moonbattery logo

Jan 15 2016

Moonbats Continue to Rage Against God Being Acknowledged on the Currency

Militant atheists are on the march yet again, obsessed with stamping out anything that does not support their nihilistic ideology:

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.

The suit, like everything else to come out of Newdow’s bitter jihad against God, is hogwash:

Newdow claims “In God We Trust” violates the separation of church and state. One plaintiff says his Atheism is “substantially burdened because he is forced to bear on his person a religious statement that causes him to sense his government legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general, but against him personally.”

Whoever first put “In God We Trust” on the currency really had it in for Michael Newdow.

But he isn’t the only victim. The suit represents 41 plaintiffs, including children who “are being raised as atheists.” There is nothing beneath these people when it comes to imposing their horrifyingly vacuous godless religion on the rest of us.

in-god-we-trust

On tips from Torcer and Stormfax. Graphic compliments of Stormfax.




47 Responses to “Moonbats Continue to Rage Against God Being Acknowledged on the Currency”

  1. Xavier says:

    Can someone show me the “separation of Church and State” clause?

  2. Xavier says:

    Can someone show me the “separation of Church and State” clause?

  3. Henry says:

    government legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general, but against him personally.

    In saner times, we’d call those paranoid delusions of conspiracy, and have the guy medicated, if not hospitalized…. Now, we call those grounds for a lawsuit against the government.

    De minimis non curat lex.

  4. Henry says:

    government legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general, but against him personally.

    In saner times, we’d call those paranoid delusions of conspiracy, and have the guy medicated, if not hospitalized…. Now, we call those grounds for a lawsuit against the government.

    De minimis non curat lex.

  5. MicahStone says:

    Is ANYBODY surprised at this latest from the anti-God left ?

  6. MicahStone says:

    Is ANYBODY surprised at this latest from the anti-God left ?

  7. In a culture of atheism, Newdow would have long ago been rounded up by the secret police and tortured for trying to compete with the government’s megaphone. That irony escapes him.

  8. In a culture of atheism, Newdow would have long ago been rounded up by the secret police and tortured for trying to compete with the government’s megaphone. That irony escapes him.

  9. George Lortz says:

    I’d like to find out the last time this butthole used U.S. currency. Nowadays, most folks use debit or credit cards. If you don’t like the phrase, don’t friggen READ it !!!!!

  10. George Lortz says:

    I’d like to find out the last time this butthole used U.S. currency. Nowadays, most folks use debit or credit cards. If you don’t like the phrase, don’t friggen READ it !!!!!

  11. ray says:

    “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.”
    Looks like Mike got his New Dow right on cue. Dow Dow Down! 391.79 on the same day! The God that Mike loathes so much must be listening. :O)
    Citizen Newdow and the Almighty People still think they are Large and In Charge. Don’t need no Oppressor Patriarchal God, won’t even allow his name on their beautiful deific money.
    So we will see how things work out for godless Newdow America.

  12. ray says:

    “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.”
    Looks like Mike got his New Dow right on cue. Dow Dow Down! 391.79 on the same day! The God that Mike loathes so much must be listening. :O)
    Citizen Newdow and the Almighty People still think they are Large and In Charge. Don’t need no Oppressor Patriarchal God, won’t even allow his name on their beautiful deific money.
    So we will see how things work out for godless Newdow America.

  13. ray says:

    Looks like a big blue coffin. Too bad I can’t stuff ’em all in there and seal the lid with lead.

  14. ray says:

    Looks like a big blue coffin. Too bad I can’t stuff ’em all in there and seal the lid with lead.

  15. NotKennedy says:

    Don’t give the Satanists any cash. Let them take the mark of the beast, implants, facial recognition, eye scans. Money doesn’t buy anything in hell but it goes a long way toward getting the heathen down there.

  16. NotKennedy says:

    Don’t give the Satanists any cash. Let them take the mark of the beast, implants, facial recognition, eye scans. Money doesn’t buy anything in hell but it goes a long way toward getting the heathen down there.

  17. Jester says:

    Wait, wait, wait. If neoprogs believe that the belief in God is evil, and Money is the Root of All Evil, then it should work, right?

    Oh no – wait. To them, Other People’s Money doesn’t count. Nevermind…..

    http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2015/02/1954ee7d70d4cdf5bb4ec90f0a2cf714de87d019.png

  18. Jester says:

    Wait, wait, wait. If neoprogs believe that the belief in God is evil, and Money is the Root of All Evil, then it should work, right?

    Oh no – wait. To them, Other People’s Money doesn’t count. Nevermind…..

    http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2015/02/1954ee7d70d4cdf5bb4ec90f0a2cf714de87d019.png

  19. JayMS says:

    my favorite was when the local moonbats started taking sharpies to their cash and crossing out the word “God” and writing in “reason”

  20. JayMS says:

    my favorite was when the local moonbats started taking sharpies to their cash and crossing out the word “God” and writing in “reason”

  21. oldguy says:

    This has nothing to do with “separation”. God is not a church nor a religion.

  22. oldguy says:

    This has nothing to do with “separation”. God is not a church nor a religion.

  23. Lisasfranklin2 says:

    1❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    nw.
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦..

  24. The wall of the stall says:

    I believe this goes back to the Civil war,Abe Lincoln cut a deal with his sec. treasury Sam Chase(who was religious)to print money for the war effort.Chase agreed so long as he could put I.G.W.T. on the new bills.

  25. The wall of the stall says:

    I believe this goes back to the Civil war,Abe Lincoln cut a deal with his sec. treasury Sam Chase(who was religious)to print money for the war effort.Chase agreed so long as he could put I.G.W.T. on the new bills.Lincoln did not want to mix church and state, but Chase got his way.

  26. Jodie says:

    If you go further back, you find that God founded this nation; and before that, He created us and this world.

    That is why his name is on our money.

  27. Jodie says:

    If you go further back, you find that God founded this nation; and before that, He created us and this world.

    That is why his name is on our money.

  28. Doug Indeap says:

    The government’s inscription of the phrase “In God we trust” on coins and currency, as well as its addition of the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and adoption of the phrase “In God we trust” as a national motto in 1956, were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that “we trust” “In God.” Some of us do, and some of us don’t; each of us enjoys the freedom to make that choice; the government does not and should not purport to speak for us in this regard. Nor does the government have any business calling on its citizens to voice affirmation of a god in any circumstances, let alone in the very pledge the government prescribes for affirming allegiance to the country. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the pledge puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds, and it certainly has no business assembling citizens’ children in public schools and prescribing their recitation of the pledge–affirmation of a god and all–as a daily routine.

    But that’s just me talking. The courts, on the other hand, have sometimes found ways to excuse such things, for instance with the explanation that they are more about acknowledging tradition than promoting religion per se. Draining the government’s nominally religious statements or actions of religious meaning (or at least purporting to do so) and discounting them as non-religious ritual–sometimes dubbed “ceremonial deism”–is one way the courts have sometimes found them not to conflict with the First Amendment. Ordinary folks, though, commonly see things quite differently; when most read “[i]n God we trust,” they think the Government is actually declaring that “we” as a people actually “trust” the actual “God” they believe in. If they truly understood it as merely a ritualistic phrase devoid of religious meaning, they would hardly get as exercised as they do about proposals to drop it. As you can imagine, those more interested in championing their religion than the constitutional principle of separation of church and state sometimes seek to exploit and expand such “exceptions” even if it requires they fake interest only in tradition.

  29. Doug Indeap says:

    The government’s inscription of the phrase “In God we trust” on coins and currency, as well as its addition of the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and adoption of the phrase “In God we trust” as a national motto in 1956, were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that “we trust” “In God.” Some of us do, and some of us don’t; each of us enjoys the freedom to make that choice; the government does not and should not purport to speak for us in this regard. Nor does the government have any business calling on its citizens to voice affirmation of a god in any circumstances, let alone in the very pledge the government prescribes for affirming allegiance to the country. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the pledge puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds, and it certainly has no business assembling citizens’ children in public schools and prescribing their recitation of the pledge–affirmation of a god and all–as a daily routine.

    But that’s just me talking. The courts, on the other hand, have sometimes found ways to excuse such things, for instance with the explanation that they are more about acknowledging tradition than promoting religion per se. Draining the government’s nominally religious statements or actions of religious meaning (or at least purporting to do so) and discounting them as non-religious ritual–sometimes dubbed “ceremonial deism”–is one way the courts have sometimes found them not to conflict with the First Amendment. Ordinary folks, though, commonly see things quite differently; when most read “[i]n God we trust,” they think the Government is actually declaring that “we” as a people actually “trust” the actual “God” they believe in. If they truly understood it as merely a ritualistic phrase devoid of religious meaning, they would hardly get as exercised as they do about proposals to drop it. As you can imagine, those more interested in championing their religion than the constitutional principle of separation of church and state sometimes seek to exploit and expand such “exceptions” even if it requires they fake interest only in tradition.

  30. Doug Indeap says:

    That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

    To the extent that some would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820).

  31. Doug Indeap says:

    That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

    To the extent that some would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820).

  32. grayjohn says:

    If you can’t trust in God, who’s left?

  33. grayjohn says:

    If you can’t trust in God, who’s left?

  34. dirk gently says:

    Micheal Newdow… didn’t he once file a similar suit against a school district, on behalf of his daughter….. said daughter clearly and vociferously stating in court that she did not in any ways agree with her father and his stupid lawsuit.

  35. dirk gently says:

    Micheal Newdow… didn’t he once file a similar suit against a school district, on behalf of his daughter….. said daughter clearly and vociferously stating in court that she did not in any ways agree with her father and his stupid lawsuit.

  36. dirk gently says:

    Read the preamble to the Constitution, dimwit. The entirety of the Constitution rests on the philosophical foundation spelled out in the preamble. The preamble SPECIFICALLY asserts the existance of God, and trust in him.

  37. dirk gently says:

    Read the preamble to the Constitution, dimwit. The entirety of the Constitution rests on the philosophical foundation spelled out in the preamble. The preamble SPECIFICALLY asserts the existance of God, and trust in him.

  38. dirk gently says:

    Should have got one of them arrested for defacing u.s. currency. That would have been a hoot.

  39. dirk gently says:

    Should have got one of them arrested for defacing u.s. currency. That would have been a hoot.

  40. dirk gently says:

    The “no establishment” clause merely means that the government cannot require anyone to be of any particular religion to hold office or otherwise be employed by the government.

    That is what it means, and that is ALL it means.

    if you claim otherwise, then all of your pet Muslims are going to go apeshit when, per your logic, all of the state colleges have to rip out their Muzzie-catering foot baths.

  41. dirk gently says:

    The “no establishment” clause merely means that the government cannot require anyone to be of any particular religion to hold office or otherwise be employed by the government.

    That is what it means, and that is ALL it means.

    if you claim otherwise, then all of your pet Muslims are going to go apeshit when, per your logic, all of the state colleges have to rip out their Muzzie-catering foot baths.

  42. Doug Indeap says:

    Ahem. If you read it yourself, you’ll find the founders established the federal government on the power of “We the People,” not a deity. The preamble says nothing of god(s) or trust in one.

  43. Doug Indeap says:

    Ahem. If you read it yourself, you’ll find the founders established the federal government on the power of “We the People,” not a deity. The preamble says nothing of god(s) or trust in one.

  44. Doug Indeap says:

    While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from requiring adherence to a particular religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

    Suffice it to say that no court in the history of our nation has ever held that the First Amendment means as little as you now suppose.

  45. Doug Indeap says:

    While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from requiring adherence to a particular religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

    Suffice it to say that no court in the history of our nation has ever held that the First Amendment means as little as you now suppose.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy