Friday, March 15, 2013

Really, Atheists?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), is suing the United States Treasury Department to remove the words "In God We Trust" from all U.S. currency, because they claim the motto is offensive to nonreligious citizens.

Nineteen plaintiffs and the FFRF filed the lawsuit, Newdow v. Congress in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 1. The civil action claims the motto In God We Trust violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
The plaintiffs' claim that the motto is offensive and forces atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, freethinkers and skeptics to bear a religious message they don't agree with, and are thus forced, when using U.S. currency, to make a false declaration regarding their religious views.
According to Dan Barker, co-president of the Wisconsin-based FFRF, a nonprofit organization that represents atheists and agnostics, the majority of Americans believe the motto sends a religious message out to everyone who collects or uses U.S. currency.
"[In God We Trust] is indeed considered to be a religious phrase," Barker said in an interview with The Christian Post on Thursday. "The message belongs in churches, private institutions and can be shared by missionaries. But who is the 'we' representing, if not all of us trust in a God?"
Barker believes that recent survey responses show one out of every five Americans is not a believer, and the motto is forcing nonbelievers to proselytize for monotheism when they travel overseas and exchange U.S. currency for local money.
"Part of the complaint is the message 'In God We Trust' sends to people in the U.S. and overseas," said Barker, noting this lawsuit is the fourth attempt to remove the motto from U.S. currency. Previous lawsuits were filed in California, Texas and Wisconsin.
He added that when the motto was proposed in the 1950s, the purpose was to proselytize for religion, specifically Christianity. "The idea was that 'as our money goes around the world, we are sharing our Christianity.'"
Barker told CP that the FFRF and 19 other plaintiffs are not recommending that the motto should be replaced by any other message, they just want the words In God We Trust to be removed.  "We are not suggesting that the motto should be changed to 'There Is No God,' or 'We Don't Believe In God,' because that would be offensive and the government should be neutral, and shouldn't promote or attack either side."
The three previous attempts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency have been unsuccessful, but Barker believes that Mike Newdow, a member of the FFRF honorary board, has a strong case.
Newdow previously challenge to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2002, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals ruled that the pledge's use of "One nation under God" was unconstitutional. However, in 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Newdow's lawsuit against Elk Grove Unified School District (where his daughter attended school), because they found he lacked standing to sue since of his daughter. 

This is what I've been talking about this whole time: atheists don't care about the law when it doesn't suit their purposes. In fact, I'll go further and state they'd kill every Christian in the world if the law didn't stop them.
I'll go into the stupidity of the FFRF in a later post, but for now let's focus on Michael Newdow.

Who's Michael Newdow?
He's the man who sued the Elk Grove Unified School District because he claimed making his daughter recite "Under God' in the Pledge violated the Establishment Clause. The court threw the case out after they found out he did not have legal custody of his daughter, thus he could not sue on her behalf. Having not learned his lesson, he tried this lawsuit again in the Eastern California, this time suing on behalf of other parents and their children. This was thrown out because idiot Newdow didn't realize he didn't have standing in this case either, but the parents did. Though the judge ruled in favor of Newdow and the parents, their victory was VERY short lived. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling then stated Newdow didn't have the right to sue in the first place.
But his stupidity doesn't even there (atheist stupidity rarely does). Let's look at some other idiotic claims he made:
-On  a Fox News interview, he equated "In God We Trust" with promoting racial segregation.
-In a radio interview, he showed he knew nothing about the Pledge Protection Act.
-He claimed the motto was a religious slogan; a federal judge told him he was full of it and threw the case out.
-Three times he sued to prevent anyone from saying "So help me God" at presidential inaugurations. All three attempts failed.

Do you see a pattern here? Every time he thinks he can sue but every time a judge throws his case out because of an amateur mistake he keeps making over and over. This is even sadder once you consider Newdow claims he has a legal degree from the University of Michagan.

Either U of M has very low standards or that's a complete lie because I don't see how one person can make the same legal mistake and not learn anything from it.

Another proof atheists are morons.

1 comment: