Lawsuit demands US remove ‘In God We Trust’ from money

Jan 16, 2016

Photo credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

By FoxNews.com

A new lawsuit filed on behalf of several Atheist plaintiffs argues the phrase “In God We Trust” on U.S. money is unconstitutional, and calls for the government to get rid of it.

Sacramento attorney Michael Newdow filed the lawsuit Monday in Akron, Ohio. He’d unsuccessfully sued the government at least twice challenging the use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Throughout much of his lawsuit, the word appears as “G-d.”


Read more by clicking on the name of the source below.

34 comments on “Lawsuit demands US remove ‘In God We Trust’ from money

  • Both money and God are outdated concepts that have, arguably, done more harm than good. So it’s quite appropriate to have the words on the dollar notes.
    But as money is the new religion, that may be blasphemous.



    Report abuse

  • This is unfortunate – it perpetuates the stereotype of the “angry atheist” waging a war on religion. Having “In God we Trust” on the currency does about as much harm as having the word Christ in Christmas. In other words no-one gives it a second thought.

    I’d be happier seeing someone sue the federal government over e.g. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, a country where apostasy, adultery and making love to someone of the same sex all carry the death penalty.



    Report abuse

  • @OP – A new lawsuit filed on behalf of several Atheist plaintiffs argues the phrase “In God We Trust” on U.S. money is unconstitutional, and calls for the government to get rid of it.

    Could I suggest that the US follows the example of other countries, and honour on their bank notes, people of merit, who generated wealth-producing knowledge, rather than maintaining the pretence that “god-did-it”!
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jbourj/money.htm



    Report abuse

  • john.wb
    Jan 16, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    This is unfortunate – it perpetuates the stereotype of the “angry atheist” waging a war on religion. Having “In God we Trust” on the currency does about as much harm as having the word Christ in Christmas. In other words no-one gives it a second thought.

    That’s the problem with religion in the US. It ASSUMES religion is above the constitution and the law, and nobody religious gives this a second thought!

    “In Zeus we trust”, or “in fairies we trust”! – would look silly – even to Christians! – Some should see themselves as others see them!



    Report abuse

  • I would like to complicate the issue further. How about “in Budda we trust” or In Satan we trust”?
    This is more than a cosmetic issue. This is a symbol of christianity claiming the government.
    All areas need to be confronted but we must remember priorities always.



    Report abuse

  • Petri Tikkanen
    Jan 16, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    Oath to god is removed from Finnish courtrooms at 1.1.2016.

    How about UK?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_in_law

    In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath.

    A right to give an affirmation has existed in English law since the Quakers Act 1695.

    The right to give an affirmation is now embodied in the Oaths Act 1978, c.19,[2] which prescribes the following form: “I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm,” and then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to witness.



    Report abuse

  • When I had to testify in an English magistrates court over 30 years ago there was a different oath for atheists. In fact I seem to remember they asked if I was religious before asking me to swear on the bible.
    When I said I was an atheist they had a different card to read from.
    It seemed like a fairly common occurrence even then and the card looked well used.



    Report abuse

  • Excellent

    Quid is the perfect name for money.

    Quid as in quid pro quo…this for that.

    Dollar is a bit dull, named after a German coin via the Dutch

    Pounds Sterling is a little more fun, being a weighty little star, if you look at it and squint.



    Report abuse

  • john.wb
    Jan 16, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    I’d be happier seeing someone sue the federal government over e.g. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, a country where apostasy, adultery and making love to someone of the same sex all carry the death penalty.

    Isn’t it the god of oil-money which initially installed, and now keeps, this regime in power?



    Report abuse

  • I agree with the sentiment that this is a trivial sideshow that diverts attention from the big issues – Saudi was mentioned by john.wb above – but isn’t that all this website is, a trivial sideshow?

    Sorry Prof D, but the elephant in the room gets scant attention by comparison. The west’s contributions to the rise of Daesh, for instance, all the way back to the brazen slander upon all Muslims that was 9/11, as played on constant repeat by the mass media. Who in America heard the constant references to “muslim terrorists” and failed to hear it as “MUSLIM terrorists”, not as “muslim TERRORISTS”. Or just “terrorists”, which correctly describes their actions without presumptions about their origins.

    The propaganda demonising MUSLIMS (as opposed to TERRORISTS) was continual and all pervasive. That some now drop the unwieldy 2-word term and just say “Muslims”, as a convenient label for The Enemy, is hardly a surprise, is it, Donald? Nor is it a surprise that it’s become a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, as we see more and more young disaffected muslims signing up to join this Enemy. It seems the propaganda worked, at least on them.

    The purpose of Daesh (as the latest incarnation of MTs) is to provide an ongoing enemy for the permanent state of war that has been established since the first year of this century, Can’t have a war without an enemy, and can’t have a permanent war without a permanently renewable enemy, one that has no shortage of recruits.

    Who cares what’s on the currency. It matters a lot more how and where it’s being spent. With limited resources, you got to pick your battles carefully. This one doesn’t seem worth the effort, and, yes, just gives them grumpy atheists a bad name.



    Report abuse

  • Hi, Bonnie,

    If you like great satire (and I assume you do) read Henry Miller’s work Money and How it Gets that Way. It is the greatest, most brilliant and hilarious parody I have ever read, and I’ve read all of Twain. Here are two brief extracts:

    “Money has no life of its own except as money. To the man in the street, unaccustomed to thinking of money in abstract terms, this obvious truism may smack of casuistry. Yet nothing could be more simple and consistent than this reduction to tautology, since money in any period whatever of man’s history has, like life itself, never been found to represent the absence of money. Money is, and whatever form or shape it may assume it is never more nor less than money. To inquire therefore how it comes about that money has become what it now is is as idle as to inquire what makes evolution.”

    “Money, then, whatever its real nature, reveals itself to us through form. Just as hydrogen and oxygen reveal their presence to us in varying forms and yet are not themselves, either separately or combined, such as water or peroxide, so money, whether in specie or counterfeit, is always something inclusive, coexistent, consubstantial and beyond the thing manifest. In a profound sense money may be said to resemble God Almighty.”



    Report abuse

  • OHooligan
    Jan 17, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    Who cares what’s on the currency. It matters a lot more how and where it’s being spent. With limited resources, you got to pick your battles carefully. This one doesn’t seem worth the effort, and, yes, just gives them grumpy atheists a bad name.

    Wasn’t the god on the money the same god(delusion) who told G. W. Bush to invade Iraq?



    Report abuse

  • 21
    Pinball1970 says:

    This is unfortunate – it perpetuates the stereotype of the “angry atheist” waging a war on religion.

    Good I hope they are getting the message, it is a war they are the enemy and I want to destroy them.

    With thoughts, ideas, evidence, reason, science and modern philosophy.

    Zero tolerance on this, we have been putting up with hand wringing cries of persecution fantasies for decades.

    If they want to play at ghosts and demons with their friends they can go to the church/mosque/synagogue/mud hut and do it.

    Keep it out of the public area where I don’t have to see or hear it, it offends me.



    Report abuse

  • I had the same experience Tim and how grown up I felt offering MY word and not because I was fearful of a god of some sort.

    Makes a mockery of the court when MY word is as good as this mighty god bloke.



    Report abuse

  • Which is preferable, the freedom from being offended or the freedom to offend? Can both exist at once? Should, instead of pursuing the above questions, a question be asked about whether freedom has become meaningless and irrelevant?

    Just because a popular belief is silly, should it be banned?



    Report abuse

  • toroid
    Jan 18, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Just because a popular belief is silly, should it be banned?

    Perhaps people with silly beliefs and fantasy thinking modes, should not be in charge of making decisions about managing banking and currency!



    Report abuse

  • Indeed, if “trusting in God” is the Federal Reserve’s strategy for maintaining value stability, then they are advertising their lack of fitness for the role.

    Value stability is enhanced by my clarifying over-printing below, making clear that the Federal Reserve cannot trust in God, so must therefore do the job to build trust themselves.



    Report abuse

  • The same money that religious folk say you can’t take with you to ‘the other side’. If the currency is not accepted by god(s) then why advertise it?



    Report abuse

  • “Just because a popular belief is silly, should it be banned?”
    toroid
    Jan 18, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Who should determine what and whose beliefs are silly?

    Should such determinations be acceptable only if arrived at by peer-reviewed scientists?



    Report abuse

  • Who should determine what and whose beliefs are silly?

    Should such determinations be acceptable only if arrived at by
    peer-reviewed scientists?

    Well..YES! If it is sold as a commodity or a ‘cure’ then it should stand the test of any service, medicine or product. But it doesn’t want to be seen that way and goes off into woo and belief!!
    The biggest unregulated organisation there is.



    Report abuse

  • toroid
    Jan 18, 2016 at 11:42 am

    Who should determine what and whose beliefs are silly?

    Should such determinations be acceptable only if arrived at by peer-reviewed scientists?

    Some very silly beliefs, would be a waste of reputable science editors’ time!
    They are obviously silly to all but the deluded!

    Actions such as handing over your money and assets to Jehovah would be an example!
    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/01/the-death-of-an-immortal/

    Hearing that he could cure all disease, the people donated their land and livestock to Wanyonyi, or sold it and gave him the cash. He also married most of their daughters.



    Report abuse

  • “Just because a popular belief is silly, should it be banned?”
    toroid
    Jan 18, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Who should determine what and whose beliefs are silly?

    Should such determinations be acceptable only if arrived at by
    peer-reviewed scientists?

    Olgun
    Jan 18, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    Well..YES! If it is sold as a commodity or a ‘cure’ then it should stand the test of any service, medicine or product. But it doesn’t want to be seen that way and goes off into woo and belief!!
    The biggest unregulated organisation there is.

    toroid:

    I agree with you regarding drugs or cures. But I intended the questions to be taken as theoretical guidelines leading toward balancing so many competing factors to eventually formulate a path toward an ethical society.

    Please excuse me for being confused by the last part of your post. Are you refering to people’s beliefs about supernatural gods creating reality and the human species being the purpose of that reality or something else I’m missing completely?



    Report abuse

  • Wasn’t the god on the money the same god(delusion) who told G. W. Bush to invade Iraq?

    Why would you choose to believe that? Because he said so? Come on. When’s he ever said anything credible?



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.