Thread: Let's spread the Word Atheist!

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.

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.

I can respect that =)

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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:

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...

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.]

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...

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

There. The word is now spread.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.