In God We Trust (not)
Posted on: November 21, 2010 - 2:05pm
Offline
In God We Trust (not)
It seems that everything in our society is geared to a religious understanding of the way you should live your life. Can we, as a minority group have any impact on our society,something along the line of getting "In God We Trust" off our money.(I was inspired by Glen Beck-what a asshole) To save our species,I think that we have to have a atheist understanding of the world.We got to unite. 
Signature ? How ?
- Login to post comments
It's been tried - I think by the same guy who tried to get "under God" out of the pledge. Turned down by the Supremes.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Well,I did not know that.We got to keep on trying.Change does happen.But really if you think about it relgious people are not the only people to use money,Us atheist also use money,but we know the con game at work here.
Signature ? How ?
I wonder how many Theists are aware of the fact that "In God We Trust' did not appear on coins, until the largely religious sentiments of the Civil War ? It did not become an official motto of the U.S. until 1957. Here are some links that will give information, the next time someone uses the "In God We Trust" to demonstrate that this was intended to be a Christian nation, find out how well that they know their facts :
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
Although Wiki is not the most reliable source of information check this out :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm
The original motto of the U.S. was: One from Many or One from Many Parts
Handy information to have when the fundamentalists try to use the "In God We Trust" as to establish intent from the founders of the country.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I have always wondered what the religious people actually want to do about these things. They seem to think that if all people will believe in Jesus, then everything will suddenly be all right. Really, it's the best thing we can do for the world, believe in Jesus! Some fundies are more specific than that, you know, everything will be destroyed, then Jesus arives, lots of shit happens, but in the end everything will be magically fixed forever. I'd like to see those who believe that in U.S. government and make them admit that in front of TV cameras, so the world can facepalm.
I really wonder what the faith and its opposite actually do. Christian faith seems to fight against gay marriage, abortions, and stem cell research. In return, atheists fight for gay rights, right for abortion and stem cell research. Other than that, it's pretty much up to personal initiative. There are many good intentions implicitly both in religion and atheism, but nobody really carries them out. Religious politicians could adopt the words of Jesus about "giving all your money to the poor". America really can save the world, if just by stopping destroying it. But no, they've got their own little ideas, that honoring God on little papers is more important.
Atheists have even less to say about the most practical arrangement of the world - except that it should not be religious. But what it should be? Most of them just goes with popular opinion. As for most of people, for them too it's easier to imagine the end of world, than to imagine the end of capitalism. (mainly because we all saw the end of world many times with the best film effects) What this skepticism is good for, when it doesn't apply reason to all parts of society, not just religion?
By all means people should unite, but unite for something great and meaningful. Just imagine the world free from religion after a great effort, but subsequently destroyed by nuclear war for resources or climatic catastrophe. I'd personally rather erradicate poverty and war, saving religion for later.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Signature ? How ?
Yes, by the same guy. That's Mike Newdow: http://www.restorethepledge.com/
Well, not exactly turned down. The Supreme court just said that Mike Newdow didn't have standing to sue because he didn't have custody (clever legal maneuver). He's tried again with a couple who did have custody of their child (the famous Does), and was ruled against by the court of appeals, two of the members of which chose to shit on the constitution in doing so.
In my not so humble opinion, Judges Carlos Bea and Dorothy Nelson are traitors to our country, and should be tried, convicted, and executed for treason of the highest degree. Judges should be more accountable for their unethical behavior.
Dissenting Judge Stephen Reinhardt, on the other hand, is a true patriot. His dissent is a good read:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf
The 9th circuit denied further appeals, so now it goes to the supreme court as a request for review. It's going to take a while.
If the supreme court won't review it, or does review it and rules to maintain the 9th circuit decision, then we have a pretty big problem; that would leave pretty much no room for legal redress for the Does. In the former case- that the Supreme court won't review it- Newdow can go to another state and start over. If he gets a ruling in his favor in any state, then the Supreme court would pretty much be forced to review it (although it may be hard to get another court of appeals to break the precedent set by the California 9th circuit). In the latter case, that would set binding precedent, and there would be no reliable way to undo that in the foreseeable future.
I think if people are civilized, then it's not a problem if they're religious. With civilized believers, you can explain them that religion is a subjective, emotional activity and not something they can apply on the world outside. And they won't stone you to death or take their keys for a walk on the paint of your car.
Understand, there's not enough time to de-convert everyone and then start fixing the real problems. We've got to work with whoever is available now. Except of some fire-and-brimstone fundies, of course. It is possible to ignore religion by diverting attention to the most important things, food, water, shelter, healthcare, education and security. I think this would be the real victory of atheism - not feeding the troll!
You see? No religion in there. People can be decent or lousy independently of their religion. Just look at my government. Nobody ever mentioned god in there, but it's a den of theft, corruption, lobbyism, incompetence, redneckism, unpunished scandals and pimping the nation to foreign investors. This even goes down to regional administrators. Trust me, godless people don't become magically decent people.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Well on the individual level there is no law against taking a marker to your bills and crossing out "In God We Trust". I have spoken with several atheists who do so. I don't really see it as worth the time though.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The numbers there aren't sufficient. However, I've wanted to build a machine that acted like a hybrid money-counter/stamper that would spin through tans of thousands of bills a minute and stamp out the offending words and replace them.
There's about a trillion or so in circulation, so you'd need to hit it hard to make a difference. You'd need to have the machine running all day, and be constantly withdrawing millions and re-depositing them.
Lets say you could do a hundred million a day; in about two years you could get through the money supply for the most part- and that's about when you'd need to start over, too (due to how long bills stay in circulation). You'd pretty much just need to keep doing it, constantly.
Assuming the average bill was a $10, you could probably manage to keep up if you did 1 - 2k a second.
Personally, I'd not do it myself, but would distribute the machines to a bunch of mosques, temples, and churches and give them stamps that read everything from Muhammad, Allah, Krishna, the middle way, and Jesus.
Doing it myself, the ink costs would be prohibitive. Although a machine that actually cut out or burnt off the words would work. Burning the words could result in catastrophic failure, though, and the destruction of millions of dollars- that might be a problem.
I hadn't thought about trying something like that. I agree, that unless you could get a massive movement started, I doubt it would do much good. However, for the past couple of years, I have been greeting people around the holidays with "Merry Capitalism" and "Merry Shopping but there's no Santa day". It's actually caught on with a few people that I have tried it with.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Yeah, I don't think the people who do it intend to try to mark every paper dollar out there. It is more designed to attract peoples attention when one of those bills gets circulated to them. I have gotten a handful of bills with god marked off but it is a rather rare sight. I think the only reason I see it is because there must be an atheist who does it at one of the poker rooms I play at. If every atheist did it people would probably notice more. But I have better things to do with my time than to sit and do it. Especially since most people don't use cash on a regular basis anymore.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X