Posted on Dec 16, 2015
Atheist Marine against "In God We Trust" on our Currency?
40.4K
327
278
12
10
2
Anonymous Minnesota "Marine" and atheist commences lawsuit to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency. Lawsuit commenced December 15, 2015. What do you think? Lawsuit is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwVkb6p7OhGicXg3Ym1JY3hfM3c/view
Posted in these groups: 
Marine Corps
Marine Corps
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 70
4
4
0
Since the beginning of boot camp. ALL Marines are trained with the code of God. Country, and Corps. What happens during his tour and after he us discharged is up to the individual. I served 20 years, and gave been discharged since 1988. I still stand by our code God, Country, Corps. God bless the United States of America and God bless the Corps. Oohrah!
(4)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
That's a downright scary statement. Besides which it isn't true. There was no mention of any allegiance to God when I went to boot camp.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
It's been tried before and failed as the "slogan" or "motto" does nothing in trying to establish a national religion. The atheist movement is quite confused about what freedom of religion means or implies. I could argue that being an atheist is a form of religion being that they deny the presence of any God - where by they have to acknowledge a God to deny one's existence. The word God on money makes their position on religion relevant.
If I believed in the flying dust pan that lived inside the moon all atheist would have to denounce that God as well. The game never ends until no one believes in anything and I don't see that happening any time soon. I see this getting thrown out real quick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States
If I believed in the flying dust pan that lived inside the moon all atheist would have to denounce that God as well. The game never ends until no one believes in anything and I don't see that happening any time soon. I see this getting thrown out real quick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States
Aronow v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aronow v. United States was the first case to challenge the inclusion of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.[1] The law it challenged was "31 U.S.C. § 324a "the inscription 'In God we Trust'...shall appear on all United States currency and coins".[1]
(4)
(0)
SGT Forrest Perez
No they couldn't PT him but they could occupy his time (IG) would have no say if given details and CQ or staff duty
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
SGT Forrest Perez - yeah... and then the logical media blitz would embarrass the command to no end... you really want the commander having his name be spoken on every pundit radio show... imagine if it hits hard copy or 60 minutes....
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
So to everyone posting 'freedom of speech,' 'he can just get over it,' or 'he doesn't have to use/read it,' would you being saying the same if it said "In Allah We Trust"? What if it had a Star of David opposite George Washington? Our government was meant to be secular, i.e. not give preference to one religion over the other. Our current Pledge of Allegiance is the 6th version added in the 50s, the first 5 did not contain the word "God." Adding "In God We Trust" to paper money and making it our motto was also done in the 50s. Christianity may be a majority in the US, but that doesn't give it extra rights or privileges.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
TSgt Hardy - I would like to point out that is not why the men we now know as the Founding Fathers came here. They were all British citizens who came for a wide ranging number of reasons. Religion wasn't even a big part of why they rebelled. That had to do with a lack of representation while still being heavily taxed amongst other things. When setting up their new governent, they chose several things intentionally opposite of Britain. The first several amendments are those things. Freedom of Speech, Assembly, bear arms, governent can't take your house to quarter troops, double jeopardy, etc. On the main topic we are discussing, they didn't want the US to have a national religion which is why it's in the very First Amendment.
(1)
(0)
SGT Forrest Stewart
It says "In God We Trust". Doesn't say which one. There is no cross symbolizing Christianity. Allah is God to those who believe in him. Same with Buddha. The Star of David is a symbol of Judaism. Your assuming the motto points to Christiandom, it does not.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
SFC (Join to see) - yeah King George had a lot of reasons to hate people unlike him in England... From what I understand A lot of the founders had their English properties taken from them for not bowing down ....
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT Forrest Stewart - The phrase is a Christian phrase that was added in 1954 to show opposition to communism, interesting because in 1954 Congress decide to us God as a tool.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
he might be pushing the issue a little too far however i do believe that the religion is pushed down on us a bit too hard. I personally do not believe in GOD, i do believe that Jesus did exist but to make us do prayers during military functions for example is unfair.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I've take a lot of flak in my 31 years of service for refusing to participate in any form of religious prayer. Even at change of command ceremonies and my graduation from basic training, I held my head high and kept my eyes open during invocations and the like, and when a mandatory event at a military school turned into a Christian sermon I simply got up and walked out.
I'm still in the military, I still keep my head up and eyes open, and I have no plan to change that.
I'm still in the military, I still keep my head up and eyes open, and I have no plan to change that.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Its the national motto. There have been attacks on it a bunch in the last 30 years. All of them have failed. I did notice that they single out Christian Monotheism. They ignore that other religions are also monotheistic. So the claim is against the word God. The aim is to remove the word God and all other such terms from the public sphere. That would be a violation against the freedom of speech of all mono and multi-theistic groups in the country.
We have a right to utter the word God in this country.
We have a right to utter the word God in this country.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
A national motto's only purpose is to unite the citizens and instill pride of country.
A motto that only unites the religious among us and alienates the rest is no motto at all for a diverse country like ours.
Our original motto, E Pluribus Unum, was far better, and should be restored. That way ALL Americans can feel a part of it, instead of just the religious ones.
A motto that only unites the religious among us and alienates the rest is no motto at all for a diverse country like ours.
Our original motto, E Pluribus Unum, was far better, and should be restored. That way ALL Americans can feel a part of it, instead of just the religious ones.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
Cpl Benjamin Long - The establishment clause is a principle properly used to keep Government from establishing any state religion. For a citizen to utter the word God, or for the government to acknowledge its population's collective religious heritage is not establishing a state religion. Saying everyone cannot speak or acknowledge their beliefs in public would be preferring one view (an anti-theistic view) over all the rest.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
PO3 Sherry Thornburg - the establishment clause is in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of rights, which is in the US constitution, that congress may not make any law to ESTABLISH any religion" that's the establishment clause and also the separation of church and state clause...
(0)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Separation of church and state, properly practiced is to protect the right of all citizens to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit, under the laws of the land. We have laws to keep religious practice from harming anyone, being abusive, or causing harm to others (human sacrifice, forced marriage, animal sacrifice, forced circumcision, drug use).
Separation of church and state, properly practiced is to protect the right of all citizens to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit, under the laws of the land. We have laws to keep religious practice from harming anyone, being abusive, or causing harm to others (human sacrifice, forced marriage, animal sacrifice, forced circumcision, drug use).
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
It has been attempted in many lawsuits to get rid of the national motto on currency. It fails every time.
I would be stunned if this is just those freedom from religion guys out in Madison stirring the pot again.
They need to get a life.
I would be stunned if this is just those freedom from religion guys out in Madison stirring the pot again.
They need to get a life.
(3)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
I asked you to prove your point...
1.) you have failed to conjure the citation in the constitution that refernce a christian god...
2.) your definition of blaspheme is meaningless...
3.) your ad hominem attack makes you look like a fool.
4.)and equating status by success comparision is a level 3 psychological defense via Vaillant: Who gives a crap about other people's successes... they are a red herring here...
5.) and your comment about funny stuff is an immature response, via trivialization....
As I said... you have to perpetually defend your religion... We only have to attack... that is how being on the top of the hill works... it is only a matter of time before you are knocked off... and your immature reaction shows it is inevitable...
1.) you have failed to conjure the citation in the constitution that refernce a christian god...
2.) your definition of blaspheme is meaningless...
3.) your ad hominem attack makes you look like a fool.
4.)and equating status by success comparision is a level 3 psychological defense via Vaillant: Who gives a crap about other people's successes... they are a red herring here...
5.) and your comment about funny stuff is an immature response, via trivialization....
As I said... you have to perpetually defend your religion... We only have to attack... that is how being on the top of the hill works... it is only a matter of time before you are knocked off... and your immature reaction shows it is inevitable...
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
SSgt Christopher Brose - oh and one more thing... It doesn't matter how many times it takes... or how many generations it takes... All castles crumble with time.... so you can pontificate on high all you want... but your tower is falling down around you... It is just a matter of time.... so be a snob for all I care... In the end it will change...
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Jane Daino - Whose logic? Not quite sure what you are saying here.
If you are saying what you think you are, I would point out that Freedom of Religion is codified in the First Amendment.
Minority rights were codified in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments along with the Civil Rights Act; Women's rights were codified in the 19th Amendment, and subsequent legislation.
These were the "right things" to do, but it took amending the Constitution to do it - an exercise in extending those rights from representatives of people who already had them to people who didn't.
What these freedom from religion guys do is use civil litigation to cow jurisdictions into surrendering on issues just to save on legal bills. Notice that the FFR guys don't go after organizations with the pocketbook to fight back. Their strategy is simple: bankrupt organizations that fight back, while setting legal precedent that only furthers their aims.
I think that is a gross abuse of civil litigation, as in most cases the litigants don't have standing (meaning they themselves were harmed some kind of way from that cross monument or nativity scene) so they must "recruit" a local atheist or other religious affiliate to be all "offended" and join them in their lawsuit.
If you are saying what you think you are, I would point out that Freedom of Religion is codified in the First Amendment.
Minority rights were codified in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments along with the Civil Rights Act; Women's rights were codified in the 19th Amendment, and subsequent legislation.
These were the "right things" to do, but it took amending the Constitution to do it - an exercise in extending those rights from representatives of people who already had them to people who didn't.
What these freedom from religion guys do is use civil litigation to cow jurisdictions into surrendering on issues just to save on legal bills. Notice that the FFR guys don't go after organizations with the pocketbook to fight back. Their strategy is simple: bankrupt organizations that fight back, while setting legal precedent that only furthers their aims.
I think that is a gross abuse of civil litigation, as in most cases the litigants don't have standing (meaning they themselves were harmed some kind of way from that cross monument or nativity scene) so they must "recruit" a local atheist or other religious affiliate to be all "offended" and join them in their lawsuit.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Jane Daino - That is a lot there, so I will try and go point by point.
I am not saying that civil rights cases were an abuse of the civil litigation system, I am saying that the means and methods employed by FFR is.
MLK (among many, many others) stood up for minorities through peaceful protest and eloquent messaging, something that FFR could learn something from. He was also a deeply convicted Baptist minister.
I said nothing about homosexuals using litigation, that is a straw man argument. As for atheists suing, my legal question would be how they are harmed by a motto on money, sign of the Christmas season, or a monument. I would posit that they aren't, and therefore don't have standing to sue. That is the abuse of which I speak.
What state exactly precludes an Atheist from holding office? Answer: there isn't one. Next point.
As for women holding public office, it wasn't prohibited by the Constitution, so they could run for office. The first women to do so predated the 19th Amendment by quite a bit. However, since the voters until then were all male and gender roles were pretty entrenched, no women that I could find were elected until after the 19th was ratified. Female representation in Congress and elsewhere has grown steadily since then.
I am not saying that civil rights cases were an abuse of the civil litigation system, I am saying that the means and methods employed by FFR is.
MLK (among many, many others) stood up for minorities through peaceful protest and eloquent messaging, something that FFR could learn something from. He was also a deeply convicted Baptist minister.
I said nothing about homosexuals using litigation, that is a straw man argument. As for atheists suing, my legal question would be how they are harmed by a motto on money, sign of the Christmas season, or a monument. I would posit that they aren't, and therefore don't have standing to sue. That is the abuse of which I speak.
What state exactly precludes an Atheist from holding office? Answer: there isn't one. Next point.
As for women holding public office, it wasn't prohibited by the Constitution, so they could run for office. The first women to do so predated the 19th Amendment by quite a bit. However, since the voters until then were all male and gender roles were pretty entrenched, no women that I could find were elected until after the 19th was ratified. Female representation in Congress and elsewhere has grown steadily since then.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Sgt Mathew Meyer I apologize, my first comment was off topic.
Now,when will this nonsense end? Some changes are good--and tolerance is a virtue,but when do we stop catering to idiots?
Now,when will this nonsense end? Some changes are good--and tolerance is a virtue,but when do we stop catering to idiots?
(3)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
Jefferson's personal religion doesn't matter.
In the Declaration of Independence, there is a clear and direct reference to "Nature's God" and "Creator" as the source from which we have our rights as men (humans, for the PC crowd). Those references ARE ambiguous regarding the precise identity of the God & Creator, but they are ABSOLUTELY NOT ambiguous as far as acknowledging his/her/its existence.
In the Constitution, there is no direct mention of God or Creator, but there IS an indirect reference. One of the reasons given for creating the Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." That word "Blessings" can have both religions and secular meanings, but the context in this case is exactly the same as the context for God and Creator in the Declaration of Independence -- receiving and securing our right to liberty as men.
In the Declaration of Independence, there is a clear and direct reference to "Nature's God" and "Creator" as the source from which we have our rights as men (humans, for the PC crowd). Those references ARE ambiguous regarding the precise identity of the God & Creator, but they are ABSOLUTELY NOT ambiguous as far as acknowledging his/her/its existence.
In the Constitution, there is no direct mention of God or Creator, but there IS an indirect reference. One of the reasons given for creating the Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." That word "Blessings" can have both religions and secular meanings, but the context in this case is exactly the same as the context for God and Creator in the Declaration of Independence -- receiving and securing our right to liberty as men.
(0)
(0)
1SG Ken Quire
SSgt Christopher Brose - SSgt Christopher Brose, here's a good article to read. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1298911/posts
Where is God in the Constitution?
Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular state or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and therefore, this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion don't mix. Government and religion should be...
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
TLDR: Secularists engage in revisionist history, and ignore the bits of the Constitution they don't like.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
LTC (Join to see)
Cpl James Waycasie - I have no problems with the second two, no use whatsoever for the first.
(2)
(0)
Cpl James Waycasie
LTC (Join to see) - As Chucky said on Sons of Anarchy " I accept that" lol. Sir. That is your right.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I think we might as well remove the phrase "In God We Trust" given the fact that so many are willing to deny safe haven to Syrian Refugees; after all that only demonstrates that we do not practice "In God We Trust". Think about that as you celebrate Christmas.
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
MSG Brad Sand - The original post is about the Trust in God in our currency, placed there in 1954 by our government and now our government is placing Trust in God by showing compassion for 10,000 refugees whom you fear, where is your Trust?
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
LOL. Okay Sir.
CPT Pedro Meza so now trusting in God is showing compassion to only these people? You win.
CPT Pedro Meza so now trusting in God is showing compassion to only these people? You win.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
MSG Brad Sand - We are about to celebrate the birth of a Man that lived in harsher and more dangerous times and yet taught Compassion for all and Love thy Neighbor, so perhaps it is not a coincidence; some food for thought to your LOL.
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
CPT Pedro Meza
Joy is expressed with laughter. Not a man but the Man. You continue to confuse the government of man with actions of men.
Joy is expressed with laughter. Not a man but the Man. You continue to confuse the government of man with actions of men.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google