Sure it’s a feeble endorsement.
But listen to the piggies squeal when someone voices an objection to it.
It may please you to know that the motto does not bother me. Not one iota.
Are you serious? I mean, it’s on all the money. You didn’t notice that?
Personally I think “E Pluribus Unum” is the kickassingest motto ever, and “In God We Trust” sucks really bad, but how could you not NOTICE?
You know what Rick? Fuck you. You have become such a pompous prick lately. Or maybe you always were and I just used to let it slide out of my respect for you.
It bothers me that “In God We Trust” is the national motto and is on all the money. It bothers me that “under God” is in the pledge. It bothers me that courts have people swear on Bibles include “so help me God” in oaths (and I know that these aren’t requirements so don’t bother saying it) and that SCOTUS opens with God save the court and Congress opens with a federally-funded prayer. They don’t bother me enough to open Pit threads or file lawsuits but they do bother me. They bother me because it is the government that I pay for and that is supposed to represent me putting me on notice every day with every piece of currency that because I don’t trust in God my concerns aren’t as important as those of the people who do. The nation fared just fine for what, 175 years or so without emblazoning some people’s trust in God on the currency and it is disgusting that politicians pandered to believers by imposing it on everyone. Legally, it may be perfectly fine for it to be on the money (I happen to disagree with the bullshit “ceremonial deism” ruling but then I’m not sitting on my fat ass in a black robe in DC so what do I know) but the message it sends to those who don’t share the sentiment is one of demeanment.
As Denis noted, more crudely than I would have, if having IGWT on the money and as the motto truly doesn’t constitutionally matter, and if having “under God” in the pledge is truly of such insignificance that it doesn’t offend the First Amendment, then why do those who want them there howl so loudly at the suggestion of deleting them?
It’s not illegal, as far as I know. It’s not mutilation of the currency, nor am I doing it to defraud anyone. I DO NOT change the amount of the bill.
Around here, it was* possible to get “Santa Bucks” and “Bunny Bucks” around Christmas and Easter, respectively. These are regular $1 bills which have had a portrait of Santa or the Easter Bunny pasted over the portrait of Washington. These items are sold for over a dollar each, and marketed as something to put in a child’s stocking or basket. Perfectly spendable money. I’ve also seen bills with the current President’s face (whichever president might be current, that is) and bills with other heroes’ faces on them.
*I say “was” because we no longer shop at the store which offered them.
He is willfully resisting having his ignorance eradicated. Imagine if handy and december had a baby. That’s lissener.
As it happens, he is correct that it is a bad thing that the courts have found IGWT not to be advancing religion, and that the legislative and executive branches found it necessary to introduce the phrase into the government in the first place. But it falls squarely in the “stopped clock” school of correctness. And to be “horrifically offended” by it and to almost lose faith in the country over it (not to mention to ascribe it to President Bush, whom I believe to be the only president in the nation’s history to specifically acknowledge the morality of atheists) is of course, just stupid.
The DIVINE ABSOLUT!?!?!?!?!
OMGWTFBBQ!!!
I’m so converting so I can worship the Divine Vodka!
Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week, try the veal.
:rolleyes: 
How much TV do you watch every day? I rarely watch more than an hour a day, myself. A couple of times a week, when I sit down, I bring my purse with me, and during commercials or slow periods of the show, I go through my bills and black out the words. This takes me a MAXIMUM of five minutes each week, including the time I spend moving my purse from the credenza to the couch, and digging out the Sharpie.
I feel much more strongly about having an official chaplain, and the fact that Congress opens with prayer, etc., etc., but at least I can actually DO something about the money that passes through my hands.
Huh…I thought the motto was “If You Don’t Like It, Go to Russia.” ;D
Seriously though, the motto doesn’t “offend” me…though it does annoy me.
I am kind of offended by the addition of “Under God” to the Pledge of Alligence. I mean, I love my country. I’d die to protect it, so I’d be glad to swear alligence to it. But I will not do so much as speak two words to honor “Yahweh.”
Remember what that U.S. flag-bearer said at the London Olympics, in the early 20th century? “The flag of the United States bows to no Earthly king.” I agree with that…I just happen to think that he wasn’t being broad enough.
Does it bother you to be bothered so much? 
It might help if you stop thinking about everything so literal. Think of all the “God” terms in our nations processes, monies, and oaths, as not so much a belief in God yourself, but a homage to those who founded this land and their belief in God. Its just a word, if you dont believe in it, it doesnt have any power over you anyway. Its not like you CANT use money because your atheist, no one said you had to be Christian to spend a dollar!!
Sure, construct elaborate lies to convince myself that non-believers aren’t being marginalised by this bullshit.
Nope. Doesn’t work.
Which is a classic example of the sort of oxymoronic nonsense courts invent when they don’t have the balls to hand down unpopular rulings.
Correct. 18 USC 17:333 says, in part:
Lynn’s activity, arguably, does not render the note unfit for reissue, and so carries no penalty.
The idea of Lynn being subject to penalties, rather than handing them out, disturbs me on a fundamental level…
Not like I’m up nights worrying about it but when it crosses my mind in engenders annoyance.
IGWT and “under God” were not adopted as an homage to the Founding Fathers. I like to think the FFs would be appalled by the politicization of religion. They after all had the chance to weave religion into the national Constitutional fabric. The government is supposed to be neutral on matters of religion, neither denying them nor endorsing them. Not only did they not do so, they wove religious freedom directly into it. Putting IGWT on the money and declaring it the national motto and adding “under God” to the pledge is taking sides on a religious question. It is an endorsement by government of the religious belief of those who believe in God. Don’t think so? Turn it around and mandate “There Is No God” as our national motto and listen to the faithful scream.
I would also dispute the idea that because I am not a god-believer that the concept of “God” holds no power over me, but it’s late and I don’t know if I could state why coherently at the moment.
I would have thought that Atheists, not believing in any supernatural diety, would be the least offended by the ‘G’ word.
I mean, unless they’re afraid that little eye-in-the-pyramid is beaming subliminal messages into their brain or something. But that’s what tinfoil hats are for.
Lynn, you better sharpie out that eye, too! You wouldn’t want the Government to see what you are doing!
WRT: Sharpie-ing out the words “In God We Trust” on U.S. paper currency.
-
Do you also file off the same words on U.S. coins?
-
What would Jesus do?
Peace.
Who gives a fuck? He’s been dead for 2000 years. 
Don’t think he’d be too keen on seeing his name connected to money or moneylending. He’s awful picky, y’know.
No, that’s the GOP. 