Link to story


I will respond later in the thread...

Debate question is as follows:

1. Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

To me, in its most base sense, yes I do see a violation. Would it be any different if we said hail Jesus on the money, or in god we trust. Currency is rather federal also, so regardless of where you are at in America or any views you might have on religion, you get to know that America as a nation as mandated by the federal government puts its trust in god, it is religious in that note, and is mandated again federally to be that way on something that every American will see and deal with.

On a another civil note, being agnostic, it truly does not bother me that much. I would like for it to be gone, would make me have more trust in my government and sleep easier at night to boot.

Edit to add.

God is a entity born of animism and religion. Its not something born or created by other means. Its roots, evolution and everything considered in the term are devoutly religious in base. The separation clause is to separate religion from government, no laws for or against, which means no laws around religion shall be expressed by government, for or against.

I agree on one had with whyshouldi in the sense that at the most basic level, I guess it does violate the first amendment. But this country was founded by ancestors that were very religious and for the most part believed in God. America is so diverse now that i can see how "in God we Trust" doesnt represent our population very well but it has always been on the money, and just accepted. I think on a whole it doesnt really bother many Americans b/c despite what the money says, it still holds its value.

I will come right out and say, I am not really a religious person. But I am really tired of seeing the religious in this country get attacked. What intrinsic 'harm' is In God we trust causing?

Also the phrase does not establish a religion. If it said in Jesus we trust or Christ we trust thre would be a case.

Doesn't the idea of God in the sense of the phrase stand for something good?

Sleeper wrote;





So in that case, I guess the word god should be applied to the white house structure in some large letter form, say about 20 foot dimensions for each letter, and no one should feel its religious and being established by government. Maybe its issues like this that prompted overall in some extent the separation clause in the first place. Not everyone sees eye to eye on religious matters, and no to me god does not represent something “good” its rather the polar opposite on that one there… No one can object to a privately owned store stationing a twenty foot statue of some religious meaning on its property, but in regards to the government, to simply stay in line, or black and white with the constitution, the word god is factually religious in nature and is being established federally on this nations currency. it’s a law establishing religion in the government, the government is a system of laws.

In the specific sense it does not establish "a" religion. (If Clinton can do it for "is", I can do it for "a"
To the best of my knowledge there is not a specific "God" religion. Many religions reference "a God" under many names, so I don't think it can be seen as establishing a specific religion.

The part that really befuddles me about questions like this is that this country is becoming no less that a isle of wannabe victims. I'll bet we have a million people in the U.S. making a career out of searching for some way to be offended, teaching how to be aware of being offended in colleges, representing the "habitually offended" in court, or defending against them. If all that energy was translated into something useful for the GDP just think of the benefits...

Is all you can do is argue extremes? I won't go that puerile route sorry if I won't engage it with you.

Could you please indicate which religion specifically 'In God we trust' establishes?

sleeper wrote;



What religion does the separation clause state? It just states religion, last time I checked god is a religious term is it not, so therefore it’s religion being established by government.

Michael Newdow is not the best candidate for a legal fight, but somebody's got to do it.

Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

Yes. The history of the inscription shows its purpose was to characterize the people of the U.S. as summarily religious over non-religious, and to a lesser extent, Christian over non-Christian.



Other self-loathing Christians, like Roosevelt, had issues with the motto before atheists took it upon themselves to challenge the constitutionality.

1. Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

Absolutely no more than the Declaration of Independence would have, if the First Amendment had been in effect at the time. And it defies belief that the people would have voted in 1791 to prohibit what they had just done 15 years earlier in the single most defining moment of the country. That's especially true considering that the Declaration was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the most avid proponents of the separation of church and state. Is there any evidence whatsoever that he had misgivings about having included all those divine references, because it supposedly went against his political principles? Did anyone else at the time condemn it for being in conflict with their political principles?

Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

We must keep in mind that the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

The general test applied to cases involving schools is known as the Lemon test, from Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971. The court should check on three criteria:

-It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.

-The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.

-Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion.

Of course, a National Motto has very little purpose, let alone a religious one. I haven't seen anyone using "In God We Trust" to convert people to Christianity. Does it promote or inhibit religion? I don't see how. Does it excessively involve government in religious matters? Again, it's a pretty gray area.

If we look back to the time of the nation's founding we see that the Founding Fathers had no problem with including references to "God", "the Almighty", "the Creator" or "Divine Providence" in official documents.

The Declaration has four references to God ("Nature's God" "their Creator" and "Supreme Judge of the World " and "divine Providence".

Of course, the Declaration is not a US Government document. However, the Constitution is dated "Year of our Lord 1787". Certainly a group of men who wanted absolute separation of Church and State would never acknowledge "Year of our Lord", would they?

Institutions such as Army chaplains, voluntary prayer in the armed services, after hour prayer breakfasts (or dinners), and swearing on the Bible in court and during swearing in for public office have all been upheld as free exercise of religion.



Separation of church and state in the United States

One can go back and forth about the colonial era and various practices that have been found both Constitutional and un-Constitutional down the years.

I do think that the Pledge of Allegiance and the motto "In God We Trust" are both intertwined in their fate.

Recall, however, that when the 9th Circuit said that the pledge was un-Constitutional, Congress quickly passed a bill (unanimously in the Senate and 416-3 in the House) condemning the decision. That should give you a good idea about where the Congress thinks that Americans stand on this issue.

How can the phrase "In God We Trust" not advocate religion? How can it not state to the users of money that GOD is the thing we trust, establishing this as a fact. Many non-zealots have advocated the idea that this particular God, which, by the way, also appears in many courtrooms, is a civic god-type ideal. And yet, for cases in which religion is an issue, this phrase is often pointed to as proof of our society's religious credentials. The two ideas can't co-exist.

I object to it, not on victimhood grounds -- even though I don't believe in God, it doesn't offend me pesonally -- I object to it because of the secular ideal that is in the Constitution. The founders of this country peppered the Declaration of Independence and other documents with references to a deist Creator. However, they left this entity out of the Constitution, and even went so far as to include clauses that forbid any test of religiosity, and forbid any establishment of religion by the government. There is no reason that this phrase should appear on our currency. It provides no practical purpose except to keep the idea of God in Government in the minds of the population.

In 1861, Secretary of the Treasury Chase said this to the head of the Philadelphia Mint:

In other words, the phrase serves an expressly religious purpose.

Where exactly are you referring to? There is a passing mention of Nature and "Nature's God" in the first paragraph of the Declaration, that's all I could find.



From my understanding of the constitution, it's clear that the founders intended religion to be a seperate entity from the federal government. To specifically answer the questions you posed, these people saw first hand the destructive nature of theocracy, and designed a country that would forever be free from it.

No one likes Nedow, but the simple matter is that according to the Supreme Court precendent, he is in the right. The phrase "In God We Trust" is a phrase associated with Monotheism which is a specific type of religion alienated from several living religions: Confucism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and non-religions (e.g. Agnostics and Atheists).

I don't see the removal of the phrase as an "attack" on religion as Sleeper put it. It's about someone who believes in a secular government (as it appears the majority of our founders did), and who is brave enough to endure constant jeering from conservatives and liberals alike in order to fight for something he truly believes in.

Edited to address AMLord's thoughtful comments about the term in the "Year of Our Lord" promintently placed at the top of the consititutioin. As it was pointed out by someone smarter than me in another thread, the phrase "In the Year of Our Lord" is no more religious than the term "BC" is, and was simply the contemporary way of officially citing a date in the time of the constitutional drafting.

I am going to go with Amlord here... if they wanted it sooo secular, why start it, "The year of our Lord"?

Right. The founding fathers were not anti-religion. In fact they knew that a moral public was necessasry for a free society and that religion was key to promoting good morals. Their opposition in the first amendment was to an established state religion, or the promotion of one religion over another.

As noted in this thread, and others, that was the contemprary way of writing out the date on official documents at that time.

But, let's turn it around, shall we? If they reall wanted that document sooo non-secular, or "religious" if you prefer, why is it that this is the only place that you can find a mention of God in the entire document?

Even if that was the only reference to God in the Declaration, that would be enough to condemn it by using the same reasoning people are using to condemn "In God We Trust". But in fact, there are more such references. Probably the most famous line in the whole document is: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...."

And if that didn't get the point across enough, towards the end are statements that they were "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions" and acting "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence".


If you're implying that the drafters didn't really mean what they wrote when they wrote that, then I should remind you that according to their own Christian beliefs, they would have been taking God's name in vain. It's important not to look at what they did from a modern perspective. A phrase like that wasn't just window dressing for them. I honestly would have a hard time imagining an atheist using that phrase. I could picture him saying A.D., because A and D are just two letters of the alphabet. But "in the year of our Lord"? Could you picture that coming from an atheist? If the answer's no, then the phrase is more than just a formality.

"Deist"? How exactly did you come to this conclusion?


The fact that the Constitution contained no such references, other than the mention of "in the year of our Lord" (which I talked about in further detail at #17), did not indicate a change of heart from 1776. The Declaration made these references to God because its purpose was to provide the moral underpinnings to the cause we were fighting for. The founders believed that it was impossible to do so without mentioning what they believed to be the source of all morality and justice. The Constitution, on the other hand, was a body of law, and so references of that nature weren't needed in order to simply lay down the law. But there is no evidence from any of the founders' writings that they would have thought that such references would have been in any way inappropriate. An establishment of religion, to them, meant an establishment of a church, not expressing a simple belief in God.

The argument is on the religious value of the god we trust statement on Americas currency. Not if the founding fathers would have wanted this to be a debated issue. They made the separation clause, meaning they wanted religion out of government and vice versa. What are the other alternatives to its meaning, the words say no establishment of religion by government. Religion as an abstract term to denote religion, and that religion will not have form in law in relation to government, government being law. Its by authority of this body of law (government) that this religious item (in god we trust) is standard on our federal currency. Unless people will flat out vote that in god we trust has nothing to do with religion, and that its history has nothing to do with religion, the term via its nature is very religious, and is very much by law by the government existing, which then finds conflict with the words in the constitution that state separation of church and state for how its worded.

Or, that they wanted to prevent the federal government from setting up a church or churches. Of the two possibilities, which is more consistent with the evidence from that time?

I'm an atheist, or at least non-Deist but this is getting down to the ridiculous level. If these four words constitute establishment of a religion then we're on a slippery slope. How about the fact that the US government since its inception has used the Christian calendar based on the birth of Jesus?, its on the coins, on every official document etc. Isn't that an even more blatant expression of religion since it is specific to the birth of Jesus rather than simply a reference to an abstract "God"?.

I applaud Newdow's perseverance, but enough already!.

Blackstone wrote;



Or which two is more consistent with how people in power have worked the issue. If the clause was to how you are portraying it in your post, do you not think something of such importance would have been worded a bit different? The constitution makes reference only to religion in whole, not parts or facets of it. Then it goes on to say government, congress type stuff if I am correct, not just a part of government or a certain function of it. So in words we have religion, no laws, by government. Its almost like sesame street with sounding words out, and I am not trying to be mean, I must just be missing something here. its like humans as an organism, everyone is so bent on being able to explain the software with no need to solve for the hardware.

I don’t mind the idea that many people in America are religious one way or another, that does not demerit the constitutions stance on governmental and religious activities, there were to be none as far as I can see, religious was to be a private matter as far as I can read on it from the words, not a matter to be dealt with on a federal level.

For how its currently being employed, its government shall make laws respecting only a particular religious view, or government shall make laws respecting religion just as long as you cant specify which religion. Even in this case, we know the people behind it were expressing Christian faith, but the point is the constitution says government and religion to remain separate when it comes to law, and I feel this very much is a breech of such in relation to the subject matter, a very religious item, god, and it being federally mandated by law onto our currency.

It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Is it not unreasonable to conclude that this means a religious institution, instead of mere expression of belief in God? I'm not asking you if you think it would be reasonable or unreasonable to make it our policy. I'm asking you if it could be a reasonably accurate interpretation of what the founders were writing, based on their own writings and conduct.

Historical context is important.

The Articles of Confederation dealt with religion in the exact manner that the Constitution did: it largely ignored it. However, under the Articles, religion was not only recognized, it was encouraged: Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89

Non-sectarian religion, that is. The government has never recognized one religion (Christian or otherwise) over another, nor one denomination over another.

George Washington, often described as a Deist, was for many years a vestryman in the Episcopal Church. In Washington's farewell speech, he called religion "a necessary spring of popular government". George Washington's view of the relationship between government and religion were the common views of the time and the speech was reprinted for quite some time. Many people know his cautioning against "foreign entanglements", but view apparently remember his views on religion:



Similarly, John Adams was a firm supporter of religion. Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

link

The next two Presidents, Jefferson and Madison, had less enthusiasm for organized religion, but both supported it while President.

The first Congress, the same one that drafted the Bill of Rights, had the following as the oath of office:



Vice President John Adams' first address to the Senate went this way:


The original Constitution of Pennsylvania read:



The current version is:


source

The words "In God We Trust" does not promote one specific religion to the exclusion of others. Muslims, Jews, and most other religion refer to "God" in one form or another. The idea that any reference to religion is taboo is simply devoid of any knowledge of this country's early history.

George Mason [unanimously adopted, 12 June 1776, with some rather minor revisions]:

"A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free Convention, which rights do pertain to them, and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

1. THAT all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
****
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

And the concern for George Mason and some others was not "religion" but "state religion," and that explains why George Mason introduced a bill that did away with the obligation of "dissenters" to have to contribute to the support of the established Anglican church. The preamble to the bill provides, in pertinent part:

"...it is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth."

And here is George's proposed amendment to the US Constitution re religious freedom:

"That Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence, and therefore all Men have an equal natural and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others."

http://diodon349.com/FOA/a_voice_of_dissen...eorge_mason.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmason.htm

And by the way, George refused to sign the Constitution, since the same did not contain a Bill of Rights.

Madison otherwise wrote against the appointment of chaplains for the Congress, arguing that it would divide that body along religious lines and was otherwise simply unfair. Ironically enough, he used the Roman Catholics as an example, i.e., they were and are in the minority and could never hope to have a priest as chaplin since none would be elected by the majority. Madison was also against chaplins for the army and navy as well, and on the same basis. He otherwise believed that if the troops and sailors were truly religious, that they would have no shortage of ministers, priests, what have you, willing to help. And Madison would not have liked Lincoln in this regard, since he also wrote something about "no" to executive proclamations concerning "thanksgivings and fasts." Undoubtedly, he would have first cringed and then went into cardiac arrest upon hearing Lincoln's second inaugural. His exact words, and this goes to what some have posted re what Washington, Adams, etc., said/wrote:

"The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one government in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea. But reason and the principles of the Christian religion require that [if] all the individuals composing a nation were of the same precise creed and wished to unite in a universal act of religion at the same time, the union ought to be effected through their religious not of their political representatives. In a nation composed of various sects, some alienated widely from others, and where no agreement could take place through the former, the interposition of the latter is doubly wrong. 4. The tendency of the practice, to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect. The first (see if this was the first) proclamation of General Washington dated January 1, 1795, recommending a day of thanksgiving, embraced all who believed in a Supreme Ruler of the Universe. That of Mr. Adams called for a Christian worship. Many private letters reproached the proclamations issued by James Madison for using general terms, used in that of President Washington; and some of them for not inserting particulars according with the faith of certain Christian sects. The practice if not strictly guarded naturally terminates in a conformity to the creed of the majority and a single sect, if amounting to a majority."

So Mason could have lived with "In God We Trust", while Madison would have said "no" to the same.

And for informational purposes, Madison on chaplins:

"Is the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the constituent, as well as of the representative body, approved by the majority, and conducted by ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable [easily noticeable] violation of equal rights, as well as of constitutional principles. The tenants of the chaplains elected shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics and Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
***
Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. Look through the armies and navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the shepherds, be most in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion, is not nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit out of the armies will never be less so; and a failure of religious instruction and exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will rarely happen; and if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services of their teacher are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had their appointed chaplains, but without these there would have been no lack of public devotion to that devout age.

The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout officer, might be of a much worth to religion, as the service of an ordinary chaplain, were it admitted that religion has a real interest in the latter. But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad one."

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/estaorel.html

Main Entry: es·tab·lish·ment
Function: noun
1 : something established: as a : a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority b : a permanent civil or military organization c : a place of residence or esp. business with its furnishings and staff
2 a : an act of establishing b : the state of being established
From dictionary.com

So with the law as by the constitution saying establishment of religion, not church, or anything more particular then religion, I must establish my opinion that it was religion in general, was to have no laws for or against. Federal law mandating religion via government is ultimately an establishment of religion by government then, in god (religious) we trust is federally established as law. I do not feel you can bounce that word around, as it states religion, not anything more particular then that, religion cannot be established by the government. It does not say, church, or anything more then religion, which then must apply to religious things, matters, or anything religious.

As far as the founding fathers go, if they were all so bent on religion, what sense can you find in them making it so the government and religion can not intertwine in the form of laws via the separation clause. Ultimately you can say what you want about the founders, but it was those same people, not some other entity that wrote that into the constitution, not some evil entity bent on destroying religion.

Edit to add, I guess the founders just wanted to leave us all confused, or just did not understand english.

Definition 1a seems to be the one most consistent with the views of the founders. The fact that the dictionary says "church" instead of "religion" is hardly material. That's getting excessively nitpicking. Ask yourself this: If they had intended to say that there should be no religious component to laws at all, then why did they waste ink talking about "establishment"? Why didn't they simply say, "Congress shall make no law respecting religion"?

Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?\
I'm with Amlord on this one. I think this case fails the Lemon test.

First the primary purpose of the statute is currency printing, not using said instruments to somehow advocate a particular religion.

Also, using said currency neither affirms nor denies someone a religious choice (2nd prong). The existence of the statement may have some historical affirmation, but can anyone honestly tell me they give a seconds thought to that statement being on your currency when you pay for a Mocha Latte at Starbucks?

Finally, it fails the 3rd test of unnecessary entanglement. Even if someone accepts some of the trumpeting of the historical context of its inclusion, this again fails in the modern era. I don't know if ubiquity is a legitimate measure of the entanglement prong, but it certainly seems to be a non-starter with some perception of entangling the existent state of our currency with a violation of the establishment clause.

Perhaps if the statement was more clearly featured on the currency, I could see a case of *maybe* breeching the entanglement clause, but its writing is sufficiently small on paper currency to make the statement irrelevant at best.

I do disagree with Amlord on the pledge being analogous, however. Of course, that is for another debate.

Doc

Sorry, I don't follow this logic. The intent of the law isn't just to print currency; it's to print currency with a religious statement. Surely, if the statement were removed, that would in no way change the function of the currency itself.

And to answer the question that has often been asked in cases like this: the name of the religion that is being promoted is "theism." I trust this settles that question.



Well, I am insulted everytime I have to use such currency. I am reminded of how many of my fellow citizens think about me:

Link



(Bold added for emphasis)






Isn't the fact that a violation of the Constitution is everywhere make it more serious than less serious?


Newdow is right, but his chances of success are zero. Maybe that means he should give up. Maybe people should do what's easy instead of what's right.

Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

No, the phrase itself does not establish a religion; the love of the commodity on which it is printed is in itself a religion. How hard do so many people work and even fight to amass every last dollar they make, whether they are actually entitled to it or not?

Do we as Americans actually place our "trust" in anybody or anything these days? Because there are still some who assert that they trust in God (whoever that deity may be in their minds), is that so unbearable for those who do not exercise a similar trust? Would "In Government We Trust" be an acceptable alternative? Not for me. I certainly don't trust government or government officials.

How about we print something appropriate under the etched profiles of Americans or that fictional character, Ms. Liberty? Something like, Jefferson--a great guy who liked Unitarians (too long, I know), or Washington--First President. Or Liberty--a principle romanticized in a cynical society, not to be confused with a real person.
I hope you see where I'm going. Any number of captions could be selected for all of the coins, right down to the Lincoln penny. A lot of time and money can be spent by we the people just to replace that offensive little caption, "In God We Trust."

But is it really worth it to a plurality of United States citizens? Not to me, and I suspect that many more would consider it an absolute waste of money and time, whether they believe in a deity or not.

And no, it is not unconstitutional. What the Founders were striving to do was avoid what England had become, a nation with one official religion, where other religions were or were not tolerated. I think they succeeded.

I do not dislike or hold disdain for atheists. There are a lot of fine people who do not believe in God. But I think we should be practical about this, especially with a government that likes to pour billions upon billions of dollars into a war effort and supports corporate welfare, but cares little for education, health care, and jobs for the economically disadvantaged.

So if the constitution worded that no laws respecting the establishment of taxes existed, and for some reason it was passed into law, that at the end of the year, you had to pay one cent in taxes, even though minimal, would it not be a breech of the constitution in regards to the taxes clause? My point in debating this, is not how small an infraction it may seem, or if its even an infraction in some peoples eyes, its about what the constitution states about separation of church and state in regards to the contemporary environment.

Ultimately, in god we trust is a religious statement, the clause makes a point about no laws respecting the establishment of religion, the phrase, being established, and being religious then would be in breech of such a clause in the most primal sense of it all.

Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

stick tongue firmly in cheek

No, but it is a foolish thing to stamp on moola. The practice has brought us wars, rumors of wars, natural catastrophes, birth defects, civil strife, poorly performing students, lax moral values, suicide, drug abuse, theaving white collar criminals, corrupt government, the highest incarceration rate among developed nations, STD, WMD, and MTV.

So to rid ourselves of these blights, please send all your money marked "In God we trust" to me. I assure you that my special blend of mantras and incantations will rid our great land of all the above mentioned scourges. Electronic transfers gladly accepted.

remove tongue from cheek

Which brings up a good question: How do you stamp "In God we trust" on electronic transfers? The fact of the matter is that it could be done, but nobody cares. It's a waste of bits.

This thing is a moot point because the handling of physical money is going away, and rather quickly.

Regardless of whether you (or I) are in sympathy with Michael Newdow or not, the currency will continue to have "In God We Trust" printed on it. It is a sacred cow, if you will, that will be remembered and brought up in the next election to discredit any politician fatuous enough to strive to eliminate the phrase from coinage and paper money. And I doubt that the Supreme Court would agree to listen to a case about its constitutionality.

The problem with the all-or-nothing way of looking at things (i.e., no mention of God whatsoever in the operation of government or the exchange of goods and services among the populace) is that it doesn't work with human beings. Michael Newdow, in his own way, is waging a Quixotic campaign that will not succeed as long as politicians rely on outwardly religious people to vote for them.

(Remember Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who claimed that the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina were God's way of showing displeasure at gays, feminists, and whoever else is out of favor with their religiosity. Some people, regardless of the stupidity of such views, tend to agree with these guys and continue to send them money!)

But I do suspect that AuthorMusician is correct in saying that the monetary system we're using now will become obsolete. Then it will be irrelevant who the Caesar on the coin about whom we rail and ultimately have to "render to." Unless we have something damn good with which to barter for goods and services, we will have to use the system.

(Note: I do not have "In God We Trust" printed on my personal checks, nor on my debit card. And they both seem to work rather well.)

You didn't answer my question, whyshouldi. You have two hypothetical statements:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

"Congress shall make no law respecting religion"

Is there any difference in meaning between those two statements? If yes, what? If no, then why did the founders waste the ink?

The Constitution was written with some ideals in mind. Some of these ideals were not exactly practiced at the time it was written. It has been concluded by some that these ideals may be clarified and, I would say, perfected through the years of our nation's existence. Some of this has been done via amendments and some the perfection has been accomplished via the Supreme Court.

For example: "..all men are created equal..". Seems like a clear concept. At the time slavery was present and women did not vote. Through time we have made changes to better strive for the ideal of 'all men are created equal'. We as a nation have been willing to make changes to reach the ideals represented in our Constitution.

Hopefully we as a nation will continue to strive to best put in practice the ideals established with our Constitution. In this debate we have this ideal: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". This is stating an ideal that government and religion should not be intertwined. Through history, we have made progress in perfecting this ideal. We should not have government putting a motto on our currency promoting religion as it conflicts with the ideal. Putting forth the argument that we have not followed this ideal in the past so we should not improve it now it short changing ourselves. We can do better and we should.

----------

I like the Lemon Test which Amlord brought into this debate. Here is my application of it.

It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.

The phrase 'In God We Trust' has no secular purpose.

The practice either promotes or inhibits religion.

It is promoting religion. Those who decided to put 'In God We Trust' appear to me to have the objective of having a constant reminder that our country is based upon religion.

Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion.

It is not involving government with a religion but is unnecessarily promoting religion. Is this excessive? I expect unnecessary invovlement is legally quite similar to excessive.

Conclusion: 'In God We Trust' fails two parts of the Lemon Test and dances around failing the third. It is clearly unconstitutional.

Unlike mere expression of belief in God by government, slavery was hotly controversial at the time of the Constitution's enactment. There's no comparing the two, either in terms of morality, or in terms of the extent to which they were accepted and even encouraged. Not even Jefferson, who was probably the most avid proponent of the separation of church and state, ever came out against such official expression. In fact, he engaged in such expression himself when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. That's attested by the very word "created" that you quoted above. Was it a moral wrong for him to have done so, the way slavery was a moral wrong?

(Oh, and as to the other point, the Declaration did indeed say that all men were created equal. Whatever people might think of that ideal today, one could hardly cite the fact that women didn't vote as a way of asserting that the founders didn't live up to it.)

Could you explain this statement as an addendum in an on-topic response to another poster when you get the chance? When discussing the need to "change" the Constitution or the way we interpret it with constructionists or conservatives, we end up chasing our tail.

It seems like conservatives say change should come about solely through the legislature. When liberals deliberate out the need to clarify the Constitution by pointing out the amendment process conservatives back up and lift the Founders to an untouchable pedestal. Whatever objection towards slavery these men had, some kept slaves themselves. We may be better off thinking of the Founders as human beings with the same weaknesses as everyone else instead of blameless visionaries. How can we infer the Founders “live[d] up to” the same ideals we don’t just pay lip service to, but practice?

As for quotes citing the Founders’ favorable regard towards religion I can counter with a like number of quotes expressing scathing hostility towards it. It’s a zero sum game.

Actually, if you look at Washington's farewell address (which I forgot to link in my earlier post so here it is: Washington's Farewell Address 1796



Interestingly, Washington continues from there into his comments about religion that I linked earlier:



The Constitution should be AMENDED if there is disagreement about what it says or what it should say. There needs to be a supermajority that agrees with the change, not a 9 judge panel or a majority plus one group of Congressmen.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The establishment of law respecting religion, as stated above in the definition, would not trust in god then qualify as religious, and thus be established as a law by the government. Let us remember it was the founders that wrote the separation of church and state, regardless of ideological affiliation, they were the ones that wrote it, no one else.

If they wanted so badly government and religion to not be a separate entity, the constitution would not reflect separation of church and state. It would be worded in such a way that would allow for religion, and more importantly, I would gather specific religious properties would be worded into law, not a term to generalize religion in whole, regardless of how small or large that particular law on religion is to quantify such.

I feel at this point to debate farther on just the pure meaning of the issue is a useless endeavor. My established belief is that the founders respected a governing authority to be free from religion and not to be able to deal with religion, either for or against, and furthermore simply wanted religion to be a entirely private matter not to reach the federal government. In god we trust being a law by government is a law by government respecting the establishment of religion.

Your response to my post (quoting all of it) threw me off, Amlord. I was trying to scratch the surface of a gospel-like deference to the Founders. You refer to, ironically, one of the Founders whom although disagreed with slavery couldn’t part with the cheap labor they provided in his lifetime. In a game of cards we treat quotes the Founders left us as the ultimate trump card instead of debatable material as society sometimes marches, more often crawls and shambles, towards a more equitable existence than the one the Founders accepted in their lifetime.

This is a tough argument to reconcile. On the one hand, despite finding myself on the other side of the Griswold fence I agree with the approach of making the SCOTUS an agent of creating rights is arguably authoritarian. On the other, I don’t trust the American public with the decision of religion and government and where the lines of separation should be (or the 1st and flag burning for that matter).

But we’ve strayed from constitutional interpretation to what SCOTUS should be able to review.

I don't understand this statement. Don't our elected officials come from the American public?

Edit to add: I see what Lesly means now after rereading. The American public as a whole make rash uniformed decisions. The whole mob mentality thing.

I will state again. I am not a religious person at all. I don't attend church or talk about religion in my house. In fact I believe most religions were created to control the masses. That being said though.. I think the notion of God(not religion) is something positive. What I believe is happening is people like Newdow have become so blinded by their politics, they don't see what can keep us united, and look for more ways for us to be divided.

Can I assume you understand the first part of that paragraph?: "On the one hand, despite finding myself on the other side of the Griswold fence I agree with the approach of making the SCOTUS an agent of creating rights is arguably authoritarian." Why shouldn’t I extend that distrust towards the elected officials responsible for consenting to the appointment of judges (at the federal level anyway), or believe the legislative process only has room for altruistic agendas?

So god is not a religious statement… God and religion have nothing to do with each other, no one thinks god and religion have anything in common, no common ground on that one. Well, I guess you will have to tell dictionary.com to change its definition, and this will induce mass riots all over the world when such a message gets out I am sure.

On the idea of something that separates, I blame human ignorance overall, but religion in general has caused more segregation, death and war then most anything else I can remember from history, it was a non stop bloodbath actually, and the fuel for Muslim extremists last time I checked, one more reason for it to stay out of government and vice versa.


Edit to add the following.

Sure some could view the actions of the persona wanting the statement revoked as silly and a little extreme, on both sides of this fence to add. The person still has the right to make the case, and I think it would be even more silly if it was not heard out. People always talk about being patriotic this and that, what’s so patriotic about shrugging off our constitution in favor of something some people may agree with but not everyone. Far be it from me to say religion is one chaotic environment when it comes to being exact in regards to agreement, and even if it does appear to be a simple statement, it does not have to seem that way to everyone, maybe giving the definition of religion, that person carries almost a religious zeal to have such a statement abolished.

My personal interest in the separation of church and state is that it remains protected and standing, and that people like Jerry Farwell are not calling the shots for my life legally, or any other religious based persons for that matter, I just don’t agree with religion nor care to have it be some tyrant like menace in my life.

1. Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?

I don't believe that the phrase establishes any religion in any logical sense. Maybe the question should be worded "does the phrase 'In God We Trust' promote a judeo-christian heritage in America. I could answer yes to that.
The phrase doesn't bother me in the least. I don't care if it's written on currency, courthouse walls or urinal mints.........it doesn't affect me or my family in any way whatsoever.
I like to think that there is nobody more agnostic than me, I tend to look down my nose at organized religion as a theology of self serving hypocrisy, though I believe that many of the teachings would be good lessons to live by, they simply aren't lived by the majority of church goers. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
But for the life of me, I equally can't fathom the intent to stamp out any and all references to religion from the public square. People's feelings and insecurities aside, the Ten Commandments or 'In God We Trust' bear no more relevance to anyone's everyday life than the 'Do Not Remove' warning tags on mattresses.

So, to paraphrase myself, as I don't believe that the phrase establishes a religion, it is not in violation of the first amendment.

It does not. The fact of the matter is that we are not an atheist republic... although some people try to establish it as such. Ninety-two percent of Americans believe in a god... not the Judeo-Christian deity, but yes, a god of some kind. Now, when you do the math: 295,740,000 people live in the United States. Of that, some 272,080,800 of the population believe in a god. Now, take the total number of the population, subtract it from the population and a mere eight percent, or 23,659,200 people do not believe in a god. And now without further ado, the answer to the question...

No, religion is not established by American currency. Unless a specific god, deity, being, entity, force for a specific religious reform or teacher appears on the currency we use, there shall never be a breach of the First Amendment. Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, Jesus, Jehovah, Satan, Lucifer, Zeus, Ra, Jupiter, Odin, Thor, Kagutsuchi, Isis, Di-Cang or another deity would have to be named and associated with a specific religion, cult, organization, group, society or gathering in order to be in violation of any U.S. law. It is like saying "there sure are a lot of planets in this solar system," that is a fact. But until you narrow it down, such as "there is a planet, Venus, in this solar system," you cannot assign a specific belief or attribute to that planet. It is the same with the use of the word "God," which god is not named, but we are not going to deny the overwhelming majority of Americans who do believe in a god the fact that they believe their god exists because a few million people do not.

But one would have to examine just what it is you're quoting. It's true that most of them did not want there to be anything resembling an official priesthood, or officially sanctioned mode of worship, or anything else that would be suggestive of government acting as a church. But government is not acting as a church by merely expressing a belief in God, and I highly doubt you'll find a quote from one of them saying otherwise. The fact that they - including Jefferson - did condone official acknowledgements of belief in God would pretty strongly confirm this view.


I hope it's OK if I make it an addendum to this on-topic post to you. I didn't mean to suggest that they always lived up to their ideals. What I did want to point out is that they lived up to them more than they get given credit for. I think there's a confusion in modern times about what the founders ideals were. People today have their own idea of what American ideals are - which is fine - but then they assume that those are the same as the founders' ideals, and from there conclude that the founders weren't living up to their own ideals. They largely were, though the one glaring exception was slavery. It would, however, be a grave mistake to assume that everybody back then was perfectly fine with it. They were not, and it was a source of friction at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It wound up being largely swept under the rug in order to keep the states from disuniting, but that doesn't mean that it was considered an OK thing by most of them. It was just an old habit that took a long time to die out. Ironically enough, it may even have been the case that opposition to it prolonged it, as it made the southern states all the more determined to hold on to it. It was a nasty, vicious situation that never really got any better for quite some time.

Aside from that sorry business, however, they mostly did live up to their ideals, even if those ideals weren't what modern Americans would necessarily consider "American" ideals. Jefferson's many references to God in the Declaration of Independence wasn't a "weakness" on his part, or a sign of some sort of inability to live up to his ideals. It was part of his ideals, to say that freedom was a divine gift and something people had a religious obligation to hold on to. And if he felt it should have been stated by people as individuals, he saw no reason why it shouldn't have been expressed collectively as well, when speaking as a society.

By the way, whyshouldi, you still haven't answered the question I asked at #34. What is the difference in meaning between the two sentences I posted, and why did the founders word it the way they did?

The clause does not ask for A religion, its ask that no laws are made that respect religion, not A religion, but religion in general. I posted the definition of religion, and in that definition, I think it clearly points out that the word god is a very religious term, and is then made into law federally, respecting religion.

blackstone, with every post I have made, I have pointed out why they worded it the way they did. No laws can be established that pertain to religion, I don’t know how to answer a question that already has for itself, but you may if you feel keep asking.

No laws can be established, no laws respecting the establishment of religion. That means NO generally to any form of something ok, now stay with me. Religion, in general, look at the definition, it means things that are religious in nature, like the word GOD ok. No laws respecting the establishment of religion. If it were no laws respecting the establishment of fast food, that means the government could make no laws, for or against fast food. I cant make any laws in respect to this establishment, I cannot establish laws in respect to said establishment, I can however beat my head on a wall which this is starting to become.

I guess because I make up a minority anyone can force anything they want on me, sounds rather barbaric if not racist, just more on why I like religion so much, makes people nice.

Edit to add the following.

To argue motives of the founders is something I have not venture into save to state that they are the ones that made the clause for separation, and my belief on why, no more detail into that was giving by me. Now if you read the whole clause, no laws respecting religion, the establishment, it does not single any single aspect of religion, it blankets the whole domain with how its worded, the rest goes on about no restrictions to free speech or expression of such. It simply appears to me, for the definitions of the words as they compile in a sentence to make up thought, they wanted no laws by the government that have anything to do with religion. This is why the current ruling on such reflects such, no laws for or against by the government, its really that simple to me. More or less, people that make it out to be more then that, truly have motives. I have my own, to keep the separation of church and state standing as its worded, not about how the founders had their own personal views on things, that is nice, they made the clause, the clause is worded how it is, and its been mandated by the government that way, no laws for or against is what it boils down to in the most reduced form.

The other option some advocate that what the clause means is that you can have all kinds of religious in nature laws by the government, but as long as it does not get specific into some existing religion as in organized its not breeching the contract. Taking it into that light, one could make a law by government that people should have to drive backwards on the highway every Tuesday to show trust in god. It does not mark any particular religion does it, what’s the difference, simple perception of the breech is all. That’s why religion got the blanket statement in the clause, not A religion, but religion, as in religion in general.

Another option to show the religiouness of the breech would to be like this. What if the sentence in debate was the American government hates god, or it was law that the word god could not be in print. Would in not be a law by the government in respects to the establishment of religion???

After thinking about this a lot more, and reading over the many additional replies to my own. I would like to say that I'm generally opposed to the statement being printed on the money but that I agree it is a relatively minor one in the scheme of things. However, it is important that this type of argument is fleshed out fully in the courts so that we have precedent of what exactly constitutes establishment.

I think it's clear that the statement "In God We Trust" implies governmental endorsement of monotheistic religions. This specifically establishes that the state itself supports one religion (even if it is the religion of 92% of its citizens) over others non-deist religions.

In this vein I believe Christians would be equally as upset as Atheists if the term were somehow changed to "In Gods We Trust." I think that if you're arguing for this statement from a Christian position, it's important that you give yourself that sort of perspective in this debate.

Many have replied that they aren't "personally" offended by the term, but I don't really think that's the issue at all here. The issue is whether or not the term is of relgious nature. Regardless of your views of the "estlabishment" amendment, if the term is indeed found to be religious in nature, Supreme Court precedent says it can't be on the money.

I'm curious for those who say this is a waste of time (which I agree with in a lot of ways), if the legislation was to include the statement today on say... the FDIC logo, would that be OK as well?

Unfortunately, until this specific phrase has been decided one way or the other by the highest court, it's an issue that needs to be resolved one way or the other. I know many conservatives today don't really like the judicial check on legislation like this. But I'm curious, if it's not the Supreme Court that decides what is or is not a violation of our fundamental constitutional rights(as some have suggested in this thread), than who is?

(To Address the earlier "In the Year of Our Lord Debate")

"In the Year of Our Lord" means exactly the same thing as AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#H..._of_Anno_Domini

The point is moot as far as I'm concerned. It's not fair to use this as evidence that the founding fathers supported religous terminology in government. I can find no evidence of this, but my strong guess is that the secular "AD" usage of the term in contemporary times had not yet been established. I also, believe that it does not make sense to include Latin in America's Consititution.

As far as changing our calender because it's religious in nature, I think it's clear that the calender as well as the terms "AD" and "BC" have evolved so far away from their original relgious overtones that they are most commonly used in a completely secular way. I see no relation of these two things to the overtly religious phrase "In God We Trust."

VD....Your logic here falls right along with..."Well everyone else was doing it too..."

Who cares what the mob wants? Anyone?..... Do we really need to go trhu the list of what was once "approved" by the majority in the past?

Is it Constitutional? Isn't THAT the question?

I won't argue that the majority of Americans claim to follow some form of spiritworship. However I know a whole lot who say they do and never attend a service of any type or ever even follow any sort of practice or study on it.
So why should I take such polls seriously??

Regardless I agree with smorpheus let the Court do its job and settle the matter.

1. Does the phrase on our coinage and currency "In God we trust" establish a religion, which would conflict with the first amendment?
No.

I really do not understand the fuss about this issue. Even if this inscription would in some way be unconstitunional would it really matter? Should this unconstitutional practise be allowed to exist, although nobody is offended by it? Who will benefit from this change? Does it make your society a better place? I really do not see the problem. That guy, Michael Newdow, apparently has too much spare time, or lacks any nice hobbies.

In Holland we also have a similar text on the sides or the Dutch Euros ("God Zij Met Ons"). Considering the fact Holland is a strongly secularized society (especially compared to the U.S.) I have never ever heard anybody make comments on the fact we have a religious inscription on the sides of our coins. It is just not worth the fuss. It is merely a historical reference to our national culture.