Third Party & Independents Archives

The G-Word Stays - For Now

When our Founding Fathers crafted the greatest governing document the world has ever seen, it was important that the newly formed government would not be in bed with any church, nor subscribe to an official religion. The founders did not, however, want to censor God. They did not want to banish all mentions of religion from the public square. And they certainly could have cared less about whether the word God showed up on the quarter.

What are atheists to do now that their hands will continue to be sullied by that dirty money with the word God imprinted on it? Life's pretty good in this Christian nation - read first, then come help me persecute some non-believers:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. district court judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a California atheist against the U.S. government for its use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on its coins and currency.

Michael Newdow, the Sacramento, California lawyer and doctor who had previously launched a court challenge on behalf of his daughter over the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance said in schools, had argued that "In God We Trust" on monetary instruments violates his rights.

Newdow claimed that by using coins and currency bearing the phrase, he is forced to carry religious dogma, proselytize and evangelize for monotheism.

Judge Frank Damrell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held in his opinion that "In God We Trust" is secular in nature and use, and its appearance on coins and currency does not show government coercion on behalf of monotheism.

Newdow told Reuters he would appeal to the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor in his "under God" lawsuit, a decision later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, which found Newdow could sue not on behalf of his daughter because he lacked custody.

Of course he'll appeal to the 9th Circuit, the most radically liberal and most often unanimously overturned appeals court in the nation by the Supreme Court. But until then, Newdow will continue to be "forced" to carry "religious dogma," and lots of if he continues to be the lead crusader and spokesperson for people who melt at the sight or sound of the letters G, O and D.

This is good news out of San Francisco. The phrase "in God we trust" does not serve to force religion on us, but to serve as a historical reference to the founding times of our country, when it was imperative that the highest authority of man was not the current occupier of the White House.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

Posted by Scottie at June 13, 2006 11:27 PM
Comments
Comment #157471

The only people who cares about this are the religious nutcases and fanatics.

Posted by: Aldous at June 13, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #157483
The phrase “in God we trust” does not serve to force religion on us, but to serve as a historical reference to the founding times of our country, when it was imperative that the highest authority of man was not the current occupier of the White House. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. References to God have been included on some coins since the mid-Civil war. So no, the phrase does not refer to the founding times of our country, when power was thought, for the first time, to reside with the people, not a divinely established king.

The big push to include references to God on money and within the Pledge of Allegiance came in the 1950s, when the Dulles program recommended the government incentivize Americans to be more religious to protect them from being swayed by Communism.

In my opinion, this guy is absolutely right. This country’s might does not come from any one religion, but from the ideals we share: that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be universal. If your God doesn’t respect or share those ideals, you may have a bone to pick with the US.

We’re fighting a war over this stuff, and it’s not a war of Christians versus Muslims. It’s a war of those who believe in freedom versus those that want to impose their will on others. A war of those who can live in harmony with differences of opinion against those who feel they must kill those who disagree with them.

This country is not about any one religion, or even all religions, it’s about mutual respect for others to do as they please, which is something you might want to think about while forcing people to carry around money that says “under God”.

And no, I don’t care. I just want people to think about what this country is really about.

Posted by: Max at June 14, 2006 12:59 AM
Comment #157485
“The big push to include references to God on money and within the Pledge of Allegiance came in the 1950s, when the Dulles program recommended the government incentivize Americans to be more religious to protect them from being swayed by Communism.”

First of all: “Incentivize??!”

Secondly: It must have worked—I’m still not a communist. Despite not being “religiousized”. Or supersized either.

“…that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be universal. If your God doesn’t respect or share those ideals, you may have a bone to pick with the US.

I hesitate to speak for God, but I think it’s safe to say that she does speak for those things. The question is, do Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton and their ilk?

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 14, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #157492
The phrase “in God we trust” does not serve to force religion on us, but to serve as a historical reference to the founding times of our country, when it was imperative that the highest authority of man was not the current occupier of the White House.

Scottie,

This statement is grossly inaccurate. The phrase “In God We Trust” had absolutely nothing to do with founding times. The phrase that appears on money that goes back to the founding fathers is “E pluribus unum” which mean “one out of more,” a reference to the 13 colonies becoming one nation. It is also the official motto of the United States.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 14, 2006 2:44 AM
Comment #157493

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 11, 2006

Resolution to Impeach Bush Receives Strong Support at Texas Democratic Convention but Falls Short of Passage

The “Impeach Bush Resolution Campaign” delivered almost 1400 signatures signed by more than 30% of the delegates at the 2006 Texas Democratic Party state convention in Fort Worth to the party. The resolution called on the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors and for willfully violating his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The resolution failed in a close vote on the floor of the convention.

A video of the floor debate on the resolution is on YouTube.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMsth3faJkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0E8NNw72yM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoP8LNIqFq4

Texas would have joined ten other states whose Democratic parties have passed impeachment resolutions: Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawaii.

The vote on the impeachment resolution took place in a nearly empty convention hall, although it could have been brought up much sooner if the rules of the TDP had been followed in a timely manner. The TDP rules state, “A submission of such a resolution shall be immediately recognized as being before the convention as the next order of business after completion of any item under consideration.” However the convention chair kept the resolution off the agenda until two point of order requests from delegates caused the chair to bring the resolution to the floor in the final hours of the convention, when only around 250 people were present in the hall. The chair also refused to accept a friendly amendment to the resolution to include vice president Dick Cheney. Many people did not want to vote for the resolution unless it included a call for impeaching Cheney as well as Bush.

In addition to the impeachment resolution that was brought to the floor as a result of the petition drive, the Resolutions Committee at the convention approved an impeachment resolution, but the convention was adjourned before that resolution was voted on by the floor. It, along with all remaining resolutions, were sent to the State Democratic Executive Committee for consideration at its next meeting in Austin.

Hooman Hedayati, 19, who volunteered 20 hours to collect signatures was very disappointed at Texas Democratic Party officials for not letting the resolution get to the floor before so many delegates had left. “Democrats need to understand the reason for such a low youth turn out at the convention. A big reason why young people are staying away from the Democratic Party and finding alternative avenues of political involvement is because the Democratic Party has consistently failed to stand up for Americans and protect our rights” said Hedayati.. “The continuing perception that the Democrats are afraid to stand up to the Bush Administration is going to lose Democrats the votes of many people.”

###

Posted by: Hooman Hedayati at June 14, 2006 2:46 AM
Comment #157495

lol, by the way I am not a member of Democratic Party. I was in the convention as a guest!

Posted by: Hooman Hedayati at June 14, 2006 2:51 AM
Comment #157547

Tim,

First of all: “Incentivize??!”

in·cen·tiv·ize

To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate: “This bill will help incentivize everybody to solve that part of the problem” (Richard A. Gephardt).

Not sure what your problem is with me using English in my post.

Glad you agree with me that all religions are fine in the US, so long as they can get along with others. The question, does Bush care about this? Is central to his losing, incredibly, inexplicably, the battle of ideas in the war against terrorism. He narrowly defined this war as a war of Christian versus Muslim values when it shoudl have been framed as a war of Liberal versus Totalitarian values.

Posted by: Max at June 14, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #157567

If you have to quote Dick Gephart to illustrate the use of a word, you’re already in trouble.

What I was pointing to was this ludicrous techno-babble speak of making verbs out of nouns. It’s like actionizing the language—and the language has been doing just fine, thank you. I just looked “incentivize” up in my Webster’s. As I suspected, it doesn’t exist.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #157606

While ‘In God We Trust’ wasn’t originally on money it doesn’t bother me that it’s there. And it won’t bother me if it’s taken off. I won’t change my belief in God either way.
What I don’t like is that the same folks that don’t want religion forced on them are trying to force their values on me and my family.
My wife and I always give thanks to God for our food before we eat. It doesn’t matter if we’re home or in a restaurant.
The other day we were in a McDonalds in Valdosta with our three grandchildren that we’re raising. When we gave thanks for our food a customer got upset and told the manager that if he didn’t throw us out she’d sue McDonalds. She claimed that by letting us pray over our food was forcing religion on her. What a crock. We didn’t force anyone to join us and she wasn’t even close enough to hear us. But she told us that just seeing us pray was violating her constitutional right to freedom from religion.
While we weren’t forcing our beliefs on her she sure didn’t mind trying to force her’s on us.

It’s getting so you can’t even mention God in public. At least not the Christian God.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 14, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #157616
If you have to quote Dick Gephart to illustrate the use of a word, you’re already in trouble.

Tim, it’s not my example. It’s dictionary.com’s. Join the new millenium.

What I was pointing to was this ludicrous techno-babble speak of making verbs out of nouns. It’s like actionizing the language—and the language has been doing just fine, thank you. I just looked “incentivize” up in my Webster’s. As I suspected, it doesn’t exist.

How would you say it Tim? I want to know…

Posted by: Max at June 14, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #157618

Ron,

Ok, that woman was obviously a nutcase. Did you get thrown out?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 14, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #157650

“The big push to include references to God on money and within the Pledge of Allegiance came in the 1950s, when the Dulles program recommended the government incentivize encourage Americans to be more religious to protect them from being swayed by Communism.”

The new millinium, eh? It’s no wonder we yell past each other on this blog—bastardizing the language is in keeping with the truthiness of our government and the selective righteousness of our religion.

I’m not the language police, and English as taken far greater blows than the “incentivize-ness” of Dick Gephart. But evey time I hear stuff like “new innovation” and “I could care less” I realize that the dumming down of American is nigh on complete.

Besides, Dick Gephart has no eyebrows. Like weak chins, I have a problem with that.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 14, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #157692

Tim,

I guess encourage works, though the program recommended rewarding people with money. Anyway, incentivize is a word, so love the English language or leave it pal.

;-)

Max

Posted by: Max at June 14, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #157696


JayJay,

I think you’ll find that “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of Many, One) was replaced by “In God We Trust” as our national motto in July 1956.

Posted by: Doug at June 14, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #157720

When ETs will visit our devasted little planet and will discover a dollar under dust, I guess they will assign to money the word “God”. As mankind once used to do long before.

PS: Tim, http://m-w.com/dictionary/incentivize. Time to buy an up-to-date english dictionary.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 14, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #157723

Oh, btw, anyone that doubt the Pledge of Alliance phrase “under God” is religious should try substituting ‘under Buddha’ or ‘under Allah,’ or ‘under Krishna,’ and then repeat the Pledge *loud*.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 14, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #157784

Philippe:

“Time to buy an up-to-date english dictionary.”

Okay, I’ll enter the 21st century, but I’m declaring a one-man campaign against this techno-babble nonsense.

So…you’re a Frenchman, I believe. Which English dictionary do you recommend?:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 14, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #157787

Tim, in my case any english dictionary is good enough ;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 14, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #157894

Phillipe and Tim,

FYI. I went out to dictionary.com and found a valid entry for “incentivize”. I also took the time to look up the entry for “God”, and was very pleased to find that it was generic and inclusive of every intended supreme diety. So, it would seem that “Under God” and “In God We Trust” has no specific religious flavor.

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #157917

Before this post I had no idea that we were so worried about the issue of American English purity. I still think the “national language” debate is based in fear.

This post inspired me to find these links
Bad Words for Good by Tony Proscio, 2001

The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.

(and also the real Miriam-Webster’s dictionary link that was already posted)

Maybe we need to start attacking our Bushbonics next?

Christine

Posted by: Christine at June 14, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #157928

Christine - Interesting observation. Although I agree that the national language debate may be based on irrational fears, it would seem a reasonable fear to be in a situation where we’ve allowed government to invent thier own language.

Arguments?

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #157930

JayJay
No, we weren’t kicked out. In fact the women raised so much fuss that she was asked to leave because she was disturbing other customers. When she refused the manager had the police escort her out.
I felt sorry for the guy really. He didn’t want to kick us out and the women was insisting on it. She really got down right dirty and called my wife and me all kinds of names. We offered to leave so she’d shut up but the manager told her too.
None of the other customers seemed to be upset with our prayer. But they were sure getting upset with her. One women offer to clean her clock if she didn’t shutup.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 15, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #157963

DOC,

I also took the time to look up the entry for “God”, and was very pleased to find that it was generic and inclusive of every intended supreme diety. So, it would seem that “Under God” and “In God We Trust” has no specific religious flavor.

Okay, you make a point.
So let’s try to substitute “under God” with “under no God” in the Pledge of Alliance, then. Afterall, any US citizen is allowed to be atheist, right?

No specific flavor but still religious. Great example of separation between state and churches/mosquees/temples/whatever when the first sentence one have to pronouce to become an American citizen contains “under God”, don’t you think?!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 15, 2006 4:21 AM
Comment #158088

anybody who is offended by having coinage or bills that say “In God We Trust”, can send them to me.

Posted by: jblym at June 15, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #158128

jblym - Excellent, (evil chuckle) excellent.

Posted by: DOC at June 15, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #158177

jblym,

Could you say the Pledge for all atheist candidates to US citizenship too?
Thanks for you help.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 15, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #158181

The real issue it seems to me is the legal question of whether the congress violated the US Constitution when it passed laws to add God to the US coinage and the Pledge.

The Supreme Court sidestepped Newdow’s first question, so he’as back with another one.

While I agree that this isn’t an important issue, nonetheless it is a valid legal question that should be ruled on.

The Pledge and money prior to the 50s was inclusive of all Americans regardless of religious views. So what the money.

Then, much like the Republicans of today - the congress decided to divide people (into “our people” and the outcasts) and try to influence what the masses believe and how they act using the Government.

The Constituion for the most part talks about the limits of Goverment to interfere with individuals lives, yet today like the 50s politicians want to use governement and/of the constitution to take away individual freedom.

Fags can’t have legal protection in regards to estates, benefits, etc… Because those fags scare us - you can’t let them pursue happiness others might join in!

People can’t burn the flag. Because people that burn the flag scare us - others might be influenced.

All these issues are about powerless minorities and the irrational fear that masses will turn into gay flag burners. The Goverment must act to protect us from the boogey man right? Since those stupid well-educated judges won’t protect us, we must ammend the US consitution!

Viva Republicans! Down with the minorities that don’t vote for them - our Goverment can definitely fix this problem :)

Posted by: Redlenses at June 15, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #158186

Sorry for the spelling/grammar errors! Here’s a corrected version:

The real issue it seems to me is the legal question of whether the congress violated the US Constitution when it passed laws to add God to the US coinage and the Pledge.

The Supreme Court sidestepped Newdow’s first question, so he’s back with another one.

While I agree that this isn’t an important issue, nonetheless it is a valid legal question that should be ruled on.

The Pledge and money prior to the 50s was inclusive of all Americans regardless of religious views.

Then, much like the Republicans of today - the congress decided to divide people (into “our people” and the outcasts) and try to influence what the masses believe and how they act using the Government.

The Constituion for the most part talks about the limits of Government to interfere with individual’s lives, yet today like the 50s politicians want to use governement and/or the constitution to take away individual freedom.

Fags can’t have legal protection in regards to estates, benefits, etc… Because those fags scare us - you can’t let them pursue happiness others might join in!

People can’t burn the flag. Because people that burn the flag scare us - others might be influenced.

All these issues are about powerless minorities and the irrational fear that the masses will turn into gay flag burners. The Government must act to protect us from the boogey man right? Since those stupid well-educated judges won’t protect us, we must ammend the US constitution!

Viva Republicans! Down with the minorities that don’t vote for them - our Government can definitely fix this problem :) Gog bless the USA (as long as he remains silent and we can use his name to get people to have “faith” in us and vote for our wars and tax cuts)!

Posted by: Redlenses at June 15, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #158895

Scottie,

Persecuting non-believers… its them thar Christians that need the persecitin… It is persecution that made Christianity a great religion. Jesus took the crucifixion so well, and then when Christians wouldn’t whoreship Nero, but were willing to die for their faith, so people sat up and took notice. The Christians were all in favor of the separation of church and state back then - not any more. Anyhow, we non-believers are not masachistic - we don’t take persecutin well - tie me to the stake and I’ll embrace the Christian right coalition in a heart beat. The only persecutin we non-believers enjoy is doin it to the Christians.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 18, 2006 1:04 PM
Post a comment