Reading about Michael Newdow's most recent legal set back was not at all surprising. It was also not surprising to see the biases in a variety of short news and blog pieces on the loss. HuffPo's, "Atheists Lose Battle To Have 'In God We Trust' Removed From U.S. Currency", is one of the better pieces. I have to admit that actually did surprise me. The tone is slightly dismissive but not nearly as contemptuous as many similar posts that have appeared on the site over the years.
In the end, no matter how it gets reported it is still very telling as to how bigoted and unethical our court system tends to be toward atheists. There is only one reason these cases continue to be quashed; blind ideological bigotry.
"But in dismissing the suit, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr., wrote that 'the Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto's secular purpose and effect,' according to the Associated Press. Baer also ruled that the federal appeals courts 'have found no constitutional violation in the motto's inclusion on currency,' and that the placement of the phrase didn't constitute a 'substantial burden' on atheists."
Seriously?! "God" is an expressly religious concept with no secular purpose or application. Use it in national symbols is an official government endorsement. How is that not a violation of the 1st Amendments separation clause? It in effect says that believers are more important than non-believers. It contributes to an attitude and atmosphere that accepts the denigration of non believers. How is that not a burden?
I also take issue with those who try claiming it is an insignificant aspect that is a waste of the courts time. Symbols do matter. I would love to hear them mouth off about how silly it is if the government started officially using phrases and mottoes that belittled them on a daily basis.