Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Center
 

Link to full story

History of "In god we trust" for those who might not realize that it's a recent addition.

Yeah, I fail to see how e pluribus unum would be of less significance and meaning than "In God we Trust" as a national motto. :confused:

So it is:

-Historically associated with the US' federal government for at least ~140 years, out of a total national history of around 230 years;
-The legal and official motto of the United States of America;
-Hugely popular with the American people;
-Upheld by your Supreme Court as not constituting a breach of your First Amendment.

This is what happens when the fundies decide that we need to rebrand the country to avoid being mistaken for godless commies.

Here's a solution for those atheists who don't like the statement--exercise your freedom not to read it. It's going to be in one spot only, and not like it's stenciled all over the walls, floors, and bathroom stalls so that you're forced to see it and have your sensibilities offended. You also have the freedom to move to atheist countries like China or Russia, too, if you just simply can't stand to see 'God' anywhere in the public sphere.

But, Jae, you've gotta understand that achilles (and other liked minded folks) is only interested in preserving other people's tender sensibilities. :rolleyes: :D

I think you're quite likely to see God in the public sphere in Russia, Jae. The Russian Orthodox Church has a membership of 80-100 million people.

damn, you just gave me a good idea...*goes to store to buy some spraypaint*

Oh, silly me for forgetting that. :xp:

@Rogue15--at least use washable paint. :lol:

It's a government building. We have a right to visit it without having to view your propaganda.

Sorry to hear that civil liberties fall so low on your list of values. Then again, I'm not sure what else to expect from a conservative ideologue.

I know you're all too happy to jump on the "atheists are 2nd class citizens" bandwagon, but I still have just as much of a right to be here as you do.

Thanks for keepin' it classy Jae.

Curious though it may be, I don't think it's Jae's propaganda... in fact, I'm pretty sure it's your legally enshrined national motto, as supported by a huge majority of Americans. It was also a popular sentiment/phrase for a long period before that, has been on your coins for half your country's history, and is supported by your Supreme Court as not constituting a breach of your First Amendment - all according to your own source.

I'm curious to know how that constitutes propaganda specific to Jae.

"Oh yeah? Well you smell!"

How about addressing the point, dear chap? Not that your invective isn't amusing.

Que? That looks like a bit of a leap of logic.

Unlike your own calm, reasoned response?

It's the national motto. If you object to it, write your Congressman and Senators to propose a bill to remove it as the national motto. At the point it is removed as the national motto, I will then consider your argument to have validity.

Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. You should learn the difference. I don't want atheism forced down my throat any more than you want theism crammed down yours.
I know many fine, upstanding, first class atheists, including a number of them on this forum, and I am proud to be a fellow citizen with them. Please state where I noted or even implied that atheists are second class citizens, or retract your statement please.

If your doing what I think your doing: Can I help?:D
Yeah! You tell him Jae:p

Why is is such a big deal? Did the people in that group run out of Churches to TP?:xp:
Its the national motto (like has been stated before), and this country was started as a Christian nation.
It is within our rights to place "In God we Trust" in places that we see fit.
In fact, I'm going to hang in my barn.:D

Uh, I wouldn't exactly word it that way. Almost of all of the founding fathers were Christian, by denomination, but to say that they were actively practicing and strictly adherent Christians would be a fallacy. Thomas Paine sticks out as one of the more outspoken critics of dogma and its role in religion, including directly denouncing religious institutionalism as a whole. Ben Franklin's dabbling with "lower women" also didn't cement the notion of a nation consisting of high Christian moral fiber either. :xp:

Or I can wait to see how far up the food chain this legal case goes. Perhaps this court will change the previous supreme court ruling. That would work too.

Good thing that isn't up to you. :)

No one (except you) is suggesting any such thing. You're more than welcome to be as theistic as you like. The government on the other hand is not. You should learn the difference.

I offered to teach a class once. Here's a lesson.

An argument is premise or series of premises leading to logical conclusion. If someone puts forth an argument, then you can "reverse engineer" which premises (stated or unstated) have to exist in order for the argument to work.

So let's work backwards:

Argument: Atheists that don't like theism should move to another country.

Premise: Theists should have consideration over non-theists.

The premise has to be considered "true" in order for the argument to work. Perhaps it would help to expend a little more effort to consider the implications of your statements before you make them (???)

It's a big deal because the government is not supposed to support any one religion over another.

First, christian fundamentalist lobbied to have it established as our national motto 50 years ago. Second, this country was not started as a christian nation (see: Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli if you would like to see our "official" stance on the matter).

Yes, as an individual with a Constitutionally protected right to free speech, you're welcome to hang whatever you'd like in your barn. Knock yourself out.

I find it interesting when some people here hyperventilate about how they have some right to be "protected" from the word "God" on public buildings, money, etc.. Even if they place a reference to "God" on a public building, you've consistently failed to demonstrate any harm beyond being honked off by the fact that not everyone believes atheism to be right. There are no laws in this country that disqualify an atheist from running for public office or receiving any of the benefits that their fellow theists do, nevermind forcing you at pain of death or imprisonment to renounce your atheism. Drop this canard of "second class citizenship" b/c it only sounds like the incessant whining it is. Show me where the laws say that you as an atheist (and yeah, atheism HAS to be the disqualifying factor as that's what the discussion is about)are banned from activities the rest of your fellow Americans enjoy and I'd be willing to consider a legitimate injustice as needing possible redress. Until then, you'll have to settle for your side's relentless propagandizing of the masses to become as atheistic as you are. :rolleyes:

Uh, did no one notice this?

Arguments about freedom of/from religion aside, does this strike anyone as a frivolous use of taxpayer money?

It does seem like a waste of money. Have some local (non-delinquent) High school kids come and do it for free. They could say that its a character building act of community service.:p

Given how big a hole we're in and BO wants to keep spending anyway, I don't see it as a problem. Have you looked at the crap packed into his and the Dem's "stimulus" bill? The govt has never had a problem with wasting money. Hell, given how unproductive Congress is, I'd say the whole center (regardless of when the building was actually commissioned) is a frivolous and colossal waste of money.

Well now you've done it.
Achilles: would you like to argue this point or should I?

_EW_

I don't think the point of this lawsuit is clear to all people reading this thread. This isn't about a bunch of atheists who are mad at seeing the word 'God'; the problem is that the word 'God' would be on a government building.
No one would sue a church even if it had the words 'In God we trust' written all over it a thousand times. But by putting it on a government building the government endorses one belief system over all others. So it's not about offended sensibilities.

The fact that it is the national motto also does not make the phrase immune to criticism. In fact it makes it worse because that in itself is an endorsement of one religion by the government, and it does actually imply that anyone who does not 'trust in God' is un-American, or less American than those who do.

Phrases like 'Freedom of religion, not from religion' also imply that atheists shouldn't be treated the same as religious people.

And finally, concerning 'atheist propaganda': is the absence of the word 'God' really atheist propaganda? Or is it just a blank wall?

In a country whee there is freedom of religion, you are allowed to have any religion you want or none at all if that is your choice.

In a country with freedom of religion but without freedom from religeion, you are forced to have a religion and you have to choose one; thus telling you what you can't do in terms of religion.

Therefore, freedom from religion is inherently freedom of religion.

@EW--actually, no. What Federal laws prevent atheists from running for higher office b/c they are atheists? Don't conflate some people's unwillingness to elect an atheist with the same thing. However, if you read carefully, you'll notice I said So, I stepped in nothing. I've said if they exist I'd be willing to consider an injustice being done. :raise:

*it should be noted if you want to say that some states bar atheists from holding office, I agree that's unfair and that's what outfits like the ACLU live for. As for private organizations (Boy Scouts, Free Masons, etc...), they have the right to choose who they want and don't want in their organizations. My advice woulod be to try to convince them to have a change of heart if that's what you're shooting for. However, the govt shouldn't have the right to force private groups to accept theists or atheists in their ranks otherwise (same goes fro gender, etc..).

I'm still curious about what harm is being done atheists beyond having to see the word God written somewhere. How does having that on a visitor center actually harm atheists in a tangible way? Beyond seeing your subjective piece of mind irritated.....:dev9:

@kipper--freedom of religion does not eual freedom from religion except in the sense that the all powerful state isn't forcing you to profess a specific faith.

@Doomie-- ;)

There is no "harm" being done, it simply goes against what this nation was founded upon. If the words, "There is no God," were etched onto a governmental building, there would be no harm done to theists; yet it would break the same principle that is being broken by engraving "In God We Trust."

A blank wall cannot express an idea, but a wall with writing on it can, so your example and mine aren't really equal. The word 'God' in the right context could actually be part of propaganda, so it's not necissarily just 'a word on the wall'. I would say that the words 'in God we trust' on the wall of a government building is a quite different context than just a wall with the word 'God' on it, but a blank wall is a blank wall wether it is part of a government building or not.

EDIT: I'd like to add that the atheist group in question might be missing the point as well. The problem here is not really the engraving of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance in a government building. It is probably meant to inspire nationalistic feelings rather than propagate theistic views. I think the actual problem is that the motto and the Pledge *do* propagate theistic views.

(Not that that would be an easy problem to solve.)

All you. :)

Pardon me, but I don't think you said anything about federal laws.

Here's what I was referring to:


Sources:
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/4.../pdf/const.pdf
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a04.htm
http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html
http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/cons...nstitution.asp

and there are others.

_EW_

Perhaps, but given that context is everything, more words would be required to add context (whether added in your own mind or along it on the wall). W/o context, it's essentially scribbling. Also, the reason for a word not being on a wall gives context as well. The absence of the word could mean several things as well. They didn't have the money to etch it, or perhaps even the desire (for cultural or other reasons) or were forbidden from doing so to appease another group.

Perhaps you didn't see my post that had quotes from all of the state constitutions which specifically state that atheists may not run for higher office. I believe that you said you would consider it an injustice being done.

Please, I'd love to hear your point of view.

_EW_

Totenkopf is talking about federal laws and you're referring to state laws. Two very different things.

And yes, it's high time that those state laws were changed. They should have never been made in the first place, unless it was intended that there would be separate theist states and atheist states, which is obviously not the case.

I guess he thought no one would notice when he tried to move the goalpost.

Agreed.

Thanks, but don't waste your breath, Q. ew isn't going to let reading in context get in the way his selective cherry picking. If he bothered to pay attention he'd have seen he stepped in it by conveniently ignoring my reference to state laws in a post from several hours earlier. Since he's clearly behaving in a manner which suggests he is resistant to rational discourse, the only thing to do is ignore him. ;)

Just my two cents: It represents stability in times that it was needed and desired the many faithful. A majority each time as is still roughly the case today.

If it means stability for this country looking at it historically, then good. I see no problem with it.

EDIT: I wonder if claiming to be faithful while at the same time as arguing against it isn't a form of deep rooted conceit...perhaps even a double standard.

Oh, I'm aware of that. But since he failed to clarify this in the beginning (claiming that there are no "laws in this country which disqualify...") my points were very much valid. And then, of course, when I make the point as to his error, he quickly changes his tune, so to speak.
Excuse me, but what is this bull****? I read your original post just fine and then responded accordingly.

Apologies, your highness, for missing said post. That should have been fairly obvious, since I asked you to share your point of view in my most recent post. I would not have posted my query (and perhaps not even my evidence) if I had not overlooked that line.
A simple quote of your earlier statement in response would have done nicely, instead of being an ass.

_EW_

EDIT:: Also, for future reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

If part of what it means to be a law is the possibility of enforcement, then it seems like those bits of state constitutions which Ender cited are law no longer, even though they may remain "on the books." As a symbol of religious descrimination, yes they should be removed. But I don't think they pose any threat to someone's running for public office. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1961 that such clauses are unenforceable. To take such a clause as if it were "law", a binding rule, is stretching the truth of the matter by a wide margin.

I don't think sacrificing founding principles in the name of stability is the wise...

What are you saying? I'm not following?

You're not truly free to choose your religion (freedom of religion) if the State is forcing you embrace one or not at all (Islamic states or atheistic communist ones).

False. The fact that there are even atheists and agnostics in this country (when they could simply emigrate to elsewhere) proves that not to be the case. Freedom from religion = freedom of religion is a nonsequitur. The first involves the absence (forced or otherwise) of religion and the second a choice of a particular religion.

Writing a "In God we trust" motto is hardly sacrificing our principles. The argument is about yay vs. nay on congress spending tax money to have it written.

That's pretty debatable as I would say it is definitely going against the idea of separation of church and state.