Spending Godless Money : ATOM 0.3

Plime/1Spending Godless Money : ATOM 0.3Spending Godless Money : ATOM 0.3www.plime.complime@plime.com2008, www.plime.com.2008-07-20T06:39:33+01:00<![CDATA[Spending Godless Money]]>40480

2007-11-03T01:00:03+01:002007-11-03T01:00:03+01:00

comments (41)

edit history (1)

< 1 2 3 >

<![CDATA[gfmusic @ 6/2/2008 5:56:37 PM]]>268636

You mean back when our Founding Fathers said that a just government could not survive without Christ? Back when the official textbook for public schools was the Bible? Back when...]]>

2008-06-02T17:56:37+01:002008-06-02T17:56:37+01:00
You mean back when our Founding Fathers said that a just government could not survive without Christ? Back when the official textbook for public schools was the Bible? Back when they opened every meeting of Congress with prayer? Back when they declared that our unalienable rights upon which the Constitution is based come not from man, but from God? Yeah, that's what I want, too. Let's go back to when we truly were "one Nation Under God."

Re: "Where's George": the secret service actually investigated Where's George and made them stop selling their stamps because they deface currency. This is noted on their website at wheresgeorge.com

I actually wonder "Where's George?" A lot of people are claiming to speak for our First President and his contemporaries, but they never seem to bother to read their actual writings. According to a lot of these people, the Declaration of Independence itself would be unconstitutional by today's liberal's standards.

http://www.polyticks.net/poly-ticks050702.jpg

http://www.polyticks.net/poly-ticks050820.jpg

]]><![CDATA[mewhitenoise @ 4/22/2008 2:08:39 PM]]>244745

2008-04-22T14:08:39+01:002008-04-22T14:08:39+01:00<![CDATA[lostsoul135 @ 4/15/2008 1:42:21 AM]]>238816

2008-04-15T01:42:21+01:002008-04-15T01:42:21+01:00<![CDATA[scogostology @ 4/11/2008 4:57:27 PM]]>236659

Christian priests and preachers like Ro...]]>

2008-04-11T16:57:27+01:002008-04-11T16:57:27+01:00
Christian priests and preachers like Robertson, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton should not be engaging in politics. Are these people aware of the US Constitution at all?

Secondly, money is not evil. It becomes evil when evil people use it in evil ways to do evils to other human beings. scogostology.com]]><![CDATA[Ellz @ 11/5/2007 5:25:13 PM]]>133724

« pulsisx : I have a little rubber stamp I used to use on one dollar bills that said "I grew hemp". looked like a little cartoon speach ...]]>

2007-11-05T17:25:13+01:002007-11-05T17:25:13+01:00« pulsisx : I have a little rubber stamp I used to use on one dollar bills that said "I grew hemp". looked like a little cartoon speach bubble on GW. Good fun for about a week.

Other fun is to use highlighters to apply garish makeup styles to dead presidents' faces.

Hail SatanThis needs to be copy/pasted for posterity's sake.

LMAO.]]><![CDATA[deedlezx @ 11/4/2007 2:54:26 PM]]>132782
« BrownTrout : Anyone have change for a dollar??

« BrownTrout : Anyone have change for a dollar??

you're funny!]]><![CDATA[BrownTrout @ 11/4/2007 12:08:40 PM]]>132700

]]><![CDATA[pulsisx @ 11/3/2007 10:49:56 PM]]>132419

Other fun is to use highlighters to apply garish makeup styles to dead ...]]>
2007-11-03T22:49:56+01:002007-11-03T22:49:56+01:00
Other fun is to use highlighters to apply garish makeup styles to dead presidents' faces.

Hail Satan]]><![CDATA[hypersapien @ 11/3/2007 10:38:42 PM]]>132416
« icepigs : To 2Many: Actually, 2many - you're incorrect. You can draw or do whatever you want to money as long as you don't alter the de...]]>
2007-11-03T22:38:42+01:002007-11-03T22:38:42+01:00« icepigs : To 2Many: Actually, 2many - you're incorrect. You can draw or do whatever you want to money as long as you don't alter the denomination, the serial numbers, or make it unrecognizable.

If marking out the word "God" was enough to make it illegal, then there are thousands of Where's George users that could spend a lot of time in prison.

To everyone: As far as the whole religion thing goes, I chose not to get involved because it is a no-win situation no matter what you believe (because you will believe what you want - no matter what I say, you won't change your mind...and no matter what you say, I won't change mine).I do agree with that. You aren't going to change their minds about what they believe. They didn't arrive at their beliefs rationally, so rational arguments will have no affect.

We should take the time, however, to educate some of them on how they might be treating people who don't share their beliefs. If a person wants to believe in a god, that's fine. The second that they start insisting that other people need to believe in their god, they've crossed the line and their mistake needs to be pointed out to them.

Also, if they are abusing science to publicly justify their supernatural beliefs, spreading misinformation about what science says and how it works.]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 11/3/2007 9:43:55 PM]]>132387
« 2manyusernames : Icepigs, it is illegal to deface money. To 2Many: Actually, 2many - you're incorrect. You can draw or do wha...]]>
2007-11-03T21:43:55+01:002007-11-03T21:43:55+01:00« 2manyusernames : Icepigs, it is illegal to deface money. To 2Many: Actually, 2many - you're incorrect. You can draw or do whatever you want to money as long as you don't alter the denomination, the serial numbers, or make it unrecognizable.

If marking out the word "God" was enough to make it illegal, then there are thousands of Where's George users that could spend a lot of time in prison.

To everyone: As far as the whole religion thing goes, I chose not to get involved because it is a no-win situation no matter what you believe (because you will believe what you want - no matter what I say, you won't change your mind...and no matter what you say, I won't change mine).]]><![CDATA[imnotyoo @ 11/3/2007 8:51:08 PM]]>132342
« 2manyusernames :
Having school prayers is vastly different than the passive use of a phrase on money.Agreed. Let kids talk to invi...]]>
2007-11-03T20:51:08+01:002007-11-03T20:51:08+01:00« 2manyusernames :
Having school prayers is vastly different than the passive use of a phrase on money.Agreed. Let kids talk to invisible people in the sky all the want, just don't force the rest of them to do it in public schools.

Off topic: My kitty's tummy is making weird sounds.]]><![CDATA[hypersapien @ 11/3/2007 7:46:09 PM]]>132301
« 2manyusernames : Actually it isn't. That is a common misconception. That phrase merely meant that there would be no official state-relion ala The...]]>
2007-11-03T19:46:09+01:002007-11-03T19:46:09+01:00« 2manyusernames : Actually it isn't. That is a common misconception. That phrase merely meant that there would be no official state-relion ala The Church of England. It didn't mean, nor was it the framers intent to disallow any mention of religion.

I guess the declaration of independance itself is unconsitutional (albeit retroactively) since it acknowledged there was a creator.
The Declaration of Independence isn't US law. It was written before the United States even existed. Also, it uses the word 'creator' which might not necessarily be a god. Remember that the document was written by a Deist.

« 2manyusernames :
The use of the word god does not establish a religion, nor does it prohibit the practice of one.
The First Amendment doesn't say 'establish a religion'. It says 'respecting an establishment of religion'. The phrase 'In god we trust' might not endorse a specific religion, but it endorses religion in general over irreligion, which is just as bad.]]><![CDATA[hypersapien @ 11/3/2007 7:35:41 PM]]>132294
« tragluk : What religeon does it establish by putting "In God we trust" on a peice of paper? And since when is Allah not someone's god?...]]>
2007-11-03T19:35:41+01:002007-11-03T19:35:41+01:00« tragluk : What religeon does it establish by putting "In God we trust" on a peice of paper? And since when is Allah not someone's god? Perhaps for PC sake we should say "In a higher power some of us do and some of us do not choose to trust."
Here's a better idea. Lets lose the phrase entirely and go back to E Pluribus Unum.

« tragluk :
For that matter, we should start removing prayer at congress..
Yes, we should.

« tragluk :
and get rid of all statues and sayings on famous landmarks which refer to God. And Heaven Forbid (heehe) we say "One Nation Under God" Because that's just poking the Atheists right in the eye.
Yes, we should get rid of that phrase from the pledge too. It was inserted in the 1950s as a direct result of McCarthyism.

« tragluk :
When will the Atheists respect our rights to HAVE a God as part of our beliefs as much as we respect their right to not have to worship him?
No one is denying that you have the right to believe in a god. You do not have the right to have the government force it on everyone else.]]><![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 11/3/2007 5:39:34 PM]]>132183
« imnotyoo : There's a difference between 'god' and "God".

Allah is someone's god, but Allah is not God.

God ...]]>
2007-11-03T17:39:34+01:002007-11-03T17:39:34+01:00« imnotyoo : There's a difference between 'god' and "God".

Allah is someone's god, but Allah is not God.

God with a capital G is the Christian's god. They didn't give him a name like all the other religions did. The Christians named their god God, much like naming a cat Cat.

Therefore, "In God we trust" refers to the Christian god, not just any ol' god.

Wow, are you serious?

YES, prayer should be removed in congress, and the pledge should go back to how it was before they added the god bit in there.

I'm an atheist and I do respect your right to worship whatever you want. However, you do NOT have the right to impose your beliefs on me. And yes, having your religious things be a part of government IS imposing your beliefs on me. As a Christian (I assume), would you like to have Muslim prayers in your public schools, on your money, etc? I doubt it. As long as it's your religion in the government, it's fine right? Well not all Americans are Christians and Christianity should not be in American government.I agree that there should not be tax-payer supported prayers in school. We shouldn't have to pay for such things. If they want to do it off the clock, fine.

Having school prayers is vastly different than the passive use of a phrase on money.]]><![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 11/3/2007 5:22:11 PM]]>132174

If there is a true seperation of church and state, then churches should be treated as any other business. Tax them. Tax their income, tax their real estate, add sales tax to t...]]>
2007-11-03T17:22:11+01:002007-11-03T17:22:11+01:00
If there is a true seperation of church and state, then churches should be treated as any other business. Tax them. Tax their income, tax their real estate, add sales tax to their merchandise, etc etc.

allow them to take tax write off for true charity work they do and yes, allow them to participate in politics (since they ignore that rule now anyhow)]]><![CDATA[imnotyoo @ 11/3/2007 5:09:43 PM]]>132168
« tragluk : What religeon does it establish by putting "In God we trust" on a peice of paper? And since when is Allah not some...]]>
2007-11-03T17:09:43+01:002007-11-03T17:09:43+01:00« tragluk : What religeon does it establish by putting "In God we trust" on a peice of paper? And since when is Allah not someone's god? Perhaps for PC sake we should say "In a higher power some of us do and some of us do not choose to trust."There's a difference between 'god' and "God".

Allah is someone's god, but Allah is not God.

God with a capital G is the Christian's god. They didn't give him a name like all the other religions did. The Christians named their god God, much like naming a cat Cat.

Therefore, "In God we trust" refers to the Christian god, not just any ol' god.

For that matter, we should start removing prayer at congress.. and get rid of all statues and sayings on famous landmarks which refer to God. And Heaven Forbid (heehe) we say "One Nation Under God" Because that's just poking the Atheists right in the eye.

When will the Atheists respect our rights to HAVE a God as part of our beliefs as much as we respect their right to not have to worship him?
Wow, are you serious?

YES, prayer should be removed in congress, and the pledge should go back to how it was before they added the god bit in there.

I'm an atheist and I do respect your right to worship whatever you want. However, you do NOT have the right to impose your beliefs on me. And yes, having your religious things be a part of government IS imposing your beliefs on me. As a Christian (I assume), would you like to have Muslim prayers in your public schools, on your money, etc? I doubt it. As long as it's your religion in the government, it's fine right? Well not all Americans are Christians and Christianity should not be in American government.]]><![CDATA[Lunarcadia @ 11/3/2007 5:07:03 PM]]>132166
« 2manyusernames : Icepigs, it is illegal to deface money. It isn't a crime that anyone is likely to be charged with, but it is a crime.

...]]>
2007-11-03T17:07:03+01:002007-11-03T17:07:03+01:00« 2manyusernames : Icepigs, it is illegal to deface money. It isn't a crime that anyone is likely to be charged with, but it is a crime.

The whole idea of the seperation of church and state is not in the constitution and was not the intent of the founding fathers.

The concept came from a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson assuring a church that they didn't have to worry about laws that wouldn't allow them to practice their religion, that there wouldn't be an official religion.

The constitution merely states that no law will be passed that will prevent someone from worshiping who/what they choose and to even practice the religion as they choose (provided such worship doesn't break any laws or infringe on others rights)

The "in god we trust" is not unconstitutional. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

In any case who the heck cares? Seriously one's life must be just incredible, filled with gumdrop trees and rivers of lemonaid if your biggest grief in life is the addition of "god" to our money.

Yes, you have religious freedom. Yes, that freedom allows you to not believe in a god. Having "god" on the money doesn't effect that unless you feel you are so weak-willed that seeing the word go on your money will brainwash you into believing in God.Very well said. I couldn't agree more.]]><![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 11/3/2007 4:25:37 PM]]>132153
« hypersapien:The phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in the Constitution. The idea definitely is in the Constitution. The First ...]]>
2007-11-03T16:25:37+01:002007-11-03T16:25:37+01:00« hypersapien:The phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in the Constitution. The idea definitely is in the Constitution. The First Amendment says 'Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. Putting a religious phrase on our money is an endorsement of religion by the government and is flat-out unconstitutional.Actually it isn't. That is a common misconception. That phrase merely meant that there would be no official state-relion ala The Church of England. It didn't mean, nor was it the framers intent to disallow any mention of religion.

I guess the declaration of independance itself is unconsitutional (albeit retroactively) since it acknowledged there was a creator.

The use of the word god does not establish a religion, nor does it prohibit the practice of one.

This has been ruled on before. Your opinon may differ, but the courts and judges have ruled that it simply isn't.

« hypersapien
So we're only allowed to try to fix our biggest griefs?

I didn't say that and you know that. How about we stick to our top 414,854 griefs and than tackle little things like the word god on money?

« hypersapien
This is an insult to everyone who doesn't believe in a god. The government is effectively saying that if you don't believe in a god then you aren't a real American.
That is freaking hilarious. Really good one... Wait, you are joking right? Surely you don't think a little word is offending everyone who doesn't believe in God? I guarantee you 99.999% of athiest, agnostics, and pagans couldn't care less. It does not effect their lives any bit. Hell, I bet even Richard Dawkins doesn't lose sleep over the motto.

How the heck do you get the idea that having the phrase "in god we trust" mean that you are only a real american if you believe in god. That is silly and just rhetoric. No one is saying nor implying that. No one even truely feels that way.

If a simple phrase is enough to insult someone, to get them all riled up, wanting to protest and be an activist, they really need to cut down on the caffiene and relax.

« hypersapien You don't get it, do you? This is about not being condescended to by the government.
No, I get it. You, however are seeing things and creating problems where none exists. The phrase is not being condescending. Really.

Read my posts and comments. I am not some hyper-religious person. I cast great doubt on much of what the bible states to have happened. I am merely stating that the motto is not unconstitutional. That is not a matter of debate. As I said, it was ruled to be allowed by judges and courts with far more information on the subject than you or I.

That and being upset about such a little thing is very silly.

Than again, maybe we go even further. We should make it a crime for any government official while on the clock or in any sort of official duty to say the words "god bless you" after someone sneezes. After all the use of such a phrase means that if you don't believe in God you will not get better and you don't really want others to get better.]]><![CDATA[tragluk @ 11/3/2007 3:38:40 PM]]>132139
« hypersapien : The phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in the Constitution. The idea definitely is in the Constitution. The Firs...]]>
2007-11-03T15:38:40+01:002007-11-03T15:38:40+01:00« hypersapien : The phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in the Constitution. The idea definitely is in the Constitution. The First Amendment says 'Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. Putting a religious phrase on our money is an endorsement of religion by the government and is flat-out unconstitutional.What religeon does it establish by putting "In God we trust" on a peice of paper? And since when is Allah not someone's god? Perhaps for PC sake we should say "In a higher power some of us do and some of us do not choose to trust."

For that matter, we should start removing prayer at congress.. and get rid of all statues and sayings on famous landmarks which refer to God. And Heaven Forbid (heehe) we say "One Nation Under God" Because that's just poking the Atheists right in the eye.

When will the Atheists respect our rights to HAVE a God as part of our beliefs as much as we respect their right to not have to worship him?]]><![CDATA[tvirus @ 11/3/2007 1:39:17 PM]]>132107
« thenegativeone : But either way, it's a futile effort. I'm not in the US, but I would agree, the government has no right to endorse re...]]>
2007-11-03T13:39:17+01:002007-11-03T13:39:17+01:00« thenegativeone : But either way, it's a futile effort. I'm not in the US, but I would agree, the government has no right to endorse relegion, however, irrespective of this, What is he achieving?He's just helping raising awareness for the people who will use his money after he spends it. Sure, this isn't going to make the government take the phrase off the dollar, but it is a start. If the idea catches on then he will begin to amass more protesters like himself, and as the movement becomes bigger people will come up with more ways to promote their cause.]]><![CDATA[chez @ 11/3/2007 1:03:13 PM]]>132093
2007-11-03T13:03:13+01:002007-11-03T13:03:13+01:00<![CDATA[thenegativeone @ 11/3/2007 11:04:27 AM]]>132046
« hypersapien : He isn't doing it because of what he doesn't believe, he's doing it because of what he does believe: that the US ...]]>
2007-11-03T11:04:27+01:002007-11-03T11:04:27+01:00« hypersapien : He isn't doing it because of what he doesn't believe, he's doing it because of what he does believe: that the US Government has no business endorsing religion.

And I agree with him.But either way, it's a futile effort. I'm not in the US, but I would agree, the government has no right to endorse relegion, however, irrespective of this, What is he achieving?]]><![CDATA[hypersapien @ 11/3/2007 10:59:37 AM]]>132040
« thenegativeone : To be honest, I see absolutely no merit to what this guy is doing. I myself am a very anti-religion kind of person, but I think...]]>
2007-11-03T10:59:37+01:002007-11-03T10:59:37+01:00« thenegativeone : To be honest, I see absolutely no merit to what this guy is doing. I myself am a very anti-religion kind of person, but I think that this guy is just trying to cause a bit of controversy or draw some attention to himself. Is it worth that much effort just because you don't believe something?He isn't doing it because of what he doesn't believe, he's doing it because of what he does believe: that the US Government has no business endorsing religion.

And I agree with him.]]><![CDATA[hypersapien @ 11/3/2007 10:55:39 AM]]>132037
« 2manyusernames :
The whole idea of the seperation of church and state is not in the constitution and was not the intent of the founding fat...]]>
2007-11-03T10:55:39+01:002007-11-03T10:55:39+01:00« 2manyusernames :
The whole idea of the seperation of church and state is not in the constitution and was not the intent of the founding fathers.

The concept came from a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson assuring a church that they didn't have to worry about laws that wouldn't allow them to practice their religion, that there wouldn't be an official religion.
The phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in the Constitution. The idea definitely is in the Constitution. The First Amendment says 'Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. Putting a religious phrase on our money is an endorsement of religion by the government and is flat-out unconstitutional.

« 2manyusernames :
The "in god we trust" is not unconstitutional. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

In any case who the heck cares? Seriously one's life must be just incredible, filled with gumdrop trees and rivers of lemonaid if your biggest grief in life is the addition of "god" to our money.
So we're only allowed to try to fix our biggest griefs? This is an insult to everyone who doesn't believe in a god. The government is effectively saying that if you don't believe in a god then you aren't a real American.
« 2manyusernames :
Yes, you have religious freedom. Yes, that freedom allows you to not believe in a god. Having "god" on the money doesn't effect that unless you feel you are so weak-willed that seeing the word go on your money will brainwash you into believing in God.
You don't get it, do you? This is about not being condescended to by the government.]]><![CDATA[copacetic @ 11/3/2007 10:26:51 AM]]>132019
« 2manyusernames : The quoted part of what you wrote wasn't being a d**k, just misinformed. Read the link in my comment above to see the history o...]]>
2007-11-03T10:26:51+01:002007-11-03T10:26:51+01:00« 2manyusernames : The quoted part of what you wrote wasn't being a d**k, just misinformed. Read the link in my comment above to see the history of the mottoYes but i also think that it is because a dollar could no longer be brought to a bank and exchanged for an equal amount of gold. This saying is supposedly what makes the dollar worth something. and also a warning that this dollar is not worth what it truly represents our dollar is based on "NOTHING" in god we trust that we will be ok with this dollar based on nothing....please take this dollar from me it is backed on our mutual belief in god or mutual disbelief in god but true anarchist you are not because you still spend the damn dollar so thats fine really if you want to change the bill to say in his noodly appendage we trust i don't give a damn maybe it should say "in america we trust" but the world was a lot different back then america was just beginning to realize its future......not that your thing about communism isn't right i just do not believe you are seeing the full scope of it you see by going off of the "gold" standard and on the god standard we were embracing capitilism and free markets and that a dollar is a value of some standard of american "work" but the way i see it america is f**ked too much price cooperation....]]><![CDATA[dollyllama @ 11/3/2007 10:11:09 AM]]>132011
« 2manyusernames : Icepigs, it is illegal to deface money. It isn't a crime that anyone is likely to be charged with, but it is a crime.

...]]>
2007-11-03T10:11:09+01:002007-11-03T10:11:09+01:00« 2manyusernames : Icepigs, it is illegal to deface money. It isn't a crime that anyone is likely to be charged with, but it is a crime.

The whole idea of the seperation of church and state is not in the constitution and was not the intent of the founding fathers.

The concept came from a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson assuring a church that they didn't have to worry about laws that wouldn't allow them to practice their religion, that there wouldn't be an official religion.

The constitution merely states that no law will be passed that will prevent someone from worshiping who/what they choose and to even practice the religion as they choose (provided such worship doesn't break any laws or infringe on others rights)

The "in god we trust" is not unconstitutional. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

In any case who the heck cares? Seriously one's life must be just incredible, filled with gumdrop trees and rivers of lemonaid if your biggest grief in life is the addition of "god" to our money.

Yes, you have religious freedom. Yes, that freedom allows you to not believe in a god. Having "god" on the money doesn't effect that unless you feel you are so weak-willed that seeing the word go on your money will brainwash you into believing in God.As he points out in the article it is not illegal to deface money, it's illegal to deface it to the point where it cannot be used as currency any longer, there's a huge difference. Therefore putting a penny on the railroad tracks and having a train smooch it beyond recognition=illegal, drawing a picture, or writing on the bill=not illegal.

And I don't think it's the word "God" that's the biggest problem with the "In God We Trust" it's the "We". Who is we? Not I. Maybe we could just alter it to "In God Some Of Us Trust" Make everybody happy, I mean as long as they're constantly redesigning these bills anyway.]]><![CDATA[thenegativeone @ 11/3/2007 10:00:31 AM]]>132006
2007-11-03T10:00:31+01:002007-11-03T10:00:31+01:00<![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 11/3/2007 9:41:48 AM]]>132001
« copacetic : well i'm not trying to be a d**k here but i vaguely remember being taught at some point in school that the reason that the...]]>
2007-11-03T09:41:48+01:002007-11-03T09:41:48+01:00« copacetic : well i'm not trying to be a d**k here but i vaguely remember being taught at some point in school that the reason that they added "In God We Trust" to the dollar was because they were crossing the threshold of when a dollar was no longer worth a dollar of gold(although i am from North Carolina so they didn't teach me how to use periods) or they no longer had the reserve of one dollar worth of gold per note..The quoted part of what you wrote wasn't being a d**k, just misinformed. Read the link in my comment above to see the history of the motto]]><![CDATA[imnotyoo @ 11/3/2007 9:15:47 AM]]>131997

The major religion in this country is Christianity, no? So a whole bunch of people are going to like the "In God we trust" bit being on our currency. So, it's okay to them ...]]>
2007-11-03T09:15:47+01:002007-11-03T09:15:47+01:00
The major religion in this country is Christianity, no? So a whole bunch of people are going to like the "In God we trust" bit being on our currency. So, it's okay to them that it's on there. Now, I'm atheist. I do NOT like the "In God we trust" bulls**t being on our currency (separation of church and state?!!). Flip it around a little bit and make it say "In Allah we trust" or "In Buddha we trust". It would suddenly not be okay to have religious stuff on our money. There would be an outrage. But that's hypocritical. Why is it okay to have a religious thing on a federal thing? It's not.

Again, I just woke up. Please forgive any thought stuff that isn't fully awake yet.]]><![CDATA[copacetic @ 11/3/2007 9:12:36 AM]]>131995
2007-11-03T09:12:36+01:002007-11-03T09:12:36+01:00<![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 11/3/2007 9:10:47 AM]]>131994

The whole idea of the seperation of church and state is not in the constitution and was not the intent of the founding fathers.
2007-11-03T09:10:47+01:002007-11-03T09:10:47+01:00
The whole idea of the seperation of church and state is not in the constitution and was not the intent of the founding fathers.

The concept came from a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson assuring a church that they didn't have to worry about laws that wouldn't allow them to practice their religion, that there wouldn't be an official religion.

The constitution merely states that no law will be passed that will prevent someone from worshiping who/what they choose and to even practice the religion as they choose (provided such worship doesn't break any laws or infringe on others rights)

The "in god we trust" is not unconstitutional. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.

In any case who the heck cares? Seriously one's life must be just incredible, filled with gumdrop trees and rivers of lemonaid if your biggest grief in life is the addition of "god" to our money.

Yes, you have religious freedom. Yes, that freedom allows you to not believe in a god. Having "god" on the money doesn't effect that unless you feel you are so weak-willed that seeing the word go on your money will brainwash you into believing in God.]]><![CDATA[icepigs @ 11/3/2007 8:39:00 AM]]>131989
« Akstika :

There's some legal ways to protest and many illegal ones, he just chose an illegal one.What's he doing that is ill...]]>
2007-11-03T08:39:00+01:002007-11-03T08:39:00+01:00« Akstika :

There's some legal ways to protest and many illegal ones, he just chose an illegal one.What's he doing that is illegal?]]><![CDATA[Akstika @ 11/3/2007 8:00:41 AM]]>131983
« johnnytitan : Here's a « johnnytitan : Here's a transcript of the constitution if that helps.Ya, too bad you didn't link to the Bill of Rights, which is the part of the constitution that can be seen to support the argument. Also, about the unconstitutionality of it, you should take that to the supreme court.

As it is right now though, under United States Code, Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 17, § 333, he can be fined at the court's discretion or go to jail for six months, and that law definently IS constitutional, so he couldn't really take it to the supreme court, because they would never hear the case.

There's some legal ways to protest and many illegal ones, he just chose an illegal one.]]><![CDATA[aclister @ 11/3/2007 7:53:01 AM]]>131981

If you have enough time on your hands to concentrate on such ridiculous activities then good for you.

To coin a well known phrase (pun intended!) "it's only money"]]>
2007-11-03T07:53:01+01:002007-11-03T07:53:01+01:00
If you have enough time on your hands to concentrate on such ridiculous activities then good for you.

To coin a well known phrase (pun intended!) "it's only money"]]><![CDATA[Turtle @ 11/3/2007 6:31:36 AM]]>131975
2007-11-03T06:31:36+01:002007-11-03T06:31:36+01:00<![CDATA[johnnytitan @ 11/3/2007 2:47:37 AM]]>131928
transcript of the constitution if that helps.]]>
2007-11-03T02:47:37+01:002007-11-03T02:47:37+01:00transcript of the constitution if that helps.]]><![CDATA[sholom22 @ 11/3/2007 2:46:05 AM]]>131927
« Mershaullk : I'll be doing this from now on.I concure]]>
2007-11-03T02:46:05+01:002007-11-03T02:46:05+01:00« Mershaullk : I'll be doing this from now on.I concure]]><![CDATA[johnnytitan @ 11/3/2007 2:45:14 AM]]>131925
« Mershaullk : It's to stir up awareness that having "In God We Trust" on our national currency is unconstitutional.How is it u...]]>
2007-11-03T02:45:14+01:002007-11-03T02:45:14+01:00« Mershaullk : It's to stir up awareness that having "In God We Trust" on our national currency is unconstitutional.How is it unconstitutional?]]><![CDATA[Mershaullk @ 11/3/2007 2:00:24 AM]]>131902
« Ellz : Uh, fine, if it's that important to him. I fail to see how this will make much of a difference other than to his personal pride, though.
2007-11-03T02:00:24+01:002007-11-03T02:00:24+01:00« Ellz : Uh, fine, if it's that important to him. I fail to see how this will make much of a difference other than to his personal pride, though.It's to stir up awareness that having "In God We Trust" on our national currency is unconstitutional.]]><![CDATA[Ellz @ 11/3/2007 1:47:39 AM]]>131896
2007-11-03T01:47:39+01:002007-11-03T01:47:39+01:00<![CDATA[Mershaullk @ 11/3/2007 1:30:48 AM]]>131890
2007-11-03T01:30:48+01:002007-11-03T01:30:48+01:00