Certainly not "under God" in the pledge to the flag.

Tyranny is the cruel and unjust use of power. A tyrant is a pittiless oppressive ruler.

When I buy celery and ground beef at the market, it would be silly to feel terrorized or abused because of "In God we Trust" on my dollar bills.

The society is full of billboards I don't like. There are street names I dislike. The covers of paper back novels often demean women and sometimes children. Yesterday, I mentioned how I wouldn't buy a cake with a God slogan or a message about beer or football.

The pictures and words on our US money don't bother me. I wouldn't like it if greenbacks had pictures of brutal murders or rape. I wouldn't want pictures of Hitler or swastikas on the money. But most people in this country believe in a higher power and the God slogan seems apt to me.

The few who don't believe in God almost never see it as tyranny to have the words out there in the world we share.

I've had so many eye surgeries, I'm glad to be able to see all kinds of things, some of which I believe as well as the ones I don't.

I think of nature when I hear God. I'm an atheist who doesn't care if God is on money or cakes as long as no one is preaching their idea of God at me when I'm a captive audience on the job or in my private space.

Tyranny is more than an a whine or two from folks who think the word God is abusive or hurtful. I say it would be of more consequence to have to drink coffee without milk or be stuck wearing navy socks with brown shoes. Not tyranny, just slightly disconcerting.

I've got Elizabeth Fry (5) and Charles Darwin (10) on my money.

I also have the picture of the monarch, which should annoy me, since I am a republican... But - as long as I have enough of her pictures - I dont care much either way

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly not "under God" in the pledge to the
> flag.
> Tyranny is the cruel and unjust use of power. A
> tyrant is a pittiless oppressive ruler.

My dictionary defines it as "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority." When a "believer" majority unconstitutionally imposes its beliefs on the entire populace, believing or not, that qualifies.

> When I buy celery and ground beef at the market,
> it would be silly to feel terrorized or abused
> because of "In God we Trust" on my dollar bills.

It's got nothing to do with "terrorized or abused."
It's got everything to do with unconstitutional imposition of religion by a state prohibited from doing so, and imposing the beliefs on the majority on every citizen. Either we follow our own constitution or we don't -- when we don't, we're hypocrites. This is hypocrisy. It's not terrorism or physical abuse, but it's unconstitutional and hypocritical.

> The society is full of billboards I don't like.
Private citizens have free speech rights that the government does not have, and that includes endorsement of religion. Your example is rather uninformed and not applicable.

> The pictures and words on our US money don't
> bother me.

That's nice. They do "bother" some, and some of them are unconstitutional. Is your standard, "anything is OK as long as it doesn't bother ME?" Or can you empathize that some things that don't bother or harm YOU might bother or harm others, and so should still be prevented? If our government nukes civilians in Iraq or Russia, that won't harm you...so you'll be OK with it?

> But most people in this country believe in a
> higher power and the God slogan seems apt to me.

It doesn't matter what "most people believe." Endorsement of ANY religious belief by government is prohibited by the constitution. Such prohibitions were put in place specifically to PREVENT the majority from unjustly imposing its will on any minority. What if we wind up in a few years with a Muslim majority -- will it then be OK for them to impose Sharia law because they're the majority? What so many fail to understand is that the "separation of church and state" PROTECTS freedom of religion and religious belief or lack thereof -- it doesn't HARM it.


> The few who don't believe in God almost never see
> it as tyranny to have the words out there in the
> world we share.

Many do see it as "tyranny," and nearly all see it as hypocrisy. Do you want to show the world that we ignore our own laws? I don't.

> I think of nature when I hear God.

Good for you. Others don't. Do you lack the empathy to put yourself in THEIR position?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2015 11:39AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Yes, I have little empathy for those who feel harshly abused by "In God we Trust" on US currency.

Seems like over-reach and hyper-sensitivity to this atheist's way of thinking.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I have little empathy for those who feel
> harshly abused by "In God we Trust" on US
> currency.
>
> Seems like over-reach and hyper-sensitivity to
> this atheist's way of thinking.

Perhaps you should consider yourself fortunate, then, that many non-believers don't share your lack of empathy. If your rights were being trod upon, even if it didn't harm them, they would stand up for your rights. It's a shame you can't do the same.

Fixing something most people like seems very harsh and not at all empathetic.

People who like the money have feelings too.

We can't ban everything in life because someone somewhere might not like it.

Gays would have gay marriage and equal rights by now.

"The USA is a covenant Christain nation. We are one nation under God. The Christian majority is the largest group in America. Christians uniting in Christ is our nation’s source of unity."
- USA Christian Ministries

(thereby excluding from the nation and its unity anyone who is not a christian)

"There is no other nation with a motto of "In God We Trust. It is on our currency and coinage. This is the foundation upon which this nation was established, an unequivocal trust in the power of the Almighty to guide and defend us."
- Gordon B. Hinckley

"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. A beautiful and solemn sentence such as the one in question should be treated and uttered only with that fine reverence which necessarily implies a certain exaltation of spirit. Any use which tends to cheapen it, and above all, any use which tends to secure its being treated in a spirit of levity, is from every standpoint profoundly to be regretted."
- Theodore Roosevelt

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor," said Washington, according to the Hobby Lobby ad.
"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe," the ad, quoting James Madison, also says."

- HobbyLobby ad in National Newspapers
(if you don't acknowledge "god," you are not a member of civil society)

Still think there's no harm in it?

Hi Cheryl. I always enjoy your posts. You are so right. I have volunteered at the Salvation Army Homeless shelter in my new city and it has changed my outlook on things. Some people whine about "In God we trust" and having to hear Merry Christmas.

The shelter here feeds over 200 people per meal. Most homeless folks are now women and children. It breaks my heart. Imagine these children sleeping on the freezing streets at night.

Maybe some folks should take some of their In God we Trust money that bothers them and buy 300 eggs, cook them at home and deliver them to the shelter.

There are non believers galore who volunteer at the SA and the Marian House (Catholic) here in town.

Some people have it all but complain about their rights. Be F*** glad you have a warm place to stay at and food to eat.

thanks again. I always enjoys your posts and I keep a hose ready in the front yard, just in case.

I've got Queen Elizabeth and various dead Canadian Prime Ministers on my money....and our is in technicolor and is made out of polymer now....but as long as it's legal tender, I'm good with it.
I like everybody here has worked hard for our money.

Ron Burr

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly not "under God" in the pledge to the
> flag.
>
> Tyranny is the cruel and unjust use of power. A
> tyrant is a pittiless oppressive ruler.

Forcing people to speak and pledge in direct violation of their beliefs IS unjust use of power. I can not imagine what the Theists would say if "under god" was replace with "denying god" in the pledge. I would they would claim it was cruel and unjust use of power.

And Theists are trying to make it mandatory in schools. Meaning compulsorily denial of the beliefs of many. Including forcing atheist teachers to lead theistic indoctrination sessions.

As far as payday, it is done electronically so it does not contain those words. Now days I use very little of the money that has been made into theistic propaganda

again, would you dismiss having "We deny God" on money so easily?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2015 08:42AM by MJ.

When Gordon B.S. Hinckley was awarded the Freedom Medal from George Bush, Gordon gave an acceptance speech. The main point of Gordon's speech was that America is better than other countries......


As MORmON "proof" of that notion, Gordon pointed out that America was the only country that had mention of God on its money......


(Sounds like a fucking retard MORmON to me) and the fact that the USA could give the Freedom medal to the MORmON church -the foremost formally racist institution in U.S. history, is proof that America has a long damn way to go to being half as special as it thinks that it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l1pfb6UXfk



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2015 08:09AM by Susan I/S.

Coins of the British Empire have the current ruler "Dei Gratia"--by the grace of God--king or queen. I used to collect coins, and that goes for old Spanish coins (which I had) and I believe other countries, too.

There you go!!! Diluting the point of a message from a PRofit of god !!!! with facts!!! How dare you !!!

In some PR piece Hinckley brags about being very proficient at reading greek at one time in his younger years, but he certainly can not speak Latin based Spanish !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UncZBWcIPL8

Before people use the word "tyranny," they should spend some time touring through Russian or Chinese factories. Or maybe travel some in Bangladesh and visit some apparel manufacturing plants. Or check out the nightlife scene in North Korea.

Kathleen

uhhhhhh..... have YOU been to North Korea recently ........?

That if it is not as bad as the worst, it is not tyranny. Sorry, I do not think tyranny works that way. It is cruel and oppressive to force people into denying their beliefs.

Again, I wounder if the response would be so dismissive if:

"We deny God" was on the money and
"Denying God" replaced "under god" in the pledge.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2015 08:47AM by MJ.

If you think having "In God We Trust" is a trivial violation of the Constitution. Just say you think it's trivial. You think there are bigger fish to fry.

But don't try to pretend that it's NOT a violation of the Constitution. Because it is. The remarks by the totalitarian Christians quoted above demonstrate why it's a violation of the Constitution. They intend for the slogan to violate by stating that the US recognizes God, as demonstrated by the motto on the money! That is establishment of religion, contrary to the Constitution.

It's a non sequitor to defend a constitutional violation by claiming there are worse injustices in the world. Crying, "USA Number 1!" because the US doesn't behave like Bangladesh or North Korea is called damning with faint praise, and ought to be embarrassing.

That some Christian organizations help the poor is great. But that has got nothing to do with issue. Again, if you think it's a trivial violation, say so. But that doesn't stop its being a violation. And you can believe we'll hear more about this as conservative Christians lose their political power. SSM is an example of Christians losing their power to define the institution of marriage. The Supreme Court will issue a decision likely in June, and no expert predicts SSM bans will survive. Republicans in the House planned another abortion ban bill, female Republicans refused to support it, and it was quietly dropped. The institutional Christian's loss of hegemony is coming.

It's possibly a minor annoyance for a portion of non-believers.

I see it a forced tyranny upon unbelievers. It was a huge regression of Constitution we created.

Well the good news is that more and more transactions are electronic. I seldom handle currency anymore.

The first brick in the wall of tyranny is annoying but easy to step over and around so we justify it by "It's no big deal to me and it should be no big deal to you, just lift your foot a touch and move past it"

I find it scary that at this moment women's rights are being systematically destroyed in congress by the same group of believers that put that little "couplet" on American currency.


"God said women don't have a right to abortion. The authority about that is right on our dollar bills that won't be used to support abortion because it would offend god."

Yesterday congress passed a bill to not allow Federally funded gods dollars to support anything to do with abortions. The root of that action is belief in god.


I disagree 100% with "In god we trust" in US government. It harms and unnecessarily divides us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2015 11:03AM by AmIDarkNow?.

All money has images, colors, words that not everyone has liked. That isn't tyranny. It's life.

Ok you are comfortable ignoring that little annoying brick. I am not.

It is a false assumption that belief in god that has been inserted into our pledge and our money is somehow inactive and harmless.

Wrong. Those beliefs are in an active process of removing rights for women that were hard won decades ago. PAy attention here.

Not Adding Rights! Taking Rights Away!

All thanks to belief in God.

Your level of belief may vary but the root is still the same root that has women wearing burkas, supports rape mentality, homosexual discrimination (this list is much longer but you get the gist) and the on video throat slitting of innocents, all because humans think an unseen being is dictating morality to them.

So sorry, you can apologize and make assumptions that I have made assumptions but the root is the same, now and forever.

You think your belief in an unseen being should be no big deal to me.

You are wrong. It's a very big deal. And I dare you to show me how that belief is not harming anyone.

"And I dare you to show me how that belief is not harming anyone."

I did not mean to call you out Cheryl. I should have said "anyone". I value your input to this board. We just disagree on this one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2015 10:58AM by AmIDarkNow?.

I don't understand your point. I'd get it if you mean to say that it's not a violation you think is worth worrying about. But to say all money has images and colors(?!) and words not everyone "likes." But that's "life" not tyranny. What are you talking about?

First, drop the tyranny. It's an archaic word that doesn't have a legal meaning. It's used only to add histrionics. Politically, it means, roughly, despotic, or in US parlance, "without representation." Tyranny is that Washington DC voters approved pot legalization, but Congress overruled them. Members of Congress get elected by people other than those living in DC. Thus, DC's people haven't got representation. A Republican congressman on the radio yesterday defended the vote by saying the people of DC can move. Then they can get representation. That's tyranny: you don't like my despotic rule, then you must take action to escape my grasp.

I don't understand how you can equate a constitutional violation with colors that may offend someone's taste. This isn't a matter of preference, like chocolate or vanilla, it's a violation of the country's founding legal document.

Your first line speaks volumes to me AmIDarkNow? Sent my mind spinning on many subjects far from this one. Thank you.

"The first brick in the wall of tyranny is annoying but easy to step over and around so we justify it by "It's no big deal to me and it should be no big deal to you, just lift your foot touch and move past it".

I'm not sure where "In god we trust" falls. I have enjoyed this post because I seem to agree with every post as contradictory as they may be. Food for thought.

I find the subject interesting to contemplate considering what our founders thought of God and religion compared to what the citizenship in general seems to assume they thought.

What I don't like about "In God We Trust" is that it is a presumed notion. It sides steps the question of IF there is a God with the presumption that one exists and it does give God unearned importance. He's on our bills and our coinage and yet this supposed creature has done nothing whatsoever to earn this homage--has never shown his face or his grace. And if you read the Old Testament or listen to Mormons it really should read, "In God We Fear," which really means, we should be damned scared of whoever claims to represent the irrational mean old bastard.

All I know is I do want to live in a secular world. It is time.

It only intimates that most in this society trust the idea of a god.

It's a reflection of an idea, not a directive of what anyone must think.

Good point. I guess so long as even atheists are allowed to use the currency like everyone else . . .

Oops,

This was my reply to MOI below.


MOI,

Thanks for making my point about level of belief perfectly clear.

"Our unseen god is better than your unseen god, any day of the week"

This is a Segway for me into the thinking I used to have when I was still Mormon. My thinking was "Why don't we just nuke those G-dam Islamists murderous b-tards and be done with it!"

Yeah.

My thinking has changed thanks to learning how to think and how to think a little longer and a little deeper.

Those Islamists used to be us. Just on a different level of belief. There is hope especially for the younger generation of Islamists to see their way out or at least to work towards a less extreme level of belief just like we did from Mormonism.

So maybe we shouldn't nuke them after all. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2015 11:18AM by AmIDarkNow?.

Legally, the issue has been settled several times. "In God We Trust" is accepted as a national motto, and no court has ruled that this phrase can be interpreted as establishing a religion.

Here's an extract from the most recent decision handed down last year:

"We conclude that the statutes at issue do not violate the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause and RFRA because they do not have a religious purpose or advance religion, nor do they place a substantial burden on appellants’ religious practices. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court."

“[i]t is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character”

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/86a3e754-4357-47a9-80d9-b5e20a7eb186/2/doc/13-4049_opn.pdf

The Star Spangled Banner even references it: "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'"

Besides,if you are at total peace with yourself, nothing "out there" can disturb it. (Ah, easier said than done, for this includes the depths of our subconscious.) Likewise, any flies in the ointment of your perfect external life are reflections of conflicts within. It is a never-ending and ultimately fruitless endeavor to try to reach that complete peace by shooing away every contrary fly...sort of like trying to make yourself feel better by working on your shadow on the wall.

It shouldn't be there technically, but I care more about how many dollars I can keep and how much they will buy.

This all is like arguing over whether chairs on the Titanic should have God Bless the Queen on them.

If you want to worry about something serious look into what central banks are doing to ruin you life. Creating money out of thin air (QE infinity & ECB two days ago) and loaning it so the debtor has to pay interest in addition to principle back. Impossible, so in the end they own everything.

<Yesterday, I mentioned how I wouldn't buy a cake with a God slogan or a message about beer or football.>


Guess you're not going to the kegger-Super Bowl party at the church?

"In God WE trust." Its supposed to represent "WE" the people. There are plenty of people who do not even know what the term god means, much less believe in it. Further, there are even more that are polythiests, they believe in godS.

That is my problem with the motto, why would anyone trust a currency which has a demonstrable lie printed right on its face?

HH =)