It’s on: Atheists want “In God We Trust” removed from Capitol visitor’s center
posted at 7:34 pm on July 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We’re never going to have an atheist president, are we?
Besides the one we have now, I mean. OH YES.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based church-state watchdog group, claimed the engravings are unconstitutional and would exclude the 15% of Americans who identify themselves as non-religious…
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said historical references to God should not be censored for political correctness.
“The Founders based the Constitution and our laws on religious faith and principles that clear the way for individual freedom,” he said in a statement. “Our true motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ expresses this fact, and we cannot allow a whitewash of America’s religious heritage.”
However, Gaylor said the mottos are inaccurate since “In God We Trust” and the insertion of “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance were adopted in the 1950s as anti-communist measures.
“They wanted this up there because they think God is the foundation of our government,” Gaylor said. “Boy, are they misinformed.”
Before anyone says something smart-assed, no, atheists aren’t pro-communist. (Not anymore, at least.) I would have let this one go given that (a) no one pays much attention to the “In God We Trust” stuff anyway and (b) the bad press derived from a lawsuit will outweigh the gain from shielding soft-headed believers from a motto engraved in rock except that, per the Establishment Clause, they do have a point. What’s a prudent atheist to do?
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »
DeMint/DeMint 2012!
LastRick on July 17, 2009 at 7:36 PM
It should be replaced with “Fuc# Islam and Muhammad!“.
Joe Bloggs on July 17, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Next Destination: Hell
TimeTraveler on July 17, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Its funny that in a free soceity where anything else is asked to be censured is seen as an attack on democracy EXCEPT religeon ?
It saves the government cant establish a religeon. And hate to inform the atheists but the US Government didnt establish Christianity it already existed.
William Amos on July 17, 2009 at 7:37 PM
I don’t know what Atheists should do, but shut the hell up, because we’ere tired of it and we’ve got bigger fish to fry comes to mind.
DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Allah, you aren’t going to fight for this are you? :>
mimi1220 on July 17, 2009 at 7:38 PM
eff you heathens!
El_Terrible on July 17, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Yawn……..
BRYAN!!! Come back!!!
Jim708 on July 17, 2009 at 7:38 PM
WRONG ANSWER. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Allahpundit on July 17, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Ah, those were the days. Bryan why did you abandon us?? Oh yeah..better gig.. nevermind.
redrock on July 17, 2009 at 7:40 PM
this prez isn’t an atheist. he believes he’s god!
anna on July 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
If this is the biggest thing these people have to worry about then all I can say is lucky them. It’s amazing what parts of history people want to advance and the parts that they want to abolish. Another minority heard from and who’s opinion must be raised about all others.
Cindy Munford on July 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Kill em all…..
dmann on July 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Allah, who do you trust in if its not God? Ya gotta fill in that blank space with something. “America! F*ck Yeah!”?
darii on July 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
DeMint has it right. Enough with the Athiest selfrightiousness. (Or,are Athiests selfrightious by definition? :-P)
crazedarmenian on July 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Something told me there was going to be an atheist post today.
d1carter on July 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
And preach
William Amos on July 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Oops, Atheist
crazedarmenian on July 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I always thought the motto was “E Pluribus Unum”, but that went by the wayside when folks realized if they separated into distinct victim groups, the government would give them things.
Further, Ceremonial Deism isn’t an establishment of religion. And finally, if it is so offensive, please turn in to me any government issued items with “In God we trust” printed on them so that you won’t be harmed. I’ll save you. Trust me.
trubble on July 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Allah
Let’s go to the Mats! I don’t want it removed, I just want to see a beta male in tights :)LOL!
Dr Evil on July 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM
And I want the President removed from the White House.
I’ll agree to your demands if you agree to mine. :)
LiquidH2O on July 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Um, no.
Richard Romano on July 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM
What gave it away? The sun rising?
LastRick on July 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM
It’s on: Atheists want “In God We Trust” removed from
Capitol visitor’s centerEVERYTHING.Mojave Mark on July 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM
It’s time to change our motto to what our founders truly meant: In Obama We Trust
El_Terrible on July 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Right, the one reflected from the mirror when he stands in front of it.
Cindy Munford on July 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM
I think God’s purpose for me might be to rehabilitate atheists’ image. Nuance.
Allahpundit on July 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM
But the reverse is true.
db on July 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Wait. Wait. You think this? or do you maybe… Believe it?
trubble on July 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM
I think it’s the right answer to a petty question. We have real issues to debate at the moment and these guys are piping up about this? When the sun is shining and it’s a beautiful problem free day, then sure we can talk about it, but for now I doubt it’s very high on anybodies priority list, except theirs.
DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 7:44 PM
If “In God We Trust” is removed from anything, there will be…pardon the word…hell to pay.
I have nothing against atheists…but the words stay.
JetBoy on July 17, 2009 at 7:45 PM
But is that a reason to take it down? Why are they so insecure in their beliefs that this is bothering them so much?
Crybabies. Shut up and go home.
foucaultsvac on July 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I need to find out where the FFRF’s headquarters are here in town, and chuck plastic crosses at the place.
Just because they annoy the piss out of me.
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I actually kind of like that.
DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM
He does work in mysterious ways. Atheists as libertarians rather than commies? It is a marked improvement.
Nice one God!
darii on July 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM
We don’t trust in God anymore. We trust in sex, greed, Hollywood, sports, music, the environment, and faux-intellectualism.
That’s the real reason we should remove that from the Capitol.
Nethicus on July 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM
What does that mean, he’s going to give you enough time and where with all at the end to say “Just kidding!”
Cindy Munford on July 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Maybe they want to replace it with “In Obama we trust’ ?
William Amos on July 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM
How, exactly, does this violate the establishment clause? Please be specific. Honestly, most of the people that claim that a prayer anywhere or whatnot violates the establishment clause don’t really know what the establishment clause says.
PersonalLiberty on July 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM
That would be childish and awesome.
darii on July 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM
this prez isn’t an atheist. he believes he’s god!
anna on July 17, 2009 at 7:41 PM
yeah, his name is Muhammad…
SHARPTOOTH on July 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM
No, it’s not. In every communist regime, cults of personality have arisen, resulting in worship of individuals. Atheists aren’t supposed to worship anything, apart from Dawkins.
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM
“We are all made in Allahpundit’s image”-Atheist Manifesto
Since nobody knows what Allah looks like, than Atheism=Nothing.
portlandon on July 17, 2009 at 7:47 PM
If God doesn’t exist, then who cares?
catmman on July 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM
It’s on:
Atheists think they’re better than everyone but can’t stand disagreement
bcm4134 on July 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM
The Dems might accurately be described as “In Polls We Trust”
darii on July 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I’m getting really tired of people thinking that “freedom of religeon” means “freedom from religion”!
db on July 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Must be a God because unions are abandoning Card Check according to AP news.
William Amos on July 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I think they need to stop taxing religious people.
Only atheists should be taxed.
JellyToast on July 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Stick it where the sun doesn’t shine , atheists. This is the country that was based on Judeo-Christian doctrine and thought. You are not required to practice any faith, but you have no right to tell me what my country was based on and the majority believe.
MNDavenotPC on July 17, 2009 at 7:48 PM
“prudent atheist” = oxymoron
davidk on July 17, 2009 at 7:49 PM
MY BRAIN JUST POPPED
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Where there’s smoke, there’s an atheist.
HornetSting on July 17, 2009 at 7:49 PM
I care as much about alienating the 15% of atheists as I do about paying even more taxes to insure 15% of the population.
redfoxbluestate on July 17, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Honestly, what is it with atheists today? Are (some, not all mind you) they simply tired of the “pushy” Evangelical/Fundamentalists?
Me thinks this isn’t so much about any Establishment Clause, as it is about some sort of revenge.
JetBoy on July 17, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Well, get a napkin and clean it up.
HornetSting on July 17, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Bring it on, AP.
Just don’t come crying to me when Christians sue to prevent “In Hitchens we trust” from being engraved instead.
Hollowpoint on July 17, 2009 at 7:50 PM
I’ve always loved the name of that group of self-righteous, angrly little scolds: The Freedom From Religion Foundation
Makes ‘em sound so victimized and at the same time so courageous, as though they are on a weekly basis chained and frog-marched into church dungeons by whip-wielding evangelicals and…dammit…they’ve had enough and they’re ready to put their lives on the line to see an end to this constant, brutal oppression.
guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 7:50 PM
In Darwin we trust.
Or, was it in the long and painstaking process of evolution from one functional animal to another functional animal whilst pretty much rendering anything in between unlivable we trust.
Er, I’m sorry, I’m relatively certain it was In Functional Single-Celled Organism to Functional Macrocellular Organism with Macrocellular Organs as Opposed to Single-Cellular Life-Support we do indeed place our most implicit belief.
One of the three…?
KinleyArdal on July 17, 2009 at 7:51 PM
AP tweeted a minute ago about the slow traffic. Had to know this or another picture of Palin in running shorts was coming.
Johnson on July 17, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Stupid. Read the Declaration of Independence… a generic acknowledgment of G-d is foundational to the US… no sect… no particular creed… but “with a firm reliance on Divine Providence.”
mankai on July 17, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Once all the atheists release their cash to me we can talk…..if GOD is soooooo hurtful and damaging to your precious atheist egos, then don’t take any money on payday next week? We wouldn’t want to tarnish your ideology with our religious currency.
(God is watching you AP – in a very good way, too)
Ris4victory on July 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Don’t be prudent. Whether or not it’s a good PR move, it’s the right thing to do. We’re Americans, too. Our national symbology shouldn’t exclude us as such.
RightOFLeft on July 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM
God, I hate f******* atheists.
atheling on July 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Be an Agnostic. It makes more sense than the religion of Atheism.
* Strong agnosticism (also called “hard,” “closed,” “strict,” or “permanent agnosticism”)
—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, “I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.”
* Weak agnosticism (also called “soft,” “open,” “empirical,” or “temporal agnosticism”)
—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, “I don’t know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out.”
* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]
* Agnostic atheism
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]
* Agnostic theism (also called “spiritual agnosticism”)
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.” (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)
* Ignosticism
—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn’t coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept “a deity exists” as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss]
portlandon on July 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Where do I sign!
mankai on July 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM
No, they do not have a point. You and many others misread the 1st Amendment. Its intent was never to remove all religion from government. Its intent was to prevent discrimination based on religion. It reads freedom OF, not from. The Establishment Clause clearly refers to making laws against those who wish to establish a religion. It is not a bar to the government expressing religious belief or values.
NotCoach on July 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Screw them . . . if they don’t like the phrase then they don’t have to read, write it it or put it on anything they personally own.
rplat on July 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Palin in running short? Well according to the study AP posted earlier that would appeal to both men and women.
DFCtomm on July 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Take it easy. You have too much brain to lose enough to matter. =)
portlandon on July 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Allah is a masochist that’s much is obvious.
Dr Evil on July 17, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Plus it guarantees the PEOPLE freedom of religion. “In God We Trust” does not abridge freedom to practice a religion or not to practice at all.
darii on July 17, 2009 at 7:55 PM
I remember in 5th grade when I went through a phase of wanting to seem bohemian and free-thinking, so I would declare myself an atheist in order to scandalize the locals.
Of course, in those days we didn’t have body piercing and mohawks and goth make-up and death metal.
AP always reminds me of my 5th grade self when he breathlessly reminds us that he’s an atheist.
But here’s the thing: no one cares.
guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM
It does not establish a religion
Quit with the crap . This has gotten to the point of immaturity with some atheists.
And yes we do have bigger fish to fry — so spit out the gum.
CWforFreedom on July 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM
I’m not sure that the Christians who support covering government institutions with religious phrases realize that they are opening a can of worms that may have some nasty side effects.
One look no further than the drama over the Muslim call to prayer issue in Hammtramck to see how slippery this slope can get.
This isn’t a “Christian” nation any more than it is a Jewish or Muslim or Atheist nation.
It’s a FREE nation.
Tman on July 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Reverse this feeling. Imagine if religeous groups say that no non believer should ever say negative things about religeon how that would go over.
Or saying that atheism or atheists should be banned from government programs or declarations or any other government functions.
William Amos on July 17, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Hating someone because of their legitimate religious beliefs. Aren’t you classy.
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 7:57 PM
But apparently you can’t blog and get a date. *heartache*
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I think I’m closest to agnostic theism. Or agnostic atheism.
Or both.
Ugh. My popped brain aches. Need whiskey.
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM
i agree 1,000,000,000 %!!!
Ghoul aid on July 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I haven’t checked, but I’d be pretty sure that at least of few of the far-flung groups probably do share that sentiment.
JetBoy on July 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Actually, isn’t freedom of religion all out the window with cap & trade? I’m pretty sure there is a provision in the bill for making druidism the official national religion (they worship tress ya know :^)
db on July 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM
America still hasnt woken up to the “quiet bigotry” of Atheism yet.
William Amos on July 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn.
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM
No, moron. Because they want to FORCE their f******* beliefs on us!
No nuance, eh?
atheling on July 17, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Show me a supreme court challenge to that effect.
William Amos on July 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
The establishment clause doesn’t prohibit the mingling of religion and government, it prohibits government from mandating a particular sect, denomination, etc. Big difference.
pugwriter on July 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Thanks for the confirmation.
MadisonConservative on July 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
DeMint/GOD 2012!
NY Conservative on July 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I have. They’re worse than the goddam Muslims.
atheling on July 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
This is why your “conservative atheism” won’t sell, AP: Big atheism bears all the hallmarks of a liberal pressure group.
Ignorance of history and the Constitution? Check
A highly over-developed sense of entitlement? Check
Organizing “direct action” to fight the system, which was in no way doing them any harm? Check
Intolerance of opposing views? Check
Whining? Check
Incurring the wrath of the nearly-Almighty Sen. Jim DeMint?CHECK.
bcm4134 on July 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Classy, MadCon?
Like drinking your cheap wine?
Piss, off.
atheling on July 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Why would Jews and Muslims have a problem with “In God we trust”? I’m pretty sure they worship God as well.
Hollowpoint on July 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM
So, they want to suppress a statement that is applicable to followers of many religions, in their pursuit to establish their own (atheism) as the national standard?
And don’t try telling me that atheism isn’t a religion…
malclave on July 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Somehow I think this is more about needing attention than being outraged at “In God We Trust” carved into a capitol building.
Emily M. on July 17, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »