I'ts not the history, It's not the patriotism....

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Nov 14, 2005.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    MontereyHearald.com

    Atheist plans lawsuit challenging motto on U.S. currency

    Associated Press


    SACRAMENTO, Calif. - An atheist who has spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is now challenging the national motto printed on U.S. currency.

    Michael Newdow said Sunday that he planned to file a federal lawsuit this week asking for the removal of the national motto, "In God We Trust," from U.S. coins and dollar bills. He claims it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and "excludes people who don't believe in God."

    Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer who is an avowed atheist, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "under God." He took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 said he lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter.

    An identical lawsuit later brought by Newdow on behalf of parents with children in three Sacramento-area school districts is pending with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a judge sided with the plaintiffs in September.

    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. He dismissed opponents' arguments that references to God in government honor the country's religious roots, saying constitutional rights should take precedent.

    "It's not the history that counts. It's not the patriotism. What it is, is these people want to get their religious views in our government," he said.
     
  2. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356

    That is the exact OPPOSITE of the constitution. The constitution states that ALL religions will be given the right to practice without interference from the government. It does NOT state that the government has to be separated from all religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The government does not prohibit atheists from exisiting in this country. They are allowed to practice their religion as they please. There is no law respecting a specific religion. In God we trust dates back to our history in which our founding fathers believed that no MAN has absolute power over other men. They believed that their "inalienable rights" came from God and therefore couldnt be taken away by any MAN.

    Looks like some MEN keep trying to take away our rights by either blatant or ignorantly ignoring the true meaning of the constitution.
     
  3. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Well, it was just a matter of time.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,207
    I am curious how he intends to find standing for this case. I can't think of any way he would have standing in this matter. Course Ive only thought about it for about two minutes, but it just doesnt seem like he can find any.

    Its amazing how him and his athiest ilk try to twist the meaning of the separation of Church and state. The purpose of the first amendment was to get the government away from regulating religion, not to get religion out of public life. Quite the opposite. The founders expected all the different religious points of view to be in our public life. They expected the various religious denominations and sects to advocate and support what they felt was the best move in government and be checked by other religious and non- religious groups advocating their cause.

    Since no one church or sect is dominant any law passed cannot possibly be enforcement of religion. Because you would need to get the votes of more than just the church to pass it. Those laws would be the will of the majority which is the whole point of a Democratic Republic - to establish the laws a majority of the people want.

    Unfortunately too many people fail to realize the point of the market place of ideas and want to just ban certain ideas from the public arena such as religion.
     
  5. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,914
    Thanks Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,804
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    The words "In God We Trust" printed on currency is not the equivalent of making a LAW respecting an establishment of religion.

    Did these poeple ever get past 5th grade English ?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page