In God We Trust

Written by Drew on November 15th, 2005

Michael Newdow is at it again. The atheist crusader, who is known for his failed attempts to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, is now filing a suit to get “In God We Trust” off of U.S. currency.

Newdow’s glib mannerisms are perplexing. He says the national motto violates the religious rights of atheists who belong to his “First Amendment Church of True Science.” The church’s “three suggestions” are “question, be honest and do what’s right.”

Can he really be that blind to his own inconsistencies? Terms like “honest” and “right” imply an objective standard authored by a Higher Power. Man cannot appeal to truth and righteousness without God. In forfeiting his God, Newdow has also forfeited all forms of morality–including his protests that references to God are “wrong.”

In the words of C.S. Lewis, we all live by some law that we did not invent and that we know we ought to obey. God’s moral imprint is found universally on the human heart. The only difference between atheists and theists is, theists are honest enough to admit it’s there.

Monday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal to remove “In God We Trust” from a public building, so it appears that Newdow’s complaint doesn’t have a prayer.


3 Comments so far ↓

  1. andy says:

    An early post today. Wow! I appreciate your exposure of Newdow’s inconsistencies and the highlight of the obvious: “‘honest’ and ‘right’ imply an objective standard. Question: What is the nature of Newdow’s suit. Whom does he sue concerning a statement on U.S. currency. He cannot sue the government can he?

  2. Drew Kizer says:

    I think you can sue the government. The Associated Press reports that he is filing a “federal lawsuit.” Another source says he plans to file his new lawsuit “electronically” in federal court in Northern California by the end of the week.

  3. andy says:

    According to, “Historically, in England it was impossible to hold the king responsible in tort unless he agreed to be sued. The new American Republic adopted this doctrine called ‘soverign immunity,’ in 1776. As a result of this doctrine, the government can’t be sued unless it agrees to be sued. In 1946, the federal government finally did agree to be sued, but only under certain limited circumstances, when Congress passed the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA). Congress stipulated, however, that these suits would not involve juries or punitive damages awards….For suit to be brought, the government actor who caused the tort must have been acting within the scope of her government employment, and must have been performing a ‘nondiscretionary’ function. These limitations are very significant. Many intentional torts (except those committed by soldiers or federal agents) are held to fall far outside the scope of nondiscretionary.”

    Will Newdow be able to file suit against the federal government because the printing of “In God we trust” on currency was a nondiscretionary act of some (or many) government agents? That is, he had to do it because the government made him and he had no choice.

Leave a Comment