The first atheist monument was constructed on government land in Florida. It was done as a compromise when courts refused to remove a reproduction of the ten commandments. As an atheist, seeing the monument is encouraging; the more recognized we are, the less demonized we will be (hopefully). But the monument technically didn't solve the problem. Our government is supposed to show no preference for religion, but now it's just showing a preference for two (though atheism isn't technically a religion). Do you think this event is taking atheists (and the U.S.) forward or backward?
sort by best latest
You must believe that everyone should quit using all forms of money, credit, and financial institution forms since many depict some form of monument support for some form of belief system. The USA society is a freedom and peace loving land.
God was added to currency during the 50's it wasn't always there and I'd be perfectly fine with it being removed
I would add that the references to god were added illegally without proper hearings. It should be take off. None of my financial forms, save money which is printed at the command of a non-American Corp, have any such references.
IN God we trust was first used in 1964 on USA coins. It was added to paper currency in 1957 after it was selected as the USA motto in 1956. The statement has nothing to do with any law creating a religion. But the radicals like to make chaos. Truth.
In God we trust is a perfect example of constitutional violation. Having "In God we trust" on our currency makes a mockery of the founding father's desire for: "a wall of separation between church and state" as Jefferson wanted and wrote.
In God we trust is not a religion. it is a national motto. History has shown that citizens trust those who trust God. That has nothing to do with establishment of religion. But it does have everything to do with TRUST. TRUTH.
I didn't say it was a religion I said it violates the wall of separation doctrine and thus makes a mockery of what the founding fathers wrote that they wanted.
Agreed Josak. ta you are a very angry person who seems to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "radical" get a grip.
@taburkett, For someone who claims to love freedom and peace so much, it seems that you actually hate freedom so much that you refuse to even enjoy the freedom to think for yourselves, and prefer to give that freedom up. Maybe its fear that u love.
In God we trust is not a law to establish religion. it does not represent anything against the Constitution. Radicals have taken action to discriminate against the Constitution. They state that reference to God is an establishment of religion.
It has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion, it's a violation of wall of separation doctrine do you not understand?
Josak - I understand that "wall of separation" has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Because it does not define the First Amendment. Many have attempted to imply that it does. none have been able to convince the Congress to change the wording
Not true. The supreme court has confirmed the wall of separation doctrine repeatedly.
Actually, the government is not to ESTABLISH a religion...as in a State Church. "Congress shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Wall of separation doctrine as accepted and shown by the Supreme Court from the letters of the writer.
political falsity appears as metaphors like "wall of separation" routinely quoted when speaking of the first amendment. however, the government has yet to prove that this metaphor is exactly the phrase that defines "Congress shall make no law..."
Nope the phrase has been proved repeatedly, there are several Supreme Court cases doing so. As per the constitution SCOTUS is the final interpreter of the constitution. Therefore the wall of separation doctrine is the only proven reading of the law.
Everyone wishes to depict the phrase within a prior court case to render their meaning for a current event. But, many cases have also determined that the "wall of separation" is not valid for artifacts or monuments. It's not global. For this case ?
All those who seek equal space are permitted.
To provide a better activity, the government should not own any property.
This would eliminate all problems with government property with monuments.
I would not be happy with public property being transferred to private hands or to any entity not publicly controlled.
there is little need for government property that discriminates against the citizen. by removing all government property, all discrimination on that property by the government would be eliminated. this would then provide the equality radicals seek.