Nonbelievers seek to take God off currency

[SecularMotion]

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, along with 19 other plaintiffs, is suing the U.S. Treasury for stamping "In God We Trust" on currency. Honorary FFRF board member Mike Newdow is acting as legal counsel in the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 1.

The complaint alleges that the religious verbiage is proselytizing, discriminatory and a per se establishment of monotheism in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The complaint, a tour de force of historical research, unequivocally shows that there was a purely religious purpose and intent behind putting God on our coinage. Newdow quotes representatives who voted for the addition as seeking to use the money to proselytize around the world. Rep. Herman P. Eberharter (PA) said: "[T]he American dollar travels all over the world, into every country of the world, and frequently gets behind the Iron Curtain, and if it carries this message in that way I think it would be very good. I think that is one of the most compelling reasons why we should put it on our currency. ... the principles laid down by God and the teachings of our way of life should be kept alive in the hearts and minds of our friends enslaved behind the Iron Curtain."

Plaintiffs are forced to proselytize — by an Act of Congress — for a deity they don't believe in whenever they handle money.

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/17021-atheists-seek-to-take-god-off-currency

[Kolesar]

1. "Teddy" Roosevelt wanted it off the currency, too

For religious reasons. It seemed inappropriate to use His name on "mannon", or something like that. Bill Moyers' guest was talking about this a few weeks ago on "Moyers and Company".

[LuvNewcastle]

2. We should tell God that we'll leave him on there

if he'll back up our currency. Maybe it would help our credit rating.

[bowens43]

3. god on money is pure hypocrasy....

and it's also silly. Why not unicorns or leprechauns instead?

[skepticscott]

4. Technically unconstitutional

but a bad choice of a church-state battle to fight.

No reasonably imaginable Supreme Court (and certainly not the current one) will ever issue a decision mandating that all US currency be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with non-"In God We Trust" versions. Just not gonna happen.

Even if it did, the results would be chaos, and a huge loss in political capital and goodwill towards atheists (who are none too kindly regarded as it is), far outweighing any benefit. Even if the case eventually lost, the bad publicity over the court fight would hardly be worth it.

There are far more egregious church-state violations going on all the time that are more worth expending limited time and resources on. I'm an atheist, and it just isn't THAT big a deal to me. Even when I think about it (which isn't that often), I don't get a feeling of revulsion or violation for having stuff in my pocket with "god" printed on it. I suspect that most other atheists, like me, have more important things to worry about.

In a perfect world, yeah...we'd be rid of this, but that's not where we live. As noted, you have to pick your battles, and there are others that need fighting more than this.

[2ndAmForComputers]

8. Why would it have to be withdrawn from circulation?

Just mandate removal of the unconstitutional phrasing for currency minted from now on.

[skepticscott]

9. Coins last a very long time in circulation

The plaintiffs could hardly argue the principle, and claim that they are suffering harm requiring remedy, if they accepted a remedy that wouldn't take full effect for decades.

[cbayer]

5. We shall see. Circuit courts have repeatedly rejected this and SCOTUS refused to here

it just 2 years ago.

And this is getting virtually no press. I tried to find out who else the other plaintiffs are and could not find a single article on it.

It should happen and it should happen fairly soon, but it's not looking good at all.

[dimbear]

6. If our god is actually Mammon, it makes perfect sense. n/t

[struggle4progress]

7. It's long-settled law, and he's repeatedly lost on this issue before.

Judge rejects 'In God We Trust' lawsuit
ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 13, 2006

SACRAMENTO – A federal judge yesterday rejected a lawsuit from an atheist who said having the phrase “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights. US District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said the minted words amounted to a secular national slogan that did not trample on Michael Newdow's avowed religious views. “There is no proper allegation that the government compelled plaintiff to affirm a repugnant belief in monotheism,” Damrell said ...

Michael A. Newdow, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Peter Lefevre <et al> ...
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
December 4, 2007—San Francisco, California
Filed March 11, 2010
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Stephen Reinhardt, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges ...

... This case calls upon us to decide whether the national motto of the United States, “In God We Trust,” and its inscription on the Nation’s coins and currency, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ... We hold our decision in Aronow v. United States ... forecloses both claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing this case ...

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/06-16344.pdf

432 F.2d 242
Stefan Ray ARONOW, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23444.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 6, 1970
... The complaint challenged the use of expressions of trust in God by the United States Government on its coinage, currency, official documents and publications ... It is not easy to discern any religious significance attendant the payment of a bill with coin or currency on which has been imprinted "In God We Trust" or the study of a government publication or document bearing that slogan ...
http://openjurist.org/432/f2d/242/aronow-v-united-states

Aronow was appealed to SCOTUS; certiorari was denied. Newdow also appealed Newdow v Lefevre to SCOTUS; certiorari was denied