Let's spread the Word Atheist!

[InTheMoment]

Step 1 -- Get your hands on a permanent red marking pen, like a Sharpie.
Step 2 -- Find the slogan "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the back of your dollar bills.
Step 3 -- With your red pen, draw a circle and slash over "GOD," like this:
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2792/100dollarbillgod3lu1he.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Step 4 -- Repeat Step 3 with every dollar bill that ever comes into your possession (carry your red pen around with you).

I have made this my ritual. I will no longer sacrifice my integrity by dealing in currency containing a message that I strongly object to. Instead, I will force religious people who recognize no bounds between church and state to sacrifice their integrity by spreading my message around, and I will make them see the injustice.

If every atheist in America does this, then every dollar bill would have an atheist message on it--that is, until "IN GOD WE TRUST" is removed.

[bradybaker]

That's awesome. I wonder if Canadian currency has references to God...if I wasn't so poor I could look in my wallet and check.

[Universal Mind]

Hey, that is an awesome idea! I am going to do exactly that, and I am going to spread the word. If religious people can express their religious views on government paper, then I can too. If they try to take the markings down, we can protest in the manner of those who protest the taking down of the Ten Commandments from courthouses. It's freedom of speech, right?

Another funny thing to do would be to make the word "God" plural on money. Make it say, "In Gods we trust." Or maybe put "Allah" in parentheses beside "God". That would get people to finally understand the point.

[Raz]

I can respect that =)

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Ha! I am SO doing that from now on. Let's remind everyone of the supposed official separation of Church and State, ne?

[kimpossible]

I always write "All others pay cash" underneath it - so it reads "In God We Trust... All Others Pay Cash"

[AirRick101]

I don't want to do this for every dollar bill I have and find myself in need of losing those bills to get extra red pens.

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by kimpossible
I always write \"All others pay cash\" underneath it - so it reads \"In God We Trust... All Others Pay Cash\"
My original plan was to somehow squeeze the letter "h" after the "t" in trust. That way it would read "In God We Thrust."

[dragonoverlord]

Although i do not live int he USA i support your removal of god from the dollar bill I am also a Atheist.
The only problem with removing god from the dollar bill is that the court interprets the constitution(atleasts thats whats happening in the us i think) and if they make those changes then the gays will rise to power and demand equall rights (im paranoid) it happend in canada you know.

Brady you can start by not singing the canadian national anthem it has something like god keep this land glorious and free that is one thing you can avoid doing is singing the anthem NEVER pay allegiance to the queen or the british royal family( i recomend it) im never going to pay any allegiance to her again it will be hard to avoid im going to cadets and i heard that they sing sons like god save the queen or something.

If your going to replace god with allah i would hope your not doing it to make fun of muslims.

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by dragonoverlord

If your going to replace god with allah i would hope your not doing it to make fun of muslims.

No, it's to screw with the people who want "In God We Trust" to stay on our money. Those same people would immediately give birth to a cow and three pigs each if they saw "In Allah We Trust" on our money. Therefore, putting "Allah" on the money would make them think about our view. If the government replaced the word "God" with "Allah", the reckless church and state people would suddenly start making the very same arguments against church and state mixing that we have been making all along. The government is never going to do that, so I say let's do it ourselves, or better yet put it in parentheses to really illustrate the significance of the word "God" on money. They say that its presence is no big deal, so let's give them a new perspective on the word.

[Awaken4e1]

Originally posted by InTheMoment
Step 1 -- Get your hands on a permanent red marking pen, like a Sharpie.
Step 2 -- Find the slogan \"IN GOD WE TRUST\" on the back of your dollar bills.
Step 3 -- With your red pen, draw a circle and slash over \"GOD,\" like this:
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2792/100dollarbillgod3lu1he.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Step 4 -- Repeat Step 3 with every dollar bill that ever comes into your possession (carry your red pen around with you).

I have made this my ritual. I will no longer sacrifice my integrity by dealing in currency containing a message that I strongly object to. Instead, I will force religious people who recognize no bounds between church and state to sacrifice their integrity by spreading my message around, and I will make them see the injustice.

If every atheist in America does this, then every dollar bill would have an atheist message on it--that is, until \"IN GOD WE TRUST\" is removed.

Boy that's a real good idea telling people to deface a Federal Reserve Note which is a Federal Offence, way to go there InTheMoment...

[Awaken4e1]

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8484/100billcopy6ai.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


Boy that's a real good idea telling people to deface a Federal Reserve Note which is a Federal Offence, way to go there InTheMoment...

Title 18

Fine of "not more than $100" for defacing currency in such a way that it can no longer be circulated. Any reasonably competent defense attorney would then argue that it was not defaced in such a way that it couldn't be circulated - and in fact, was specifically intended to be circulated.

There is only a SINGLE case that ever tried this. A forger tried to argue that he should only be charged with the lesser offense of defacing currency. It was denied. Based on more stringent treatment in Sec. 331 which specifically says "fraudulently alters" - which, by the forger's own admission, he was committing fraud. (Keese v. Zerbst, 88 Fed 2nd Dist. 795 - 1937

There may be copyright infringement issues, since the Fed owns the copyright on the bill. That would come under 17 USC 105. But that would simply get you a cease-and-desist.

So while Title 18 may allow for it, it has NEVER been tried. And the worst you're likely to see is a $100 fine.

Which, incidentally, you would appear to be guilty of as well. The picture you posted is altered US currency (at least resized and reproduced)...


[Research performed on Westlaw's database, with my current and fully paid subscription. Not intended to be legal advice, rather a discussion of interpretation of the law. Consult with your attorney directly.]

[Awaken4e1]

Originally posted by kimpossible+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kimpossible)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Awaken4e1

Boy that's a real good idea telling people to deface a Federal Reserve Note which is a Federal Offence, way to go there InTheMoment...

Title 18

Fine of \"not more than $100\" for defacing currency in such a way that it can no longer be circulated. Any reasonably competent defense attorney would then argue that it was not defaced in such a way that it couldn't be circulated - and in fact, was specifically intended to be circulated.There may be copyright infringement issues, since the Fed owns the copyright on the bill. That would come under 17 USC 105. But that would simply get you a cease-and-desist.

So while Title 18 may allow for it, it has NEVER been tried. And the worst you're likely to see is a $100 fine.

Which, incidentally, you would appear to be guilty of as well. The picture you posted is altered US currency (at least resized and reproduced)...

[Research performed on Westlaw's database, with my current and fully paid subscription. Not intended to be legal advice, rather a discussion of interpretation of the law. Consult with your attorney directly.][/b]

'Thanks for you legal interpretation there 'Counselor'

...you would appear to be guilty of as well...

my alteration is not on a true note itself but only on the border of the picture of the note. And it is only a facsimile of the note.

Good try though...

[kimpossible]

It is unlawful under Title 18 to make copies:

"Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells,
or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the
United States[...]"

Clearly, you have published it, have you not?

So any time you want to stop looking even more stupid, you can just drop talking about subjects you know nothing about.... Which is to say, well, all of them.

[Awaken4e1]

Originally posted by kimpossible
It is unlawful under Title 18 to make copies:

\"Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells,
or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the
United States[...]\"

Clearly, you have published it, have you not?

So any time you want to stop looking even more stupid, you can just drop talking about subjects you know nothing about.... Which is to say, well, all of them.

The word I believe you have totally ignored is 'fraudulently' published. Which I have not done, and I have not encouraged any one to alter any note as 'inthemoment' has done. But again as you have done many times before you have asserted yourself into a conservation which you have no business being in, revealing your ignorance and presumption of knowledge of.

The Rev.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by InTheMoment
Step 1 -- Get your hands on a permanent red marking pen, like a Sharpie.
Step 2 -- Find the slogan \"IN GOD WE TRUST\" on the back of your dollar bills.
Step 3 -- With your red pen, draw a circle and slash over \"GOD,\" like this:
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2792/100dollarbillgod3lu1he.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Step 4 -- Repeat Step 3 with every dollar bill that ever comes into your possession (carry your red pen around with you).

I have made this my ritual. I will no longer sacrifice my integrity by dealing in currency containing a message that I strongly object to. Instead, I will force religious people who recognize no bounds between church and state to sacrifice their integrity by spreading my message around, and I will make them see the injustice.

If every atheist in America does this, then every dollar bill would have an atheist message on it--that is, until \"IN GOD WE TRUST\" is removed.

What next? Going to Rome to deface great works of art because of their Religious Theme? The Road to Stupid, Distructive and Idiotic Bigotry goes on without end.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Leo Volont


What next? Going to Rome to deface great works of art because of their religious theme? The road to stupid, destructive and Idiotic bigotry goes on without end.

I'm going to stop you right there.

It's a little different to deface a priceless piece of art than to scribble out the word "god" on their country's currency. The statement "in god we trust" is making a religious statement. Scribbling it out is also making a religious statement. I don't see how the two are really that different (save for legality issues, as has been discussed). The statement "in god we trust" seems to speak on behalf of all Americans. As we all know, not all Americans believe in god. I think their protest is not unreasonable.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


The word I believe you have totally ignored is 'fraudulently' published. Which I have not done, and I have not encouraged any one to alter any note as 'inthemoment' has done. But again as you have done many times before you have asserted yourself into a conservation which you have no business being in, revealing your ignorance and presumption of knowledge of.

The Rev.

Yeah, ever ask what my Doctorate is in? No? Guess you don't know, huh?

You clearly were encouraging and inviting forgery by posting high-resolution pictures of currency. A case would be trivial to make for it.

[Howie]

A - t - h - e - i - s - t

There. The word is now spread. :)

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Leo Volont
What next? Going to Rome to deface great works of art because of their Religious Theme? The Road to Stupid, Distructive and Idiotic Bigotry goes on without end.
Last time I checked (though I am Canadian, so what do I know?) the constitution didn't mention anything about the seperation of church and art...nor does it refer to anything in Rome.

[Universal Mind]

Leo, the First Amendment does speak against the government's establishment of religion while speaking against the prevention of the free exercise of it. The most logical interpretation is that people can express their religious beliefs all they want as long as they don't break the few restrictions on free speech and as long as the government does not turn religion into one of its funtions. Putting pro-God stuff on currency is an example of religion promotion as a government function. There is no way around that. If the currency said, "In Allah We Trust," or, "In The Gods We Trust," or, "In No God We Trust," or, "In Brahman, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, And All Of Their Manifested God Forms We Trust," I think you would get the point. Works of art are a completely different subject.

[Nirvana Starseed]

The god referenced on the note does not have a particular reference to the christianity religion of the church. It is an intuitive knowing by the people of America of what god stands for, and what god is.

It was initiated by people with some sort of understanding of this princible. And it is supported by those that understand what is means somewhat.

A strong atheist is usually in the stage of it's evolution in going from the astral plane to the mental. I suggest that in other lives people such a brady were hardcore christians. After a series of lives some progress has been made and they are now merging into the mental plane. Astral is emotional, and those restricted to astral do not actively guide themself or know what they are looking for. Those able to reach the mental plane are more able to interact. Astral is like people watching tv not in control of what they are able to watch or see or learn, in reaching the mental plane of consiousness you are more able to search and interact with what you go about learning.

an astral truth to one may be. "I like chocolate cake"
A mental truth would be "This chocolate cake is not healthy if I eat it all the time"

This is a simple example of astral and mental. Those on the mental move into using their mind more to figure out truth, while those restricted to astral are polarized in using the emotional nature to figure out truth.

People are usually more polarized in either. Mind is the wheel that destroys all in it's path with its function. It seperates and divides. While the love emotional aspect attracts and unites. Both existing together in full function create that balanced needed to be a fully realized being.

The government are the people. Spirituality involves the people and to eliminate spirituality from life, you cannot do without creating an imbalance, and it is not possible to live a normal life without this imbalance.

In the extreme of this imbalance, Some people may feel they need to fill a void with either drugs gambling or sex, or whatever. While not knowing what it is they are missing. Maybe lucid dreaming applies here too.

[bradybaker]

If I was a 'hardcore Christian' in a past life, I probably killed myself to end the misery.

[Nirvana Starseed]

brady you think that now because you see some of the illogic associated with it. But back then whatever religion wether it be of jewish or christian you would have probally preached passionately as you are with your atheism today.

[Alex D]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

The Road to Stupid, Distructive and Idiotic Bigotry goes on without end.

Fine one to talk, eh Leo?

Anyway, I'm not too sure that there are any references to god on English money, ah well, I can just try this if and when I go to the US. :D

[s00p]

That's a good point, Nirvana. Our country is very polarized towards 'everything is of nature' or 'there is a creator'. Of course, these two thoughts enable our political parties to pretty much get away with whatever they want to.

As long as you aren't advocating that everyone should be an atheist (now!), and it's just sharing, there is nothing wrong with sharing your personal belief on the back of a dollar bill. It's not like a prayer at school or a moment of silence, in which it's obviously segregating a community. Power to the atheists/secular humanists!

A little bit of history: the US gov added "in God we trust" to the bill (it was already on the coin) at the same time it added "under God" to the pledge of allegiance.

[Tsen]

Leo--you're making a very incorrect assumption.

There's a difference between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

We have the right to build religious buildings. The monuments in Rome would certainly be allowed in the USA right now. That's part of the free exercise clause--we can do what we want in terms of religion. Even build massive buildings in tribute (So long as we don't steal the materials for said buildings or otherwise break the law).

But the government doesn't have the right to print 'God' onto our currency. Since not everybody in the US believes in a God (IN ANY FORM NIRVANA, NOT JUST THE CHRISTIAN GOD OR YOUR ONENESS [DUMBASS.]), so the government doesn't have the right to embody the entire nation in saying, "IN GOD WE TRUST". THAT is violating the establishment clause. When the government is printing money with God's name written on it, it's establishing a religion that believes in God. Since not everybody believes in God, they ought remove it so nobody's rights are being infringed upon. Athiests don't want to have the name of a God they don't believe in written on their money any more than Christians want Shiva's written upon theirs.

[Nirvana Starseed]

The education system is not perfect either, or the health system. But I don't see you complaining about your rights in this manner. Alot more important things could be improved to increase freedom and quality of life. I consider your education and health for example much more important. You must also realize any collective attempt to work together in unification aspires through what is defined as a religion regardless. Spirituality is just part of the human experience. Athiesm is a religion too. And you are assuming to much from this statement [In god we trust] It's your belief system that is extreme here. That's why you highly object that which is not even harmful. You should just realize it's not that big a deal or that dangerous, or even that damaging to your rights, what you are preaching against. You merely disagree with the use of the term "god" because you are an atheist. I say less winging and more doing something useful.

Also consider many people get married in a church when they are not christians. And they are interested in getting married, not the temple or the pope that is helping them celebrate this. In the same way you are concerned more with what is written on the dollar bill, then serving your country. You are being trivial and missing the point. Serve the country and the people. Don't let beliefs divide you from what matters and distract you. Imagine what you could learn and achieve, if you were this passionate about serving others and the country, as you are about this.

Also If you think that is America's biggest problem you have a long way to go. The way governments go about things could be improved. Alot. But now we are getting into politics.

Personally I'm glad that if any country trusts anyone it is "god" Atleast that is aspiring or trusting, towards something that is generally known as 'good'. The truth is a belief in god is not even that relevant here. The main point is to trust in that which is the highest good. And that is, well a good thing don't you think?!

We should be more concerned with the use of money than what is printed on it. We should also be concerned about what is lived out in practice, in regards to what is working and not working. Not just what is spoken or written.

If you want to do something that is useful, instead of writing on dollar bills. You should write to your congressmen and tell them you want to change the job description of those in government to managing the budget, so they don't feed you rubbish social programs that you then have to involuntary pay tax on. They are not there to impress the public with attractive social programs, that don't even work, and then winning elections with the idea of them. They are there to serve the people and manage the budget. One who is doing this does not become popular. This is what needs to be changed, tell them if they do this we are willing to give individuals a money reward incentive for managing the budget properly. And recognize what they are doing! Don't be so stupid about it and be attracted by mere short term illusonary fixes that are not in the interest of the country, or in the long term. This way they can benifit from helping the country, and get something for themself, while knowing they have done a good job. Everyone will benifit. But no-one will benifit much if you keep writing on the money. Spend it wisely, save it even. But try not to write on it.

I say all this and I am not even American. But I don't need to be to understand this much.

[bradybaker]

So, Nirvana. If the notes said "In No God We Trust" you wouldn't have any problem?

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by brady
If the notes said \"In No God We Trust\" you wouldn't have any problem?


It's difficult to imagine a country with that slogan. To start I'd surely keep them away from the weapons of mass destruction at the least. I wouldn't consider them mature enough to be harmless.

[bradybaker]

So in other words, yes you would have a problem.

[Nirvana Starseed]

If you are in grade 6 you don't have a problem with a class in grade 4. I would be working on a way to give them the best opportunity. It's not until something damaging is happening that you need to do something. Overall Negative effects need to be prevented. The goal is a maximun positive effect for the whole.

Just think for a second about hitler. We had a problem with hitler because he was doing something damaging. You can't let ignorance walk over what's true. There is a point where you disempower them, and if needed fight them. You are in effect fighting for what is right and true. And using discernment to realize the maximun positive effect achieved for the whole.

[bradybaker]

Actually, based on those statements, I think the one most similar to Hitler is you. Labelling an entire portion of the population as 'ignorant' and on a lower level.

[Nirvana Starseed]

I did not label anyone. It was a hypothetical generalization for the country that supposely supported the notion "in no god we trust". I don't see how this accessment of such a people makes me like hitler.

The path you choose will not become a problem or be fought against unless you begin to effect our goals of service to the whole. In this case we do have a problem and seek to destroy the negative effects and obstructions to these goals.

In that example I was also not saying athiest are similar to hitler. I was explaining how protecting freedom is different to having a problem with someones beliefs or level of understanding.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by NirvanaStalinseed
You can't let ignorance walk over what's true. There is a point where you disempower them, and if needed fight them. You are in effect fighting for what is right and true.
Here you imply that the "In God We Trust" note is "right and true" and the "In No Good We Trust" note is ignorant and needs disempowering.

Second, your "maximum possible effect for the whole" is called Utilitarianism. If you subscribe to this mode of thinking, let me ask you this..

Is it right to let one child suffer for all eternity if it means the rest of the world lives in complete peace and harmony?

[Rakkantekimusouka]

http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/9493/pwnedsign8wf.gif

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by brady
Here you imply that the \"In God We Trust\" note is \"right and true\" and the \"In No Good We Trust\" note is ignorant and needs disempowering.

Please re-read what I posted and understand what I am talking about. \"In no god we trust\" does raise concern for several reasons. \"In god we trust\" can also raise just as much concern, and be just as ignorant. It just depends to what extent people are in touch with the truth.

Originally posted by brady
Is it right to let one child suffer for all eternity if it means the rest of the world lives in complete peace and harmony?

There rest of the world can not live in peace and harmony knowing that child is suffering.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Chronically Smokesweed

There rest of the world can not live in peace and harmony knowing that child is suffering.

You're really bad at answering questions.

[Nirvana Starseed]

well it's true.

honestly, Sorry I called you bonehead before.
I was stupid. I know it was a mistake. I intend not to make one like it again. I just took the wrong approach and didn't want to admit it.

[Mark75]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
well it's true.

honestly, Sorry I called you bonehead before.
I was stupid. I know it was a mistake. I intend not to make one like it again. I just took the wrong approach and didn't want to admit it.

.....

........!

Really? Are you serious? You're not being sarcastic, are you?

If you really mean that... That's very good of you to admit that. I accept your apology... Don't worry about that bonehead comment, it really didn't hurt... I must say, I'm quite shocked by this. It's OK to make mistakes, but you’ve got to be honest about it. If you make an error, just come out and say it. Acknowledge that you were wrong, move on, and make it a point not to repeat the error. It’s not hard... Honestly, I don't think you're stupid, though.

Wow... I’m really surprised by that post.

[Nirvana Starseed]

It wasn't sarcastic. Glad you accept the apology.

[Mark75]

Ok, that's cool. I'm relieved to see that you were serious. You’ve earned yourself a little respect in my books.

Now that we’ve got that cleared up; why not restate for us your opinions on crossing out the word god on currency, and answer this question:

Originally posted by bradybaker

Is it right to let one child suffer for all eternity if it means the rest of the world lives in complete peace and harmony?

[Nirvana Starseed]

It is not right to do this because it's not in the best interest of the whole. To have one person/child suffering eternally while the rest live in luxury or whatever. They cannot be complete since one person is suffering. This means the whole is also suffering Because that person is part of the whole. This will make no-one happy knowing that Since everyone is one.

[ptahsokar]

Nirvana: brady you think that now because you see some of the illogic associated with it. But back then whatever religion wether it be of jewish or christian you would have probally preached passionately as you are with your atheism today.

Good point.

I have a pet theory (I'm not at all saying this is the case at all...just a funny thought is all) that God, to manage and dynamically balance the whole Muslim/Jew thing, will selectively pick Jews and incarnate them into Muslim bodies and visa versa. If there is a powerful bigot in the Jewish political machine, he'll become the next Ayatolla. Just joking around, but it is interesting to wonder.

[Ex Nine]

There was some dude at Edge.org who wanted to take the negative social connotations of the word "atheist" out and create a new word.

He explicitly compared his intention to how gays took the word "gay," which had normally denoted AND connoted happiness, and absorbed it into their culture.

He then suggested the word "bright." When someone asks you what religion or philosophy you are, you say that you are a "bright," which is so much more than saying atheist, which depends on "theist" for its meaning.

I'd have started it already. But, you know. I don't want to send the wrong message and have people think I'm gay.