|
Speak Out
Is our national motto unconstitutional?
When you open your wallet to make a purchase at your favorite store, are you thinking about religion?
A California man argues that you are. Bills and coins are inscribed with the phrase “In God We Trust” – they have been since the 1800s, and the phrase was designated as the United States’ national motto in 1956.
But Michael Newdow, a Sacramento attorney and atheist activist, has brought numerous challenges against religious phrases receiving public endorsement. He twice filed lawsuits over the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The most recent one is under appeal to the Supreme Court. This month, the Supreme Court refused to review his latest challenge – that “In God We Trust” should not be put on the nation’s currency, since it makes him an “unwilling bearer of a religious message” when he goes to the store to make a purchase.
| The establishment clause can be found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution or its amendments. Thomas Jefferson introduced the concept in an 1802 letter that referred to a “wall of separation between Church & State,” and numerous Supreme Court rulings have cited it since. |
Newdow isn’t the only one to bring these challenges. In 2005, a controversy brewed in Davidson County, N.C., when local officials voted to display the national motto in 18-inch letters mounted to the Government Center. The state motto of Ohio – “With God, all things are possible” – was similarly challenged but upheld by federal courts.
The national motto was first challenged at the federal level in the 1970 case Aronow v. United States, which was cited by the federal appeals judges who rejected Newdow’s case. But what’s the problem? Critics say the phrase is a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – as well as the concept of a separation of church and state. By printing references to God on government documents – and government buildings, since the phrase appears on the entrance to the U.S. Senate – the government could be viewed as endorsing one religion over another. Or, more broadly, endorsing religion over non-belief.
In the Davidson case, local attorney George Daly told the Christian Science Monitor: “You look up over the door and it says, ‘We trust in God’ – we, the government of Davidson County. That is direct government speech, and that is endorsement.”
But the federal courts have ruled that this is not the case. In Aronow, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: “It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.”
At a broad level, this is the guideline that courts follow when cases like Newdow’s arise. But those who have been challenged admit that their motivation is religious. In 2005, former Davidson County Commissioner Rick Lanier told the Christian Science Monitor that the use of the phrase was to recognize the country’s religious heritage and oppose efforts “to completely secularize our society.”
Lanier said, “If you secularize and take God and our religious heritage out of [our society], then we open the door even wider to moral corruption and tearing down the very fiber that built this country.”
What do you think?
Is our national motto unconstitutional? Does the phrase “In God We Trust” on national currency endorse religion? Do you agree with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “is patriotic and ceremonial”? What about when people who use the phrase admit that their motivation is religious – does that change the situation? Join the discussion!
|
Join the Discussion
|
|
Related News
|
Related Resources
|
Share
|
|