THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
To the surprise of absolutely no one, this is not the first time this atheist tool has tried this garbage.
Those who follow idiotic lawsuits will recall in early 2002 a California man tried to sue his daughter's school over her saying "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegience. While he did win over the local courts, the circuit court overturned the ruling after it was discovered he did not have legal custody of his daughter, thus could not sue on her behalf.
The idiot lawyer in the news story IS that man.
In fact, to show how futile this lawsuit is, let's look at some past history relevant to this issue:
In law, there exists a concept called standing, defined as the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case..in other words, having the legal right to sue.
In 1923, the concept was first formed when the US Supreme Court heard a case called Massachusetts vs Mellon. In the case, two men sued to prevent certain government expenditures because they claimed said expenditures violated the Tenth Amendment. The Court ruled against both because neither man could prove they suffered any particular harm.
From that, it was believed no taxpaying citizen had the right to sue against what they felt was improper use of public funds…until 1968 when the Court created what became known as the Flast Test.
Now, any atheist reading this should NOT get cocky and think they've found a loophole because a) the majority of legal scholars admit there are VERY FEW scenarios where plaintiffs would pass the Flast Test and b) two atheist groups tried this argument in front of the Supreme Court…and both lost their respective cases.
An individual suing the State doesn't look too promising either. In 1970 a man named Stephen Aronow was the first man to file a suit against IN GOD WE TRUST in US currency. Citing the previously mentioned cases, an appeals court ruled he had no standing to sue.
"But wait," a blathering atheist fool will object. "How do you explain the motto has the word God in it? Isn't that promoting religion over atheism?"
McGowan v. Maryland says a law might sound religious but as long as it has a secular purpose, it doesn't violate the law.
In other words, the person in the article claiming the phrase is causing harm is full of it because a) legally, he doesn't have the right to sue and b) even if he did, no one is forcing him to have paper currency in his pocket.
Next thing you know, atheists will sue the Constitution because it has the phrase "in the year of our lord" written in it.
Oops…better not give them any ideas: they've shown what idiots they are.