The U.S. government has only recent realized that it is easier to thwart counterfeiters if it a)uses more colors than just that deadly green, b)changes the design occasionally, and c)uses watermarks. We clever yanks have finally made it well into the 20th century. Alas, we’re still dedicated to representing only dead presidents on our currency. Our $1 coin is a minor break from that tradition, but I don’t expect to see a trend.
Yeah but she’s the head of State as well. Heading the Church of England is secondary to that, even if being the Head of State is more to do with tradition and symbols nowadays
Actually he did come from a country full of religious nuts. It’s why so many were against him when he first published his now famous book. The biggest irony is that it is still a country full of religous nuts. There are some schools that don’t teach evolution because faith schools, for some crazy reason are allowed in the UK. At least our money is okay I guess.
Karen, let’s not forget the most important fact in all of these changes: we do not devalue the old versions of currency. So, the older “more easily counterfeited” bills are still legal currency. If you wanted to duplicate a bill from 1982, have at it!
Chris, I believe she’s referring to the Sacajawea $1 coin (or perhaps the Susan B. Anthony?). I know, not many other people have heard of it, either.
U. S. Courts have consistently held that ‘God’ in the notorious “In God We Trust” refers to a one-size-fits-all unique *deistic divinity* — creator, sustainer of the universe consistent with Western tradition.
I call it — It has no gender — the minimum standard god, or MSG. This illegitimate *god of the state* belongs to no religion. MSG is an hypothesized philosophical entity.
I expect U.S. courts to trot out MSG as precedent for beating back atheists’ challenge to the “under God” clause in the pledge of allegiance (to the US flag). MSG is today invoked before each Supreme Court session and each House of Congress opens with a prayer — recently delivered by a Hindu who was booed from the House Gallery by radical xian know-nothings.
Courts will argue that the concept of MSG does not violate the establishment clause. Traditionally, Westerners have averred that MSG would answer their basic notion of a ‘god.’ The MSG concept is certainly non-sectarian.
No one is legally obligated to equate MSG with that moral monster embraced by Dobson, Hagee and all fundies. Or, the merely xian “God” of C.S. Lewis. Or, “God” as Paul Tillich’s “ultimate concern.” And, deists can claim that their “God” has no more interest in the universe than the gods of Epicurus.
Unfortunately, tradition also dictates that MSG exist. Tradition leaves open any god hypothesis, except of course denying the existence of a unique god however bland. (That is however “logically weak” or “pared down” the concept.)
Still remaining outside MSG’s embrace: atheists, secular humanists, Theravada Buddhists, Chinese ancestor worshipers, Shintoists, Hindus, Vedantists, Wiccans, assorted polytheists, devil worshipers . . . those few too principled to be hypocrites . . . and legions of the wholly indifferent.
The US doesn’t have a state church, but it does have a state god.
It’s all rather pathetic and funny, or at least it would be if we weren’t talking about a super-power that has its finger on the button, ready and willing and even anxious to use it to hasten Armageddon and Rapture.
I think bipolar2 left a very lucid and well-constructed argument, but I’ve always been confused on why exactly people are so adamant about this ‘separation of church and state’ issue. Protecting against an established ‘God’ image is a separation of church and state issue. The US Constitution does not protect against any religious references in government. What it *does* protect against is ESTABLISHMENT of religion. In other words, they cannot, as England has historically done, establish thusly, ‘You must all now attend the Church of US and this will be our state religion.’ This was in fact the basis for the whole idea in the first place. That specific circumstance.
What it does NOT say is that no references to God whatsoever are allowed. If the President wants to establish a national Day of Prayer, he may do so, but he cannot tell you who to pray to, or even that you must pray. In fact, he can’t order you to observe the day if you don’t want to. bipolar2’s ‘minimum standard god’ is a good example of this, and his point is equally valid, but there is nothing Constitutionally wrong with the MSG. Now, feel free to debate all day about the moral implications of having an MSG or references to God in government, but the Constitution doesn’t prevent it, which is why the courts have also not prevented it.
The MSG is unconstitutional, if not in specific word then in principle. The US was founded on the idea that religious persecution was wrong. Having a MSG is persecution against everyone who doesn’t believe in one, like bipolar2 said. I personally feel very persecuted, singled out and disrepected every time somebody calls for public prayer because I don’t believe in God. Allowing the worship of a MSG in the public space is a violation of the rights of everyone in the US who doesn’t believe in God or believes in more than one God, intentionally designed to outcast them. It’s wrong and it should be abolished immediately.
Actually Karen, there are a few people on U.S. currency who weren’t presidents. Franklin and Hamilton on the $100 and the $10 are the biggest examples. The U.S. briefly printed a $10,000 bill with Salmon P. Chase on the front. However, my point probably doesn’t mean much; each of these men were political figures in some form or another.
The words ‘In God We Trust’ discriminates against American atheists. It should be taken off the currency as this group is growing rapidly as more and more people are waking up and realising that ‘God’ is the biggest lie ever told. I am also grateful not to have to live in a country where religion is forced down my throat.
What annoys isn’t the “in god we trust” saying it’s how Americans (of Christan faith) call America a Christan country and how Bush even once said “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.†The saying is bad enough but calling America one nation under god.. irritates me radically.
If “In god we trust” discriminates against Athiests then the the fact that the dollar is green discriminates against people who dislike green. The be clear, both are offensive. I completely agree that the phrase is offensive. Discrimination would be if people were required to agree with the statement before they used then money. Personally I think it’s much more relevant that for example. A thirteen year old Jew can legally drink wine on a Saturday. That is discrimination. Four words on a piece of paper don’t make any difference.
I agree with Olleicua. The phrase “In God we Trust” on public money is not discriminatory. It is, however, offensive and embarrassing. It is awkardly paired with the national worship of the US Presidency which is also depicted on the bills.
>If “In god we trust†discriminates against Athiests then the the fact that the dollar is green discriminates against people who dislike green.
This is true, however that’s not the issue. The issue is that the constitution is clear, there is to be no state sponsored religion. This phrase is clearly biased towards those who believe in a singular god. That’s not legal.
But the principle of judicial review isn’t so well spelled out in the constitution. The court holds that this doesn’t establish religion.
Constitutional interpretation is full of ‘penumbras’ and crap like that, but it boils down to the point that it means what a bunch of oldsters say it means. Sometimes that works out well, sometimes not.
Frankly, having “In God We Trust” makes no more impression on me than the serial number on a dollar bill. I might occasionally think “Who’s this ‘we’, skippy”?
Like it or not, US currency isn’t chinese food- they aren’t going to leave out the MSG.
The “In God We Trust” on US currency is an instrument. A socio-cognitive engineering device used subtly to reinforce “God” into the psyche of citizens. Let’s look at how societies work. People have common interests and such, which causes them to relate to others with the same interests. So, knowing this, the US government uses the common interest of “God” to keep its citizens in a sort of check. For example, a Christian is watching Pres. Bush speak on global terrorism. Bush may be talking about some extreme measures for this problem, we all know what they are. He uses “God” and “Evil-doers” to establish a commonality between his citizens and his ideas. People are more likely to agree with you on a topic if you utilize ideas that are common amongst them. Just watch some TV if you don’t believe me. This “MSG” as Bipolar2 puts it, a term which I adore greatly, is an intelligent use of commonality. Religion and faith have and possibly always will allow for some rather shabby stuff to go down, all the while those in commonality with said religion or faith follow suit largely unquestioning. This device is everywhere, everywhere! Not only with “God” but with many, many things. So the US is, “One nation under God.” One nation governed by “God,” a nation counting on its citizens to allow “God” to rule them. Wait, sounds like a monarchy to me. Remember the crusades?? Yeah.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
not as dumb as you Monday August 25th, 2008 @ 4:19pm
I’ve never seen this many pointless responses to a pointless picture. You are judging country by how they style their currency. And you are calling those with a religious beliefs nuts. Atheist fucks
not as dumb as you on 25 Aug 2008 at 4:19pm #
wrote;
“I’ve never seen this many pointless responses to a pointless picture. You are judging country by how they style their currency. And you are calling those with a religious beliefs nuts. Atheist fucks”
Don’t you just love these Christians showing us the loving tolerant view they hold of people who don’t share their beliefs?
Yep he really learned the lessons well that Jesus strived to teach him. Especially the last two words in his post. I wonder if he could tell us when Jesus said that? Maybe he figures that why Jesus said turn the other cheek, So he could talk out of both sides of his mouth. LOL
It is a bit bizarre how the country founded by the anti-religious, with a secular government, now has so many religious nuts and Great Britain which has this national church is becoming dominantly atheist.
People in Britain have slipped away from the irrationality of religion but I think too many people still believe in ghosts over here.
I think America will go the same way pretty soon thanks to the evangelicals. All the more rational believers don’t want to be associated with the crazies. This is probably one of the causes of the decline in the catholic church.
billy the briton Wednesday June 24th, 2009 @ 12:45pm
im glad to say that i live in britain, maters of religion VERY RARELY come up, except when there is an extremest group protesting or when something regarding a specific religion happens,
its very much either a atheist country or a “weak tea” country regarding religion
olleicua, there is a difference between the color green and the phrase “in god we trust” – namely, that the latter postulates an opinion intended to speak for all Americans. Not anymore, you say? Well, obviously, but why is it still on our currency? The color green makes no definitive statement about anyone. I think the only real reason anyone could say that “in god we trust” does not discriminate against atheists is because to say otherwise would involve the replacement of our currency.
You change the dollar, people accuse you of hating America or destroying tradition or any number of fallacious accusations. I agree that it’s a non-issue, and not discrimination in the truest sense because the words were coined before any of began to take up the argument.
But I’m reasonably sure there were plenty of atheists, agnostics, humanists and secularists in America in 1957, when “In God We Trust” was first printed on money. And I’m positive that the people in charge of printing that money knew that. My only assumption is that that segment of the population (small but historically present in our country since its conception) was not considered particularly important. Or the Mint simply didn’t care.
AMERICA IS AWESOME! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! YOU BRITS CAN GO DRINK YOUR TEA AND NOT TEND TO YOUR BAD TEETH WHILE WE GET MOOOOOOOONEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYY AND SEX AND ALL OF THE OTHER COOL THINGS IN THIS WORLD… is what i would say if i didn’t just lose my job in the recession. damn…
I have always been of the opinion that the UK is becoming predominantly atheist but since I started my new job (I’m a “musician” so I work a lot of McJobs) I have been amazed at how many creationists I now know. As a result of immigration, particularly from Africa and the Caribbean there has been a large influx of religion, and it’s quite scary pentecostal Christianity as well-speaking in tongues, creationism etc. It seems to me that most young black people are not only Christian but also claim they don’t “believe” in evolution. It drives me barmy. The friends of mine like this are all very nice and usually intelligent people but they just won’t countenance the idea that the bible is fictional. It’s a scary world.
Aristotle's Muse Monday November 15th, 2010 @ 2:37am
Alright you ignorant atheists… if there is no god, then HOW DOES THE SUN KEEP ORBITING THE EARTH? BAM!
You see people, that’s how you deal with atheist skum. With LOGIC! Hit that bullseye and the rest of the dominoes will come down like a house of cards… CHECKMATE!
And on that note…
Dunt dun duuh DAAAAHHHH!
!!!!!!!!!MY ATHEIST STORE!!!!!!!!!
Aristotle’s Muse
This is my store. Maybe wearing an atheist T-shirt won’t change the world, but enough of them just might.
Is this money supposed to be making a point? It might be slightly annoying, but it certainly doesn’t accurately reflect American constitutional law or American society. Matters of religion in America’s secular public school system have been appropriately settled with respect to the constitution, and attempts to infuse creationism and “intelligent design” with public education have been consistently struck down as unconstitutional, even by religious judges. School prayer cannot legally be endorsed by the faculty of a public institution. There is absolutely no mandatory religious education of any kind in public schools. I attended one. Public education is incredibly secular, and not nearly as poor in quality as many are made to believe. In fact, I received a wonderful education at an average American public school
The fact that we permit this minor annoyance speaks only to our inclusiveness and tolerance. We do not, however, quietly permit fundamentalists to destroy the secular framework of our nation, a nation which produces such a disproportionate chunk of the world’s scientific literature, and has produced so many unfettered scientific and social movements.
The fact that our grab bag of asshats get a lot of air time on TV in the UK and Europe means very little to most Americans. If that’s the picture you want to paint of America to make yourselves feel better, by all means go ahead. To be fair we mostly see those English speakers from the other side of the Atlantic as misinformed egotistical pricks.
Bob :Is this money supposed to be making a point? It might be slightly annoying, but it certainly doesn’t accurately reflect American constitutional law or American society. Matters of religion in America’s secular public school system have been appropriately settled with respect to the constitution, and attempts to infuse creationism and “intelligent design” with public education have been consistently struck down as unconstitutional, even by religious judges. School prayer cannot legally be endorsed by the faculty of a public institution. There is absolutely no mandatory religious education of any kind in public schools. I attended one. Public education is incredibly secular, and not nearly as poor in quality as many are made to believe. In fact, I received a wonderful education at an average American public school
The fact that we permit this minor annoyance speaks only to our inclusiveness and tolerance. We do not, however, quietly permit fundamentalists to destroy the secular framework of our nation, a nation which produces such a disproportionate chunk of the world’s scientific literature, and has produced so many unfettered scientific and social movements.
The fact that our grab bag of asshats get a lot of air time on TV in the UK and Europe means very little to most Americans. If that’s the picture you want to paint of America to make yourselves feel better, by all means go ahead. To be fair we mostly see those English speakers from the other side of the Atlantic as misinformed egotistical pricks.
Actually, it perfectly describes us. Most of the people in the US are complete idiots. It’s quite annoying.
Saturday July 26th, 2008 @ 9:04pm
I just want to bury my face in that beard and thank Darwin for living in a country without tons of religious nuts.
Saturday July 26th, 2008 @ 10:53pm
The hummingbird is pretty cool, too.
The U.S. government has only recent realized that it is easier to thwart counterfeiters if it a)uses more colors than just that deadly green, b)changes the design occasionally, and c)uses watermarks. We clever yanks have finally made it well into the 20th century. Alas, we’re still dedicated to representing only dead presidents on our currency. Our $1 coin is a minor break from that tradition, but I don’t expect to see a trend.
Saturday September 6th, 2014 @ 12:51pm
Except for the fact that the $100 bill has Benjamin Franklin, who as you should know was never president.
Sunday July 27th, 2008 @ 1:07am
Which $1 coin are you speaking of, Karen?
Tuesday May 31st, 2011 @ 11:20pm
The sacajawea gold dollar
Sunday July 27th, 2008 @ 2:26am
On the other side we do have the Queen though who is the head of the Church of England so our notes arn’t devoid of all Religious symbols.
Sunday February 21st, 2010 @ 8:27am
Yeah but she’s the head of State as well. Heading the Church of England is secondary to that, even if being the Head of State is more to do with tradition and symbols nowadays
Monday July 28th, 2008 @ 2:35am
Actually he did come from a country full of religious nuts. It’s why so many were against him when he first published his now famous book. The biggest irony is that it is still a country full of religous nuts. There are some schools that don’t teach evolution because faith schools, for some crazy reason are allowed in the UK. At least our money is okay I guess.
Sunday January 17th, 2010 @ 10:34am
acctually, the Curch Of England had no problem with Darwin’s discovery
Monday July 28th, 2008 @ 9:18am
Karen, let’s not forget the most important fact in all of these changes: we do not devalue the old versions of currency. So, the older “more easily counterfeited” bills are still legal currency. If you wanted to duplicate a bill from 1982, have at it!
Chris, I believe she’s referring to the Sacajawea $1 coin (or perhaps the Susan B. Anthony?). I know, not many other people have heard of it, either.
Tuesday July 29th, 2008 @ 6:51pm
** America’s “God” fraud **
U. S. Courts have consistently held that ‘God’ in the notorious “In God We Trust” refers to a one-size-fits-all unique *deistic divinity* — creator, sustainer of the universe consistent with Western tradition.
I call it — It has no gender — the minimum standard god, or MSG. This illegitimate *god of the state* belongs to no religion. MSG is an hypothesized philosophical entity.
I expect U.S. courts to trot out MSG as precedent for beating back atheists’ challenge to the “under God” clause in the pledge of allegiance (to the US flag). MSG is today invoked before each Supreme Court session and each House of Congress opens with a prayer — recently delivered by a Hindu who was booed from the House Gallery by radical xian know-nothings.
Courts will argue that the concept of MSG does not violate the establishment clause. Traditionally, Westerners have averred that MSG would answer their basic notion of a ‘god.’ The MSG concept is certainly non-sectarian.
No one is legally obligated to equate MSG with that moral monster embraced by Dobson, Hagee and all fundies. Or, the merely xian “God” of C.S. Lewis. Or, “God” as Paul Tillich’s “ultimate concern.” And, deists can claim that their “God” has no more interest in the universe than the gods of Epicurus.
Unfortunately, tradition also dictates that MSG exist. Tradition leaves open any god hypothesis, except of course denying the existence of a unique god however bland. (That is however “logically weak” or “pared down” the concept.)
Still remaining outside MSG’s embrace: atheists, secular humanists, Theravada Buddhists, Chinese ancestor worshipers, Shintoists, Hindus, Vedantists, Wiccans, assorted polytheists, devil worshipers . . . those few too principled to be hypocrites . . . and legions of the wholly indifferent.
The US doesn’t have a state church, but it does have a state god.
bipolar2
Sunday August 3rd, 2008 @ 3:16pm
It’s all rather pathetic and funny, or at least it would be if we weren’t talking about a super-power that has its finger on the button, ready and willing and even anxious to use it to hasten Armageddon and Rapture.
Sunday August 3rd, 2008 @ 3:23pm
I think bipolar2 left a very lucid and well-constructed argument, but I’ve always been confused on why exactly people are so adamant about this ‘separation of church and state’ issue. Protecting against an established ‘God’ image is a separation of church and state issue. The US Constitution does not protect against any religious references in government. What it *does* protect against is ESTABLISHMENT of religion. In other words, they cannot, as England has historically done, establish thusly, ‘You must all now attend the Church of US and this will be our state religion.’ This was in fact the basis for the whole idea in the first place. That specific circumstance.
What it does NOT say is that no references to God whatsoever are allowed. If the President wants to establish a national Day of Prayer, he may do so, but he cannot tell you who to pray to, or even that you must pray. In fact, he can’t order you to observe the day if you don’t want to. bipolar2’s ‘minimum standard god’ is a good example of this, and his point is equally valid, but there is nothing Constitutionally wrong with the MSG. Now, feel free to debate all day about the moral implications of having an MSG or references to God in government, but the Constitution doesn’t prevent it, which is why the courts have also not prevented it.
Sunday August 3rd, 2008 @ 4:59pm
The MSG is unconstitutional, if not in specific word then in principle. The US was founded on the idea that religious persecution was wrong. Having a MSG is persecution against everyone who doesn’t believe in one, like bipolar2 said. I personally feel very persecuted, singled out and disrepected every time somebody calls for public prayer because I don’t believe in God. Allowing the worship of a MSG in the public space is a violation of the rights of everyone in the US who doesn’t believe in God or believes in more than one God, intentionally designed to outcast them. It’s wrong and it should be abolished immediately.
Monday August 4th, 2008 @ 10:48am
Actually Karen, there are a few people on U.S. currency who weren’t presidents. Franklin and Hamilton on the $100 and the $10 are the biggest examples. The U.S. briefly printed a $10,000 bill with Salmon P. Chase on the front. However, my point probably doesn’t mean much; each of these men were political figures in some form or another.
Monday August 4th, 2008 @ 11:06am
The words ‘In God We Trust’ discriminates against American atheists. It should be taken off the currency as this group is growing rapidly as more and more people are waking up and realising that ‘God’ is the biggest lie ever told. I am also grateful not to have to live in a country where religion is forced down my throat.
Tuesday August 5th, 2008 @ 1:40am
What annoys isn’t the “in god we trust” saying it’s how Americans (of Christan faith) call America a Christan country and how Bush even once said “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.†The saying is bad enough but calling America one nation under god.. irritates me radically.
Thursday August 7th, 2008 @ 2:10pm
If “In god we trust” discriminates against Athiests then the the fact that the dollar is green discriminates against people who dislike green. The be clear, both are offensive. I completely agree that the phrase is offensive. Discrimination would be if people were required to agree with the statement before they used then money. Personally I think it’s much more relevant that for example. A thirteen year old Jew can legally drink wine on a Saturday. That is discrimination. Four words on a piece of paper don’t make any difference.
Monday August 11th, 2008 @ 11:12pm
I agree with Olleicua. The phrase “In God we Trust” on public money is not discriminatory. It is, however, offensive and embarrassing. It is awkardly paired with the national worship of the US Presidency which is also depicted on the bills.
Tuesday August 12th, 2008 @ 11:01am
>If “In god we trust†discriminates against Athiests then the the fact that the dollar is green discriminates against people who dislike green.
This is true, however that’s not the issue. The issue is that the constitution is clear, there is to be no state sponsored religion. This phrase is clearly biased towards those who believe in a singular god. That’s not legal.
Friday August 15th, 2008 @ 10:02pm
>The issue is that the constitution is clear
But the principle of judicial review isn’t so well spelled out in the constitution. The court holds that this doesn’t establish religion.
Constitutional interpretation is full of ‘penumbras’ and crap like that, but it boils down to the point that it means what a bunch of oldsters say it means. Sometimes that works out well, sometimes not.
Frankly, having “In God We Trust” makes no more impression on me than the serial number on a dollar bill. I might occasionally think “Who’s this ‘we’, skippy”?
Like it or not, US currency isn’t chinese food- they aren’t going to leave out the MSG.
Saturday August 16th, 2008 @ 3:34pm
No religious nuts in britain? where did the puritains come from?
Saturday August 16th, 2008 @ 6:42pm
The “In God We Trust” on US currency is an instrument. A socio-cognitive engineering device used subtly to reinforce “God” into the psyche of citizens. Let’s look at how societies work. People have common interests and such, which causes them to relate to others with the same interests. So, knowing this, the US government uses the common interest of “God” to keep its citizens in a sort of check. For example, a Christian is watching Pres. Bush speak on global terrorism. Bush may be talking about some extreme measures for this problem, we all know what they are. He uses “God” and “Evil-doers” to establish a commonality between his citizens and his ideas. People are more likely to agree with you on a topic if you utilize ideas that are common amongst them. Just watch some TV if you don’t believe me. This “MSG” as Bipolar2 puts it, a term which I adore greatly, is an intelligent use of commonality. Religion and faith have and possibly always will allow for some rather shabby stuff to go down, all the while those in commonality with said religion or faith follow suit largely unquestioning. This device is everywhere, everywhere! Not only with “God” but with many, many things. So the US is, “One nation under God.” One nation governed by “God,” a nation counting on its citizens to allow “God” to rule them. Wait, sounds like a monarchy to me. Remember the crusades?? Yeah.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Monday August 25th, 2008 @ 4:19pm
I’ve never seen this many pointless responses to a pointless picture. You are judging country by how they style their currency. And you are calling those with a religious beliefs nuts. Atheist fucks
Tuesday August 26th, 2008 @ 1:20am
Belief in the supernatural is irrational.
Accept it.
Saturday August 30th, 2008 @ 7:26pm
People can say whatever they want about Britains past of religion because Britain isn’t like that anymore and im very greatful im British :)
Sunday September 28th, 2008 @ 1:31am
not as dumb as you on 25 Aug 2008 at 4:19pm #
wrote;
“I’ve never seen this many pointless responses to a pointless picture. You are judging country by how they style their currency. And you are calling those with a religious beliefs nuts. Atheist fucks”
Don’t you just love these Christians showing us the loving tolerant view they hold of people who don’t share their beliefs?
Yep he really learned the lessons well that Jesus strived to teach him. Especially the last two words in his post. I wonder if he could tell us when Jesus said that? Maybe he figures that why Jesus said turn the other cheek, So he could talk out of both sides of his mouth. LOL
Monday December 1st, 2008 @ 3:55pm
not as dumb as you Says:
“… Atheist fucks”.
Of course we do. And so do idiots – that’s how you were made.
Monday June 1st, 2009 @ 6:55am
It is a bit bizarre how the country founded by the anti-religious, with a secular government, now has so many religious nuts and Great Britain which has this national church is becoming dominantly atheist.
People in Britain have slipped away from the irrationality of religion but I think too many people still believe in ghosts over here.
I think America will go the same way pretty soon thanks to the evangelicals. All the more rational believers don’t want to be associated with the crazies. This is probably one of the causes of the decline in the catholic church.
Monday June 1st, 2009 @ 4:26pm
This is why god made magic markers. I just cross out ‘In god we..’ and simply leave ‘Trust’.
Sunday June 7th, 2009 @ 4:30am
Fair enough, sane Americans do exist, we’re just in short supply. -_-‘
Wednesday June 24th, 2009 @ 12:45pm
im glad to say that i live in britain, maters of religion VERY RARELY come up, except when there is an extremest group protesting or when something regarding a specific religion happens,
its very much either a atheist country or a “weak tea” country regarding religion
Friday July 17th, 2009 @ 2:38am
olleicua, there is a difference between the color green and the phrase “in god we trust” – namely, that the latter postulates an opinion intended to speak for all Americans. Not anymore, you say? Well, obviously, but why is it still on our currency? The color green makes no definitive statement about anyone. I think the only real reason anyone could say that “in god we trust” does not discriminate against atheists is because to say otherwise would involve the replacement of our currency.
You change the dollar, people accuse you of hating America or destroying tradition or any number of fallacious accusations. I agree that it’s a non-issue, and not discrimination in the truest sense because the words were coined before any of began to take up the argument.
But I’m reasonably sure there were plenty of atheists, agnostics, humanists and secularists in America in 1957, when “In God We Trust” was first printed on money. And I’m positive that the people in charge of printing that money knew that. My only assumption is that that segment of the population (small but historically present in our country since its conception) was not considered particularly important. Or the Mint simply didn’t care.
Times change.
Friday July 17th, 2009 @ 9:49pm
AMERICA IS AWESOME! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! YOU BRITS CAN GO DRINK YOUR TEA AND NOT TEND TO YOUR BAD TEETH WHILE WE GET MOOOOOOOONEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYY AND SEX AND ALL OF THE OTHER COOL THINGS IN THIS WORLD… is what i would say if i didn’t just lose my job in the recession. damn…
Sunday July 19th, 2009 @ 11:02am
Actually Darwin lived in whole world full of religious nuts.
Monday July 27th, 2009 @ 12:56pm
Hm. Wonder when Ben Franklin was President…
Wednesday July 29th, 2009 @ 6:57am
Andy wrote:
“Hm. Wonder when Ben Franklin was President…”
That was in 1776, right after Columbus discovered Europe, right?
:-)
Sunday February 21st, 2010 @ 6:13pm
In Nature’s God We Trust.
Thursday February 25th, 2010 @ 2:43am
I have always been of the opinion that the UK is becoming predominantly atheist but since I started my new job (I’m a “musician” so I work a lot of McJobs) I have been amazed at how many creationists I now know. As a result of immigration, particularly from Africa and the Caribbean there has been a large influx of religion, and it’s quite scary pentecostal Christianity as well-speaking in tongues, creationism etc. It seems to me that most young black people are not only Christian but also claim they don’t “believe” in evolution. It drives me barmy. The friends of mine like this are all very nice and usually intelligent people but they just won’t countenance the idea that the bible is fictional. It’s a scary world.
Wednesday June 9th, 2010 @ 1:37pm
I much prefer the FSM to the MSG
Laughing!!
Wednesday June 9th, 2010 @ 3:41pm
ok (Y)
Monday November 15th, 2010 @ 2:37am
Alright you ignorant atheists… if there is no god, then HOW DOES THE SUN KEEP ORBITING THE EARTH? BAM!
You see people, that’s how you deal with atheist skum. With LOGIC! Hit that bullseye and the rest of the dominoes will come down like a house of cards… CHECKMATE!
And on that note…
Dunt dun duuh DAAAAHHHH!
!!!!!!!!!MY ATHEIST STORE!!!!!!!!!
Aristotle’s Muse
This is my store. Maybe wearing an atheist T-shirt won’t change the world, but enough of them just might.
Monday November 15th, 2010 @ 6:43am
Quoting Zap Brannigan, eh?
Wednesday April 27th, 2011 @ 1:09pm
Physics.
Friday January 21st, 2011 @ 10:34pm
Is this money supposed to be making a point? It might be slightly annoying, but it certainly doesn’t accurately reflect American constitutional law or American society. Matters of religion in America’s secular public school system have been appropriately settled with respect to the constitution, and attempts to infuse creationism and “intelligent design” with public education have been consistently struck down as unconstitutional, even by religious judges. School prayer cannot legally be endorsed by the faculty of a public institution. There is absolutely no mandatory religious education of any kind in public schools. I attended one. Public education is incredibly secular, and not nearly as poor in quality as many are made to believe. In fact, I received a wonderful education at an average American public school
The fact that we permit this minor annoyance speaks only to our inclusiveness and tolerance. We do not, however, quietly permit fundamentalists to destroy the secular framework of our nation, a nation which produces such a disproportionate chunk of the world’s scientific literature, and has produced so many unfettered scientific and social movements.
The fact that our grab bag of asshats get a lot of air time on TV in the UK and Europe means very little to most Americans. If that’s the picture you want to paint of America to make yourselves feel better, by all means go ahead. To be fair we mostly see those English speakers from the other side of the Atlantic as misinformed egotistical pricks.
Saturday January 22nd, 2011 @ 4:25pm
I love people who confuse theory with practice.
Tuesday August 2nd, 2011 @ 6:47pm
I wish they would put something cool like a Hummingbird on our money but no.
Thursday December 8th, 2011 @ 8:30pm
Actually, it perfectly describes us. Most of the people in the US are complete idiots. It’s quite annoying.
Wednesday July 25th, 2012 @ 6:40am
I would replace “in good we trust” with “trust in reason”
Sunday October 28th, 2012 @ 9:17am
This is what I hate, Most Christians believe in evolution and stuff like that. I go to a catholic school and they teach us about charles darwin.
Friday May 13th, 2016 @ 7:09pm
Well, “God Save the Queen”