Sign Whitehouse petition to remove God from US money and Pledge of Allegiance

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sign Whitehouse petition to remove God from US money and Pledge of Allegiance

 

Remove "In God We Trust" from the U.S. currency and remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The United States added "In God We Trust" to our currency and added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s to show the world that we were not "godless communists". This was a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This act blatantly respected the Christian establishment. Please help me in undoing this act of religious favoritism and "communist fear" by signing this petition.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE.

 

Read my blog post about why I signed the petitions to let red states secede from America.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Actually Brian, while the

Actually Brian, while the "Red Scare" put God in the pledge, the word was on limited coins, but not all currency, as far back as the late 1890s. BUT it absolutely was not there at the founding of the country, nor was it in the original pledge.

And to any theist reading this, removing it is a benifit to believers as well. Since the word means different things to different people, and can and is used as a political football by both the left and right, it is all that much more important to keep our nation's symbols as neutral as our flag. Our country went through a Revolution and a civil war and two world wars without it being in a pledge or on all of our currency.

 

Religion as a human rights issue SHOULD be protected by government, not because we agree with the idea as a concept, but merely because we ourselves want the same freedoms as believers. However, in a pluralistic society that has a constitution that forbids religious litmus tests, setting up a loaded word that clearly favors one religion over all others, is devicive.

The person most responsible for religious freedom was Thomas Jefferson, who if he ran for office for either party today, would not get past the primaries. He railed against pulpit politics, valued science and questioning even of that of religious claims. His "Virgina Religious Freedom Act" prior to the Constitution became the model for the First Amendment. And his letters spoke of "seperation of church and state" and his famous "wall" that now more than ever, in our divided country, we need desperately, to get focus on our common ground, not our common beliefs.

 

"Question with boldness even the existance of a god, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson

 

The founders WERE and atheists here do not deny, that they were for freedom of religion. But there is no entitlement in the First Amendment to gang tag government symbols with what clearly sets up a religious pecking order favoring Christianity over all others.

 

"No religious test" is in our oath of office in the Constitution.

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Article 11 Barbary Treaty, signed by both houses of Congress without dissent into law by President John Adams June 10th 1797.

 

We became a nation without gang tagging government property with sectarian words. We survived a civil war and two world wars without that word gang tagging government symbols. Our nations symbols, just like our flag, are a representation of pluralism where WE all live under the same government and as such it has a duty to leave religion up to the individual and not set up pecking orders and play favorites to one over all others.

 

Secular does not mean fascist and it is not a dirty word. It mearly means neutral and all one has to do to know what favortism gets a country, Iran does not treat non Shiites very well at all. This call to remove God from the pledge and our money, is not a call to outlaw religion. Just to get back to the same neutrality our flag represents.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Actually

Brian37 wrote:

Actually Brian, while the "Red Scare" put God in the pledge, the word was on limited coins, but not all currency, as far back as the late 1890s. BUT it absolutely was not there at the founding of the country, nor was it in the original pledge.

Thanks for pointing that out.  I was excited to see the petition there and in my rush to pass it on I neglected to notice the historical error.

The other flaw with the petition is that Obama doesn't have the power to enact this, it is up to Congress or someone like Michael Newdow to win a lawsuit.

But it doesn't hurt to remind people that we are here and we take issue with God on our money and in our pledge... and that we know it violates the Constitution.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Brian37

Sapient wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Actually Brian, while the "Red Scare" put God in the pledge, the word was on limited coins, but not all currency, as far back as the late 1890s. BUT it absolutely was not there at the founding of the country, nor was it in the original pledge.

Thanks for pointing that out.  I was excited to see the petition there and in my rush to pass it on I neglected to notice the historical error.

The other flaw with the petition is that Obama doesn't have the power to enact this, it is up to Congress or someone like Michael Newdow to win a lawsuit.

But it doesn't hurt to remind people that we are here and we take issue with God on our money and in our pledge... and that we know it violates the Constitution.

 

What kills me about believers is that they cant even see that by taking such actions to restore the concept of government neutrality on the issue, ALSO serves the protection of their freedoms as well. Alot of the distraction over common problems everyone has, is caused by this religious division.

It really is important in doing the right thing to ease their fears. While from a debate and reason standpoint we wont back off attacking ANY absurd claim or all supersttions, this is not a debate issue, this cuts to the core of what ANYONE of any religious belief should want to live under as far as government.

If "We" means "We", it the word "God" is hardly a pragmatic discription to cover a diverse society, which we always have been, even the founders were diverse. It is incumbant for believers to value their own freedom by removing those words that were NEVER mandated as mottos or an oath. Religion cannot be nor should be played favorites to.

"No religious test" defies the incertion of that word into mottos "E-Pluribus Unum" is the ONLY accurate discription of a pluralistic society. Our flag is neutral, but our personal beliefs as individuals can never be universally used in what is clearly a sectarian word incerted solely by Christians to set up a religious pecking order.

But we must always make it clear that this is not a demand to outlaw Christianity, but demand that it does not deserve special rights over all others. We do want to debate any and all gods with reason, but outside that debate their is still only one government the Jew the Muslim the Hindu the Buddhist and atheist live under.

The monochromaitic revisionist history has for far too long been successful in painting our history as being solely for a government promoting one religion over all others. It does a great disservice to human dignity and the mind of the individual, and has been bane on our history stifiling progress and pluralism.

To theist reading this, WE PROMISE, as the founders did, to protect your freedom as much as we want ours. But the fact remains ALL OF US have ONE government that cannot nor should favor the majority over the minority or the minority over the majority. It can only serve us equally as individuals by valuing us as individuals by not acting as a billboard for one religion.

 

The theist and atheist can move foward as well as all the different sects of ALL religions, by debating the issue outside government institutions and by accepting that the laws that the Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Hundu and atheist, ALL fall under the same secular concepts of the First Amendment. For freedom of religion to exist, we all must have freedom from religion, not by outlawing it, but by the government concept of neutrality.

There is no requirement in our Constitution to swear an oath to Jesus, just as we recoil at the theocracies that swear oaths to Allah. Religion will exist to some extent, and the only way to protect the rights of all is to accept that the laws of all are not subject to the labels of one.

The worst a theist has to fear from atheists is the prospect that they might be wrong. But they do not have to buy into the false stereotypes the right wing fearmongers sell that we will burn down their churches or have them arrested for merely making claims we do not find credible.

The Constitution was not written to promote Christianity, it was written to say that ALL citizens are governed by consent, not sectarian tribes to be exalted over all others.

AND EVEN FURTHER if Christianity was the sole intent to be promoted over all others, then why the failure of the founders to mention Christianity or Jesus in the oath of office? Why put "no religious test", in the Constitution?

 

Why? Because they understood that a religious litmus test to include or exclude a person for or from office could only divide the different religions, even at that time. If they only ment to unite Christains, they could have made that clear by at a minimum making the oath say "no religious test as long as it swears to some form of Christianity".

And again, even if I bought the "Christian nation" argument, which I do not. How would that fit today's modern society with growing diversity? If the founders were all allive today, while some might argue economically for the right, the most certainly would not argue for favortism promoted by government.

Brian, this might be a long post. But I feel it extreemly nessary because simply posting "get god out of the pledge" while right, can and often needlessly scares many theists including those on the left. Along with this push we must always go out of our way to explain WHY we are doing this and why even the theist should want this.

So to make it clear believers, we are not out to oppress you, we just want government neutrality on the issue of religion.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37