Woo Hoo!!! Newdow and FFRF Sue over "In doG We Trust" on US Money.

Here is the complaint http://ffrf.org/uploads/legal/IGWTComplaint.pdf (a lengthy legal document)

I've only skimmed it but it looks like they have done a masterful job of showing that the intent of putting it on the money was to endorse religion, and that any claims to the contrary today (and if it's not religious, shitheads, why is it so important to you to keep the damn thing on?) are a sham. Read the claims at the end, starting on page 80.

They mention the relatively recent furore over IGWT being stamped into the edge of the dollar coins, along with the date, mint mark and "E Pluribus Unum." You get one guess which of these items had to be moved to the face of the coin according to legislation passed by congress!

[ I've personally written on this issue on a couple of occasions (historical background, mainly): http://letreasonreign.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/in-god-we-trust/ and here: http://letreasonreign.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/better-information-a... ]

And the punch line on page 93.

The usual suspects will have an absolute shit fit.

2 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Russell on March 12, 2013 at 10:26pm

Mmmm very intersting. Can't wait to see what kind of headlines this generates.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on March 12, 2013 at 10:51pm

Oh I expect a full blown fecal tornado.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam on March 13, 2013 at 12:02am

I feel even worse for fellow Atheists in Indiana. Their license plate says "In God we trust"

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on March 13, 2013 at 12:28am

Yeah I drove through there a couple years ago, and it made me retch.

Apparently, though, it's an optional plate, you don't *have* to have it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer L on March 25, 2014 at 5:47pm

Huh. Add Indiana to states I don't want to move to for "religious" reasons. Har har.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D Smith on March 13, 2013 at 1:07pm

I would like to clarify that the complaint you link to at FFRF is solely Newdow's work. FFRF is listed as one of the plaintiffs, but it is entirely his case from the standpoint of legal representation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan B on March 13, 2013 at 2:15pm

It is very well written and hopefully a step in the right direction. I just can't wait to see how Fox News spins this and tries to weasel their way around it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MikeLong on March 13, 2013 at 5:19pm

I suspect that, in the light of a rapidly-changing playing field, the Defendants and their cohorts will, instead, strive to quell any storm as just another frivolous action by those FFRF nuts. I'll be VERY surprised if this motion were ever even heard by SCOTUS. They will contend that this case has already been heard and decided.

I'm delighted to see this filed, but I feel really sad, reading the list of claims, that ANY (much less all) of these claims could, in good faith, be argued against - much less refuted. What kind of government would bury such legitimate and obvious claims.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on March 13, 2013 at 7:37pm

The only thing they say that I personally think is a bit of a reach is the claim that I am prosoletyzing by spending money. Maybe, instead, I am getting rid of it because of the shit that is printed on it.

In many cases, courts trying to duck having to rule on this sort of thing will find any tortured excuse to deny standing. I expect that to happen in this case.