Judge Dismisses Atheist's Lawsuit on "In God We Trust"

[The Straight Story]

Judge Dismisses Atheist's Lawsuit on "In God We Trust"

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by Sacramento atheist, Michael Newdow, who said the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency violated his First Amendment rights.

In dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr said the phrase amounted to a secular, national motto.

Newdow argued the placement of the phrase on the coins and currency was done by the government for religious purposes and to have religious effects.


http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=18114

[bluestateguy]

1. Doesn't this Newdow guy have anything better to do?

Like maybe get laid or soemthing?

In case this Lexus liberal hasn't noticed, there is an illegal, immoral war going on right now.

[Deja Q]

4. So why isn't he getting laid?

Does nobody see him as good enough?

Well, he did once - I recall he's got a daughter. LOL, i can't even get a date.

[Caution]

5. This liberal cares very much about this issue

I'm not going to ignore other important issues. I suppose gays should forget about the right to marry? Or women the right to choose?

The first amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy and I have tremendous respect for Newdow and his persistance even in the face of other liberals who should be his allies.

[Yollam]

9. In principle he's right, but his targets leave something to be desired.

It seems he makes a point of targeting innocuous, irrelevant, things to sue over - usually ones that Apple-pie Americans seem attached to. As an atheist myself, I'd like to see religion out of public venues as much as possible, but I'd much rather he sued Bush over his illegal "faith-based initiatives" than this kind of trivial thing.

[stopbush]

22. Actually, he's going after the very heart of the issue.

I'm an atheist. I don't "trust in god" because I don't believe in one. But there it is, on my currency.

Getting that ridiculous babble off our currency could be the first step in weening this nation
off its dependence in trusting silent, non-existent beings as guides to their lives. When a sitting
judge decides that it's more important to sustain religious myths by declaring god a secular being
rather than addressing the real issue at hand, he trivializes both sides of the argument.

[Yollam]

25. It's rather appropriate to have that on the currency...

...since money is their real god.

But seriously, it's very easy for them to make the claim that that is a historical motto which does not amount to a violation of the establishment clause. I personally thing the Faith-Baised Initiatives are on much shakier ground. There really is no way to defend having the government giving money to religious institutions to carry out dubious "social work" while proselytizing (and claiming not to proselytize). It's a nasty can of worms and should have aroused much more controversy when POS Bush announced it. The motto on the money bothers me about as much at Christmas treees and menorahs in the public square- not at all. Even the pledge issue had a bizarre aspect to it. While I agree with Newdow that it's wrong to force kids to profess a belief in god, I think it's just as wrong to force them to recite an oath of allegiance to country on a daily basis, with little understanding of what such an oath means. The pledge should be secular AND voluntary.

[Clark2008]

37. But the vast majority doesn't believe He's non-existant,

so why should we bow to YOUR will.

See - it works both ways, you know.

I don't want to be "weened."

Look - I agree with your being able not to practice a faith without prejudice, but I don't like being told by you that I believe in something non-existant. Have a little TOLERANCE. It's what liberals DO.

[stopbush]

39. Taking "In God We Trust" off the currency is in no way

"bowing to my will." It is respecting ALL points of view on the issue of whether or not god exists by
not declaring a position on god one way or the other.

I have tolerance for your practicing your religion in your church. What has that to do with our currency
endorsing the idea that god exists? Would you feel OK if our currency said "god doesn't exist, but this
money is backed by the full faith of the US Teasury?" How about "Science trumps God" as a motto?

[Doohickie]

11. And this liberal doesn't.

A lot of hot air. Just leave it be.

[K-W]

14. Since when do we all have to care about the same things?

If he is right he is right

[politicat]

12. What do you care? We're not going to stay in the back of the bus forever.

If you keep telling us atheists to sit down in the back of the bus and "we'll get to your problems when there's nothing else to do", then we will never get a hearing. If we wait for the world to be so at ease that you come to us and ask us what our problems are, our problems will never be addressed. We're taking it a step at a time, and being concerned about our rights to a secular government does not prevent us from other activism.

When religious messages of any sort are forced down the collective throat, we're violating the basic right to freedom of religion. Deistic religions have gotten away with a lot because those with the privileges have made the rules, but they're not a right. Just as men have no intrinsic right to dominate women, whites have no intrinsic right to dominate blacks, and straights have no intrinsic right to dominage gays, theists have no intrinsic right to dominate non-theists. So we have to sue to take away the privileges that were unfairly given. And that's what we're doing. We're not violent. You will never see an atheist with a suicide bomb.

It's a short step from In God We Trust to In Jesus (or Allah or Kali or Thor or Zeus) We Trust. The moral principle is the same.

The judge is activist in this case - case law has been in favor of removing forced religiosity since the 1940s. Notice how the Rs aren't screaming about the "activist judge" when it went their way, though....

[me b zola]

42. Good post

This non-atheist agrees with you. Belief, or trust, in God is a personal matter and should not be "forced down the collective throat".

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Once again, you scream: SCREW CIVIL RIGHTS!

You have posted against equal rights for gay people, and now you are posting against people who fight in support of the First Amendment. What is your problem with civil rights and constitutional protections? Do you really think ending the occupation of Iraq will mean squat without those civil rights and constitutional protections?

[bluestateguy]

20. Please show me where I have posted against civil rights for gay people

I have always supported gay marriage.

I'm serious. Show me where I said that. Go into the archives, do a search and show me.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. I owe you an apology, bluestateguy

I did go back through the archives, and found that my frustration is better aimed at someone with a similar nick. :blush:

[The Straight Story]

32. Do me a favor

Teach some other people (and no, I did not mention leopold) this.

How hard is it to admit we messed up (I have done it a lot myself on here).

[Kutjara]

2. So, by inference from the Judge's remarks,...

...God is a 'secular' being? That would imply that he/she/it is therefore mortal and, more importantly, fallible. I'm so glad that this visionary judge has swept away thousands of years of spiritualist mumbo-jumbo and revealed that God is basically just:

'One of Us' - Joan Osborn


If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?
If you were faced with Him in all His glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?

And yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?

If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see if, seeing meant
That you would have to believe in things like heaven
And in Jesus and the saints, and all the prophets?

Back up to heaven all alone
No, nobody calling on the phone
No, just tryin' to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
'Cept for the Pope maybe in Rome

[Deja Q]

3. Not that I care for Noodle there, but that phrase did not get scribbled on

our currency until 1954 when that psycho fascist sympathizer McCarthy demanded it get put in; apparently he had something to hide therefore he went out of his way to be loud on what he wanted done.

It affects Newdow as a Godless citizen as much as it is offensive to the fella who thinks Zeus and his buddies are the correct bunch of deities to worship.

Personally, the Judge is wrong. So was McCarthy. And why we have to announce we believe when, anyone with even one eighth of a brain would friggin' realize it's the ACTIONS, NOT THE WORDS that confirms one's belief. In anything.

And the actions of McCarthy spoke for themselves.

[tjdee]

6. What a tool that guy is.

After watching one or two of his interviews, I was turned off completely.

[politicat]

13. Why do you care?

Since when does a litigant in a court case have to meet your standards of sexy-coolness? Are you saying that anyone who isn't 5'11" with Barbie's measurements and a staff of makeup people shouldn't be able to sue because they might show up on television and turn you off?

It's not your problem, and he's making his own path. Hell, he's not even a drain on the legal system -- his cases are short and cheap because he presents pretty basic case law. (They get dragged out by the DoJ, not Newdow.) If his case costs each taxpayer a penny, I'd be shocked.

[tjdee]

29. Now, I don't care that much, LOL.

His looks don't bother me at all, it was his smarmy attitude and the vibe I was getting from him.

As with anything though, I'd imagine that a better spokesperson would appeal to a broader audience/open the door.

[politicat]

31. Again, why do you care?

Isn't the message more important than the messenger?

[K-W]

15. How dare he spend his time erasing the legacy of McCarthyism.

What a tool.

[Zhade]

7. I love the smell of justice...

...and the ignorance that this actually IS part of an important larger issue!

:sarcasm:

[BlueJazz]

8. I trust my own Judgment a hell-of-a-lot more than any Gods... nt

[maxsolomon]

10. 'amounts to'?

i don't get the logic behind this ruling. 'god' is secular?

what god are we talking about? if it said "In FSM we trust" or "In Allah we trust" (which is 'god' in arabic) would the judge have ruled the same?

michael newdow, you magnificent crank, take it upstairs. call out the theocracy.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. So here we have it: Official word that God is meaningless in America

I'm sure the religious rightards have much to celebrate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. If Someone Looks At A Dollar Bill And Says

"I'm utterly offended! I don't believe in God and seeing it on my money is an outrage!", then it is of my opinion that they should seek professional help.

That's just my take on it. It isn't a slam on those that choose to not believe in God etc, it is because it is simply a motto on money, and I can't think of one person I've ever known that has looked at their money that deeply and gave a rat's ass what was written on it. It's just a cliche. I couldn't imagine looking at my money and actually being emotionally invested in the cliches written on it. And if I ever am, I'll seek professional help myself.

[Eric J in MN]

21. The point isn't money per se, it's that government

shouldn't promote religion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. I Don't See It That Way.

First, I don't see it as promotion of religion. I see it as a cliche or motto that the overwhelming majority of americans have no issue with. As I stated, if someone looks at their money and says "hey, they're trying to shove religion down my throat! I'm outraged! I don't believe in a God and I'm offended to even have this bill in my pocket!", then it is of my opinion they need to seek professional help.

Second, it is about the money. That's what the fight is about. If there is no real issue with the phrase on the money, then don't fight about the phrase on the money.

[The Straight Story]

27. Have to agree with that pretty much

I don't care if a dollar bill said 'you are a useless cretin and you sucked' I would still what I always do - not read the damn thing and spend it before it's worth goes down anymore :)

On the flip side, if someone sees something they think is in violation of state/federal laws/constitution and what have you they are free to bring it to light and attempt to change it.

Me, I would pick other battles to spend my money on. Of course, he did spend money on it - money printed with what he was trying to change. Funny too how it did not make him an unabashed religious nut job. Apparently he thinks other people are weaker than he is and needs to save them or something. Or maybe it just annoys him.

One too might ask - how would the money he has spent on this been better served? Help some homeless, print flyers for dem candidates, and so on.

Hell that damned pyramid represents egyptian mumbo-jumbo to me. If it was a cross, he would be pissed, throw up an egyptian thing and all is fine.

Maybe we should start a thread about those religious symbols on the dollar. All seeing eye, what the fuck is that? A tomb to shoot the soul up into the stars or some such shit. Damn, now I am all offended!!

[Eric J in MN]

19. Yeah, that's secular. And if it said "In Jesus we trust,"

that would be secular, too (sarcasm.)

[ComerPerro]

24. I really have to question this guys motives

[jsamuel]

26. The supreme court already decided this.

If it is "historic" then it is ok. If it is new religion pushing, then it's not. where do you draw the line between "new" and "old" ? ??? That is what judges are for.

[jmowreader]

28. I think the judge is right in this case

Does anyone except Michael Newdow and some hardcore fundies actually care whether the money says "In God We Trust," "Annuit Coeptis," "E Pluribus Unum" or "Illegitimi Non Carborundum"?

I will admit that occasionally I will study my money really hard, but that's usually when I need to buy something expensive and I've got to make sure I brought enough of it with me. On most occasions I just study it long enough to see what denomination the bill is. That's what most people do.

Besides, hasn't anyone told Mr. Newdow that God (well, GOP-God anyway) is flat and green, and his face resembles that of a man who died 200 years ago? Do I trust in GOP-God? Yup. GOP-God is good. GOP-God brings me all I need. And he does the same for Michael Newdow.

[Evoman]

33. For the first time ever...an Evoman play scene in GD

This is straight from my journal....I'll leave it up to you guys to interpret it.


*Start Scene*

Evoman: I don't think we should put state-paid crosses up by the highway

Theist: Oh stop. Whats the big deal...just let it go. Its a memorial

Evoman: Fine. But I really don't think its right to put up religous imagery like angels up in public either

Theist: These people are mourning. Just let it go.

Evoman: FINE. But I feel really uncomfortable with the 10 commandments place in courts and schools

Theist: Oh c'mon. Whats the big deal. Most of our laws come from the commandments. What harm does it do to you?

Evoman: Jeez..if its that important to you,whatever. However, I have to stop you when you try to change laws. I heard congressman Jerry Falwell put forth a bill to put some of those other commandments into law.

Theist: Oh stop. They already passed that bill. Why do you always have to be anti-theist. That law is going help our decrepit society.

Evoman: Yeah, but now the punishment is stoning. Don't you think you have gone too far

Theist: You never tried to stop us before!! Besides, I still think this is good for society

Evoman: God, I dislike religion.

Theist: *stones Evoman*

END

[The Straight Story]

40. A note on said slippery slope scene, from the right as it were

Evoman: Let's get rid of all this religious stuff on our money, crosses at arlington, etc - it makes me all freaky and is not fair. I don't share your beliefs.

Theist: Ok. I suppose my beliefs should be kept personal.

Evoman: Yep.

Theist: And your beliefs as well, correct?

Evoman: Nope. Mine don't involve a god or anything, mine are ok to promote.

Theist: So....if I just remove 'god' and some symbols, and remake my belief (ie - have the same exact ones without mentioning god) I can have the state promote them?

Evoman: Sure

Theist: Ok. I believe abortion is wrong, it kills someone. I believe gays should not marry and get benefits, because the idea of marriage is that two people will come together and perpetuate society (not always, but usually they can and will - gays cannot), I believe porn is evil because some professor told me it exploits women,so let's outlaw it. I believe alcohol is bad for society, and harms it - so let's outlaw it too....etc

Evoman: whoa buddy

Theist: Oh, and to promote MY beliefs I want it on the dollar that in capitalism I trust, I want the courthouse to say 'murder is bad, stealing is bad, your parents should be honored (mom and dad's day), and...well should I go on?

Evoman: No. As long as 'god' is not mentioned at all, your views are safe and don't harm me in any way. You just have to pick a belief, a philosophy or politcal one, and that belief is fine to go by and promote. Cite some works by PHD's, authors, scientists, all you want. But no writers of religious works. Those are not beliefs. Well they are. But not ones we accept in debate. We don't believe in god by the way, so all your works you cite were written by humans. But you still cannot use them. Got it?

Theist: Uhhh. Yeah.

Theist: Whatever.

[NMMNG]

34. "In God We Trust" is secular?

Uh, yeah. :eyes:

[nemo137]

41. Seems mighty weird to me, too.

Anyone know anything about this judge?

[NMMNG]

43. Here are a few rulings

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/429

http://www.cainitiative.org/item.php?id=3

http://www.wildcalifornia.org/pages/page-179


While he appears to favor religion a bit, he doesn't seem to be a radical righty.

[H2O Man]

35. I am friends with

one of Michael's cousins. She was the last supervisor that I had before retiring. We used to talk about the "pledge" case. Her family feels very strongly about the issue.

I note that some DUers have pointed out that this isn't the #1 problem facing the nation today. While I certainly cannot speak for Michael, I am confident that he recognizes this. Yet that does not diminish the importance he attaches to the issue.

There are a few things that I didn't agree with his cousin on, regarding the issue of the state and religion. I think that they would be areas that Michael and I would disagree on, as well. Still, I respect their opinions, and recognize that it is important for our society to have a variety of opinions on these important topics .... and to have discussion and even heated debate about them. And the courts are a good place for some of the debate to take place.

[Sailor for Warner]

36. I really think that the issue is how we go about

Doing this stuff.
I think we need to work on selling our ideas and getting the majority of the American people on our side. If we are truly a democracy, if you are like me and are sure that our form of government is a Republic, than we need to make this an issue to pander to. Make this something that the American people want their elected representatives to bring to D.C. Going through the courts just gives those on the right something to scream about, and I can see why some people get mad about it, it seems very sneaky.

[lindisfarne]

38. I support it being removed but am surprised Newdow bothered now.

Maybe he's afraid the Supreme court will become even less friendly in years to come.

"The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review all ... rulings {regarding the motto}. It might be embarrassing to them, because the motto also hangs on the wall at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that:

"ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge , characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." Allegheny, 492 U.S.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote:
"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."