You rarely use cash, therefore no one else should worry about it?

Fighting against "God" on our currency and in "the pledge" need not be an either-or choice.

I agree that the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is the most egregious part of it. But really the entire pledge is jingoism*, and having kids who don't even understand it repeat it every day is indoctrination.

• (Jingoism in the colloquial sense.)

I didn’t start the lawsuit. I signed on as a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit because the opportunity was presented to me. And your argument, that cash isn’t critical, is exactly the excuse the court gave for continuing to print Christian dogma on currency.

@A2Jennifer I am 45 and more or less cashless. Can you imagine kids using cash? I just think cash has had it’s day. Young people use apps and phones for everything. In Sweden, the government is making an effort to do away with cash. The world has really moved on. I wouldn’t like God on my money, but hey, we have that old witch The Queen on every note minted - 60% of Brits want the monarchy to be abolished. Their existence as an institution is at the root of our class system and inequality. They are a sickening bunch. All sorts of stuff that non-Brits don’t see in their news. Prince Andrew was called to an American court in a paedophile case. Really. Google it. Yet, court case against the Queen’s image on money and postage stamps is like asking the Establishment to rule against itself.

America is a funny old place, I have only been here a few years - I see that now the reason America isn’t almost cashless now is because everyone is making a cut out of the public’s inconvenience. You get charged for using cards at vending machines, ATMs everywhere. I can’t get over the fact that even cheques (checks) are still in use - so banks can sit on them and earn interest. Capitalism over progress and convenience.

@thinkr most people in the world don’t use it these days. Certainly very few people under 30.

@Livia,

I am 45 and more or less cashless.

But still not entirely.

Can you imagine kids using cash?

Yes.

I just think cash has had it’s day.

Wrong.

Admittedly, cash usage on the whole and on average has been and continues to be on the decline. However, that is a far cry from saying that it is never or rarely used.

As of 2016, 88% of Americans still make some purchases with cash.
[news.gallup.com]
(See in the table, 12% make none of their purchases with cash.)

54% of American adults have cash on them at all times.
[news.gallup.com]

Regardless of predictions about the future being cashless or not, the fact is that cash is currently in use by many Americans at least some of the time, and it likely will continue to be that way for at least a while. Therefore the issue is relevant now.

In Sweden, the government is making an effort to do away with cash. The world has really moved on.

Irrelevant if true. This case is about United States currency.

If you want to make the case that the US should be cashless, that's a separate argument. I disagree with it, since being cashless necessitates involving a 3rd party in every transaction. However, even if you thought that the US should be cashless (which would take time to potentially achieve), you could still advocate for removal of the religious promotion on the currency we use now.

I wouldn’t like God on my ,

Good. Then support this case/cause.

but hey, we have that old witch The Queen on every note minted - 60% of Brits want the monarchy to be abolished. Their existence as an institution is at the root of our class system and inequality... Yet, court case against the Queen’s image on and postage stamps is like asking the Establishment to rule against itself.

Separate issue. Irrelevant.

But even if you're right about the monarchy (IDK), and if you're right about it being a lost cause to try to get the British government to remove the Queen's image from British currency, that wouldn't make it right for the US to have religious promotion on our currency, nor would it make this case a lost cause.

America is a funny old place, I have only been here a few years - I see that now the reason America isn’t almost cashless now is because everyone is making a cut out of the public’s inconvenience. You get charged for using cards at vending machines, ATMs everywhere. I can’t get over the fact that even cheques (checks) are still in use - so banks can sit on them and earn interest. Capitalism over progress and convenience.

Going cashless would not solve the problems you're citing here. If you want to attack those issues, go ahead. If you want to advocate for a cashless US or society, (I disagree, but) go ahead. None of that would be inconsistent with removing "in God we trust" from US currency, so you ought to support the plaintiffs in this case, too. (Or at least not advocate against them.)

@Livia similar to what banks do with checks, I made a Paypal transaction this week and they told me it would take 7 days to clear the “security check.” They took my money in about 7 minutes though. So imagine how much interest they make when they do $315 million in payments every day and they hold everyone’s money for a week.

@A2Jennifer Fuck! I wonder if it’s more expensive to send by PP here than Europe? I usually send about $150 home per week and I have never even noticed. I am going to pay more attention next time I send money.
I have found really interesting differences in pricing in general - banking, internet, and telephone services, electronic devices are really pricey compared to Europe but cosmetics, petrol, electricity, cars are about 3x less expensive.

@thinkr Very passionate reply. Thank you. I don’t disagree with the principle. God is shoved down our necks in the U.S. I don’t think the reasoning is wrong. I just think the class action will fail and it’s futile except for the lawyers who are always earning.
My comparison to the Queen on currency is not irrelevant because it’s not an American issue- it’s exactly the fucking same. It’s a hegemony, it’s self reinforcing if you use the instruments of the hegemony against the hegemony. Only a revolution is going to rid the obvious connection between church and state that exists in America. Why not take action against churches being able to actively collect money for PACs from their congregations? America has bigger battles to win against public religiosity, and I think pursuing this action is just a waste of good intentions and good energy.
Look at the bonkers administration we have. Trumpians have inserted themselves into every institution there is, including the judiciary. This case just won’t win in this Republican-Jesus era. I just think there are winnable battles and futile ones. The truth is, you can choose not to use cash, and that’s why this case will lose. Sorry!

@Livia 1) if you think you can just choose to not use cash, look at the other responses here. There are MANY examples of situations that require cash or cost more money to NOT use cash, which is also not an acceptable imposition, especially for people who can’t afford alternatives.. 2) our American constitution calls for our government not to impose or privilege any religion, so to have our national currency promote the belief in god, and say that, “if you don’t believe, you don’t have to use cash” is simply an excuse for violating our constitution - “it’s not THAT big a problem for you so you should just put up with having religion imposed on you despite your constitutional rights” is really not ok.

@Livia, thanks for staying on point, and not taking my criticisms of your position as a personal attack.

You've made a more nuanced argument in your latest post here. I still disagree, but not as strongly with most of your latest points. My previous response took me a while, though, so TBH I'm just not sure if I'll have/make the time to continue this thread on those finer points.

I think @A2Jennifer did a good job summarizing my core disagreements with your position in her latest comment on this thread. Keep in mind too that many poorer people (and kids!) have little or no access to other payment methods.

I forgot, some people have very bad credit and can't open bank accounts, so there goes the debit card..........or credit cards.

Wouldn't they also just argue that it doesn't go against the First Amendment?

@Piece2YourPuzzle another point made by the attorney - many of the co-plaintiffs are minors, so they can’t get credit cards and maybe not checks either.

Additionally, using credit/debit cards or checks sacrifices some privacy compared to cash.

And there is a documented tendency to spend more - at least when using cards, compared to cash.

@thinkr Good point. We shouldn't be forced to leave a paper trail and be tracked for every purchase, with checks and cards, just because using cash forces us to profess faith in a god we don't believe in.

Agreed.

The "In God We Trust" on money never has really bothered me. I never really have taken it seriously, and have never felt affected by it. It's just there, I've always felt.

However, I think your point about the government sponsoring or endorsing a particular religion is really important.

@MST3K that's nice for you I guess, but not everyone feels that way. However, unfortunately I think you do have a point that it will be difficult to convince the court of that.

On the other side of things, it reinforces religious believers'...beliefs...especially the Christian nationalists, with the idea that some have that the US is a "Christian nation". It encourages them to wave their religious dicks around, i.e. attempt to impose their beliefs and morality on others.

And the court’s position is, essentially, that you are not really burdened by this violation of your constitutional rights.

@A2Jennifer a violation of Constitutional rights does not need to be proven a burden, does it? Isn't it wrong just on the face of it; by being unconstitutional? Or am I wrong?

@LionMousePudding that is the reasonable, CORRECT position but unfortunately not that of the district court judges, so far.

I love your brain ?

This issue has been tried several times in court, and generally been lost on account of supposed "ceremonial deism", from what I understand. Yeah, it's BS, and unethical. And the "we" makes it a false statement and/or exclusionary. But it's important to realize that it is an uphill battle.

Who would it offend to remove it? Nobody.

This should be true, but unfortunately it isn't.

If god exists, he could do something to prove it. He doesn't, so god either doesn't exist or he does not want us to believe in him. Therefore it is wrong to believe in god.

@ldheinz

I would put the burden of proof on the Court and the State to prove he's real.

How many plaintiffs? Are the attorneys from an organization like the FFRF? Good luck! If you win I’ll buy you a dinner!

@BlueWave I’m not sure but there are lots of us, and they are pursuing in every district (12 of them) in the country up the chain of courts.

That was the initial argument. It was the court’s espouse that it doesn’t pose a significant burden. I think it’s like, you have to show that something has actually effected you in order to sue about it.

@A2Jennifer Ah, I see. Maybe judges need to be religiously unaffiliated when they're on the clock because with that on there it isn't a neutral currency, and that should be enough to get it off. It wasn't on there until 1956, maybe THEY (proponents) should adapt to how it was an insignificant burden then. Not us adapt to it now. Well again, good luck.

Laundromats are a good example.

And some street vendors (e.g. food trucks?).

Glad to hear FFRF is involved.

^^ indoctrination of children

That was actually one of the examples the lawyer made - sometimes people prefer not to have a paper trail for a “private” purchase. But if you’re too shy to put a sex toy on your credit card, you probably aren’t going to offer to put it on record with the court ?

Same article

“Many low-income families across the country don’t have any access to even the most basic banking services like checking accounts and debit cards.."

It didn’t for a while in Michigan. Briefly after medical marijuana was legalized you could use credit cards at dispensaries. My ex spent a fortune on pot before I got a bill and realized what he was doing. Took a while though because they processed the charges under some innocuous sounding name.