Oh the meme isn't technically inaccurate but it's misleading to
   prove a point. It's used as rhetoric - a convincing tool rather
   than a "just the facts" tool. == Hmm.. well I'd agree except
   that I always thought it was from the 1950s too because that's
   the impression ppl who want "in god we trust" taken off seem to
   bring up. I had to look it up myself to find out that it's older
   than that. Now that I know how long it's actually been in use, I
   understand a little better why the people who want to keep it
   are fighting to keep it on there. They're NOT fighting for a
   thing from the 1950s but for a Civil War era thing. Some ppl get
   caught up in that stuff. Not saying they're right - I honestly
   don't care either way - just that I don't like things that are
   "technically correct but..." == Well here. This is more related:
   Is it ethically justifiable to state a fact that implies a
   misleading fact in pursuit of a political goal? My criticism
   rather with the meme creator and the spreading of an
   implication] == Well, it would be but remember church =/= God. A
   church is an organizing structure for people. Official
   representation of one particular church as a seat in government
   gives power to a church body. That's what the law is there for.
   == Personally? I don't think it needs to be there. But at the
   same time, I don't care that it's there either. I don't mind if
   people fight to keep it or get rid of it but I don't think it's
   a separation of church + state issue. Maybe it is, but as far as
   I know, there's no organization that's getting a seat in
   government because of it. == As far as I know, money's still not
   an official religion. Having to use money isn't a religious
   practice. I don't see the bearing the markings on currency have
   in inhibiting someone's free practice of religion or not. I'm
   not defending that it should be there. I'm just saying, the
   fight isn't likely to go anywhere for a long time because
   there's no religious freedom being inhibited with it. ==   What
   they CAN argue is that it's offensive. That's a different
   matter. They'll have trouble fighting that as well because
   Jehovah's Witnesses, a recognized religious body in the USA, are
   iconoclasts. They have fought to get religious and pagan icons
   and songs taken out of schools, citing separation of church and
   state but they simply get removed because it's annoying having
   complaining parents. They ALSO have been fighting for a very
   long time to get "In God We Trust" off of the money as well as
   the freemason symbols. But they've been unsuccessful. They're a
   very large group but in the end, all they can say is that it
   offends them. That's about as far as other organizations want to
   get it off of the money can say as well. == It's just not that
   big of a deal to most people. There aren't that many people that
   care that it's on there, and there aren't that many people that
   care if it is removed. There's an over-representation of several
   bodies of people online. One is atheists. Another is
   libertarians. Neither group has much political clout because
   they are scattered and their numbers are small. They seem
   important online and numerous, but offline, they're marginal.
   This can all change of course. But for now, it's not an atheist
   world nor a libertarian world.   ==