Supreme Court rejects atheists' attempt to scrub 'In God We Trust' off US currency

Fox News.com ^ | June 10, 2019 | Caleb Parke

[Kaslin]

Show me the motto.

The Supreme Court rejected an atheist case Monday to remove "In God We Trust," the national motto, from all coins and currency from the Department of Treasury.

Michael Newdow, the same activist attorney who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his case, arguing Congress' mandate to inscribe "In God We Trust" on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment.

Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God and turned them into "political outsiders" by placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on their money.

[Steely Tom]

They seem to try this about every ten years.

I suppose they’ll eventually get lucky.

Then a few years later, we’ll get “Allahu Akbar” in Arabic on our currency. That’ll be OK though.

[MeganC]

My mother and I lived in an apartment in south Sacramento and Newdow was a nearby neighbor.

He likes to tell people that he lives in Elk Grove but like much of what he says, this is a lie.

He’s also a really, really bad driver and he likes to check his mail by driving up on the sidewalk to get the mail from his mailbox without getting out of his car. If you get in his way he acts like he doesn’t see you.

[Dilbert San Diego]

What was the vote breakdown, do we know?

None of the news stories I’ve seen on this, show who voted which way.

[Levy78]

people like that eventually mess with the wrong person and end up eating their own teeth.

[upchuck]

Posted earlier today:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3755882/posts

[zaxtres]

Every time I have argued with an atheist, I took the premise their religion was that they believed in no god. They always argued they had no religion. If a person is devoid of religion then how can one’s sincere religious beliefs be violated? This idiot lawyer proved my point but the SCOTUS took the view of the atheist, that atheism is not a religion so no belief could be violated. Same argument for obstruction. No crime, so how can there be obstruction of the investigation into the said crime that does not exist.

[Steely Tom]

Newdow is one of the biggest weirdos not locked up I’ve ever seen.

He should get together with Matthew Apperson, the guy who stalked and shot at George Zimmerman. Apperson is, however, in prison at present, serving a 20-year sentence.

[Gamecock]

the government violated their "sincere religious belief"

Or lack thereof.

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their “sincere religious belief” that there is no God. . .”

Most atheists I get in discussions with all claim that atheism is NOT a religious belief, rather just an “absence of faith”.

[sparklite2]

Quite so. These people are just saying whatever
they think they need to win, on the chance that
the justices are ignorant of atheism.

[Tacrolimus1mg]

Re: “Every time I have argued with an atheist, I took the premise their religion was that they believed in no god. They always argued they had no religion.”

Being one, I can tell you that they weren’t an Atheist by definition. They thought they were, but were closer to Nihilist, not knowing the difference. Fools like them make proper Atheists look like ignorant boobs, because there are more people like them out there than like me. The militants don’t help, either.

Atheism is a belief system, just one which believes that there is no God. To claim otherwise makes one uneducated on the subject, and it’s even worse when they themselves claim to be Atheist.

[Arkansas Toothpick]

Most atheists I have met are very angry at the God they claim does not exist. It’s a manifestation of hatred and resentment about their role as a created being.

[rusty schucklefurd]

You and I must have been writing at the same time. Your experience with atheists has been the same as mine.

[Viking2002]

Let’s pop some popcorn, throw Newdow in a room with a bunch of cutthroat Muzzies, and watch the fun. I’ll bring the beer.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks so much for your support to this point... I personally apprecaite it...
FReepers, it's far beyond time to wrap up this FReep-a-thon.  Lets do it today.  Please chip in.

President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America
President Donald J. Trump's address to the United Nations on 09/19/2017.

Ramirez political cartoon:  Trump's Latest Tariff Suggestion (fictitious) LARGE VERSION 06/09/2019: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).
Garrison political cartoon:  Garrison's Take on Joe Biden LARGE VERSION 06/2019: LINK  LINK (scroll down) to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).

FReepers, 92.291% of the Second Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $624.00 dollars to 93.00%

[AndyJackson]

Allahu Akbar” in Arabic on our currency.

That is an allowed culturally inclusive political statement as opposed to a Judeo-Christian discriminatory religious statement.

[RitchieAprile]

The correct athiest motto would be something like “String.Empty”..

[tinyowl]

"violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God"

Atheism is not a religious belief. It is, in fact, and absence. That the belief could be there does not make the absence have any attribute of the nature of the belief.

If Joe doesn't show up to high school one day, the space in his seat that's not occupied by him is not a space about Joe, is not a non-Joe space. Absence of something is not an attribute of that something. It is, in fact, an absolute lack of attribute or essence about that something.

If something is blue, it's true that it's not red, but to comment on blue's lack of redness, while perhaps a true negations, does not mean that blue has any attribute of redness. 'Not Red' is not an attribute of blue.

Very sly, bad reasoning you silly atheists! Denial of God is not a belief about God.