Select Page

Atheist Challenge “In God We Trust” In Court and Lose

Atheist Challenge “In God We Trust” In Court and Lose

In an event that now seems to be as regular as football or the change of seasons, once more an atheist group has decided to challenge the term “In God We Trust” listed on our money, once more the results have been the same, they lost, so why do they keep doing this, and why is it that this is allowed to stand and the Ten Commandments aren’t?

The term “In  God We Trust” was not included on our money when we were a young nation, some have asked why? The reason is simple; it had nothing to do with a lack of belief, if you look at the founding fathers, or even the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, the majority of them were deacons or elders in their churches, there were even preachers in that mix.

The reason it was not included as it was presumed everyone believed in such a manner, being an openly practicing atheist or agnostic at that time would have been seen as totally unacceptable. So why then was the term “In God We Trust” added to our currency?

The striking of this on our coins started in 1864 during the civil war; religious fervor ran high, both sides felt they had the Almighty on their side, so many to show this fervor decided that it was a great thing to display this on our coins. Paper money did not come until about a 100 years later when President Eisenhauer signed into the law putting this term on our currency.

So then the question arises, does the atheist have a right to be offended by this and demand that it be taken from our currency? I guess everyone has a right to be offended, but that for the most part is kind of like an opinion, it only means something to the person that is offended, sometimes more than one is offended, so you have a group, but should a small group dictate to the majority what is offensive or not?

Sadly today this seems to be the way of things, we have the left having fits about everything offending them, they demand that if they are offended you need to stop whatever it is that is offending them, but if we, in reality, lived this way, we would have to wear bland clothes, say generic phrases intended to offend no one, and would have to live in a boxed-in world where our main concern is who would be offended, I say, “To hell with that! If you are offended, it is your problem to deal with it, not mine to change.”

Now, some offenses have to be changed, there is racial insecurity, but this does not give the other race a right to claim everything is offensive or racist. There is religious offense, but no faith has a right to be offended by everything, some people have the right to believe as they please, it is the same way with this case, you have a right to be offended by the term “In God We Trust”, you, on the other hand, do not have a right to infringe on the majority who aren’t.

Michael Newdow, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in an email called it “utterly revolting” that “the history of governmental denigration of a suspect class should trump [the] principle” that neutrality is the “touchstone” for analyzing claims under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Newdow is also known for unsuccessful litigation challenging the inclusion of “under God” in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.

His claim is just political posturing; every class is offended by something of their opposition, take a look at the liberals, Trump tweets, the left loses their minds, we can see it in action. It is evident that Trump should not stop his tweets, I would be offended if he did, it would stop my entertainment watching the left have mental breakdowns and losing their minds everytime he does.

So what about the Ten Commandments? I used to find issue with this, and wonder why this was not allowed to go up, but the reason has to do with specific faiths, the Judaic Christian faith, if you leave this up, do you wish to have what we see now, some insane Luciferianism statue next to the ten commandments because some satanist group is having a fit?

I think the problem with displaying the ten commandments for the courts is that unlike the generic term “In God We Trust”, the ten commandments can be isolated to only a specific faith. Thus you are seen by the courts as favoring one religion over the next. For you that find this offensive, would you be comfortable having the Islamic code of faith outside the courtroom? I know I wouldn’t.

In the end, I think the attack against faith has taken on a measure that is beyond just trying to ease the minds of people that don’t believe, these people have taken it upon themselves to try to remove any vestige of faith from all our lives, this I have a huge problem with. We have the people that used to be the prosecuted now trying to reverse and do the same, to attack the people in vengeance for what they see as a slight against their own beliefs for years. Two wrongs never make a right.

My father used to tell me, if you think you are being prosecuted by a large group, you win the ability to stop them from doing this, then you turn around and you start to attack them as they did you, you risk them figuring out that they are the majority, there is really nothing to prevent them from returning to what they did before, but even in a stronger manner.

We need to keep this in mind, seems too many have forgotten that, if we continue down this path, the majority will tire, then you could be looking at what was fought for taken away, and an even more hostile system was returning.

Military Showing Freedom of Religion Unacceptable

It’s “In Science We Learn”, Not “In Science We Trust.”

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Author has studied Middle East History for the last 35 years, am a lifetime student of history. Has an interest in sports, tech, history and political events. Works as a Republican political commentator who looks at events from a conservative's perspective.

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Visit Our Sponsors

Get Your 0censor TShirt!

Visit Our Sponsors