the English language. It's unfortunate that some people twist the English
language to try to tell us that it means the opposite of what was written.No establishment of religion has been offended by "In God We
Trust". Congress did not dictate to any establishment of religion that they
must write those words over the doors of their places of worship. Congress did
not dictate that any establishment of religion must recite those words in their
religious services. The first clause of the 1st Amendment was not
I like the phrase on the money. Period. I hope all Americans can trust in God!