In God We Trust?

Published on November 18, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

Well, yes, with objections such as blaming natural disasters on Nature alone because there are those who believe that God can only be Go[o]d. The unrelenting trend to advertise “In God We Trust” within public schools is but another volley to bring down the walls of separation of church and state — next will be the demand for the image of the Virgin Mary — and worse, Pat Robertson’s — on every public school lawn or facade. Objecting to reasonable mottos is not my intent: after all, I do not throw away my dollars because of the motto in question, nor of the bold but aesthetic image of a pyramid or eagle — toss it off as historical symbolism. Anyone who believes in a multiple gods or none at all, can easily transfix “In God We Trust” as personification of the chairman of the Federal Reserve. When the local pastor or rabbi celebrates graduation, its benediction should be taken as simply good will to students in entering the adult world — some, if not most, graduates take it with a grain of salt anyway. An atheist should not perceive it as offensive since he can comfort himself as its being a crock, and the pantheist will see it as soft breezes from Olympus.

Of course, there are the harmless symbols such as the giant Christmas tree — though not to tree-huggers — at Rockefeller Plaza, or the tree lighting ceremony on the White House lawn that is not meant to offend any more than a St. Patrick’s Day parade, and is merely fun-loving traditionally diverse, not divisive activity that one is free to avoid or ignore. But then there is the divisive in-your-face kind that is much too serious and motivated by a totalitarian spark that all should treat seriously even if it flagrantly defies the Constitutional right of all citizens to be free of religious propaganda — we invented the Sabbath for that.

Posting “In God We Trust” in public schools is as degrading as many TV commercials and televangelist spam. Just as the satisfied Ford owner doesn’t wish to be insulted that he didn’t buy a Honda, the non-believer need not be reminded that he is not a trusty being, nor is the believer rushing to his next class thinking of God and rightly shouldn’t be — there’s time and place, you know.

As for E Pluribus Unum it still endures on the US Seal; aesthetically and proudly fixed to the eagle’s wings; yet cynics, in face of a divided country might also consider it a crock.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

bakerstreet

on Nov 18, 2005

ur, trend? You realize that "IN God We Trust is the official motto of the United States, right? Granted, I can see the problems posed by many who differ, but this is something that has been picked over by the courts for several decades, and so far as stood the test. I wouldn't call this a current "trend", not in the least.

according to Aronow v. United States, 1970, held in the 9th circuit court of appeals...

"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."

other precedents:

"The federal courts have held that the motto symbolizes the historical role of religion in our society, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 676, formalizes our medium of exchange, see O'Hair v. Blumenthal, 462 F. Supp. 19, 20 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd sub nom. O'Hair v. Murray, 588 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), and cert. denied, 442 U.S.930 (1979), fosters patriotism, see Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242, 243 (9th Cir. 1970), and expresses confidence in the future, Lynch, 465 U.S. at 692-93 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The motto's primary effect is not to advance religion; instead, it is a form of "ceremonial deism" which through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government approval of religious belief. Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 625 (O'Connor, J., concurring); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring); id. at 716 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Finally, the motto does not create an intimate relationship of the type that suggests unconstitutional entanglement of church and state. O'Hair, 462 F. Supp. at 20. "After making [inquiries], we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase "In God we trust," would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion. (Gaylor vs USA, 10th Cir. 1996)" -Link

stevendedalus

on Nov 18, 2005

Couldn't agree with you more. I'm addressing the move by the American Family Association and religious fringes to post the motto in public schools. That it's been on currency is not the question.

bakerstreet

on Nov 18, 2005

Well, if you look, a lot of those challenges aren't just about money, they are about the motto itself. I agree that a law mandating posting it is silly, but mainly because there is no reason NOT to post it. It is our national motto. Refusing to put our national motto in front of our kids looks to me like self-loathing to an extreme.

stevendedalus

on Nov 18, 2005

Then where does it all end? Seven day sabbaths? Intelligent Design as the wherewithal in every classroom? Robes and rosary beads for every teacher? Monkish uniforms for every student. Why not a cineramic enlargement of the back of the five dollarbill to promote in god we trust with the Lincoln Memorial blocked out?

bakerstreet

on Nov 18, 2005

If you can find where in the national motto the sabbath or intelligent design and the rest reside, I'd be better able to discuss it. If you think that we are in danger of Congress passing Creationism as our national evolutionary theory, then maybe you ahve a point. Are you saying that the people of that state can't enact a law putting the motto of the US in classrooms?

If you think that the people of a state can't mandate the display of the national motto, then the content of that motto isn't really pertinant. To me, this is like accepting a dirty little secret, but insisting it not be mentioned to the children.

If they want to dispel this mention of God in the national motto, they should address that nationally, not undermine it procedurally by forcing states to keep it in the closet. The Supreme Court already passed on challenges to hanging it in public buildings.

P.S. I don't think "the Constitutional right of all citizens to be free of religious propaganda" is really accurate is it? I'll forgo posting that amendment for the umpteen millionth time. I think you'll find it worded with considerable difference in spirit.

Dr Guy

on Nov 18, 2005

I am sorry if I dont get inflamed on this issue. For I just cannot fathom how anyone would be offended. If you are a true atheist, then the motto has the same meaning as "in Casper we Trust". Which means absolutely nothing. So why are they getting so obsessed? What it appears to be is they are trying to remove the IDEA that a majority of people in the US beleive in God. They are not trying to remove something that does not exist in their mind.

And in so doing, they are actually forcing their religion on the rest of the population. They are as guilty of what they rail against, as any Pat Robertson is.

stevendedalus

on Nov 18, 2005

Are you saying that the people of that state can't enact a law putting the motto of the US in classrooms?

Definitely, they cannot! Because it cheapens God as curriculum coordinator and an affront to separation.

stevendedalus

on Nov 18, 2005

Guy, I agree--and have said so many times in blogs--that the atheist has a lame argument. But I fear posting this motto in schools will indeed be seen as another slogan tantamount to Casper. You can't over load kids--next they'll be advocating the Ipod motto as not Eve's apple but God's trust.

Dr Guy

on Nov 18, 2005

But I fear posting this motto in schools will indeed be seen as another slogan tantamount to Casper

Steven, brace yourself. Sitting down? BP ok?

I agree with you!

bakerstreet

on Nov 18, 2005

" Definitely, they cannot! Because it cheapens God as curriculum coordinator and an affront to separation."

No, steve, like I said, it doesn't matter if the motto is "Cover your Ass" or "In God We Trust" it is still the motto. To agree that it is the motto but then make sure you hide it from kids is facetious. I'm personally sick of people losing their court cases and then trying backhanded ways of getting their way. I hate it on the right with the creationists, and I hate it on the left with this sort of thing.

So, if you don't think God should be in the motto, take it out. If you can't, don't pretend it is a dirty little secret to hide from the children.

kingbee

on Nov 18, 2005

makes more sense to hide 'e pluribus unum' from kids. it not only looks, but sounds, dirtier.

stevendedalus

on Nov 18, 2005

Steven, brace yourself. Sitting down? BP ok?
I agree with you!

Wow, I'm glad I did sit down!

don't pretend it is a dirty little secret to hide from the children.

Secret?--and dirty to boot! Hardly, rather too much of a good thing.

makes more sense to hide 'e pluribus unum' from kids. it not only looks, but sounds, dirtier.

Hilarious!

dharmagrl

on Nov 18, 2005

Posting “In God We Trust” in public schools is as degrading as many TV commercials and televangelist spam.

*stands up, cheering and clapping wildly*

Yes!! Bravo!! Bravo!

Dr Guy

on Nov 19, 2005

*stands up, cheering and clapping wildly*

Some issues do cross the lines.

stevendedalus

on Nov 20, 2005

Some issues do cross the lines.

yeah, like Iraq responsible for 9/11.

*stands up, cheering and clapping wildly*

Alleluia! Pat Robertson for President!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!