In God we trust... no longer?

[Viking]

I did reply to his comment by saying it was a different time when this was decided and then I expanded a bit on why I (and possibly Fragony) think the guy is being an ass about it. How is that not related to Viking's attempt to blame the other side? I haven't seen anyone here explain how a sentence on a banknote is dangerous to someone's atheism or why an atheist would need to feel bad about carrying such a sentence in his pocket? I can see how you think it is needless but these people are suing on the basis that it is somehow harmful to them or some such nonsense.

I was showing how easy it is to turn the argument on its head. The random guy does not factor into anything.

[Husar]

Separation of Religion (any) and State.

Because it is on the dollar it is also being put up in other government areas.

Problem is that it is endorsing a religion and isn't inclusive of others ie to include Hinduism would be in God(s) We Trust. Maybe for Thor it would be Hammer Time. Jedism May the Force be With You. Islam Allah Akabar...

So the God We Trust is used as a thin end of a wedge to place other statements that are pro one religion over the rest. So not only a breach of separation of religion and state, it's the proto environment for a state religion with all its wonders and issues.

Wonderful if you belong to the group that is now held as above the rest, chilling to those outside that group. So not inclusive, secular or eglatarian.

I see what you mean by a breach of secularism but less so the wedge issue. The other thing is that a majority religion of a country's people will always influence the state a bit, see religious holidays. You also don't forbid people to prefer a certain candidate for the presidency or any other public office because of her or his religious values. Of course electing such a person means their religious values will influence what they do while in office. On the other hand it's also not forbidden to prefer a candidate due to their opposition of religion. Strictly enforced secularism seems almost impossible in a democracy.

I do see the issue with people voting for candidates who'd basically turn the country into a quasi-theocracy, but as it currently is in the US I don't see how a religious sentence on a banknote is threatening someone's atheism. To remove it on the grounds that the state should not endorse or promote any religion as you say seems more reasonable than "the sentence in my pocket that is just empty words for me is threatening my conviction that it's just empty words!".

Again, my beef is more with the reasons given in the source than with whether or not it should be removed. The people suing here just seem about as fanatic as the ones who oppose them the most I'd imagine.

I was showing how easy it is to turn the argument on its head. The random guy does not factor into anything.

So your statement wasn't related to Fragony's then because his statement was directly related to that random guy?
Okay, nevermind.