Supreme Court upholds "In God We Trust"

Gone Apostate · Post by **Gone Apostate** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:49 am

http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/RNS-C ... Trust.aspx

My question, for those that may understand better than I do how this makes sense is this - isn't this pure bunk? Is there some legal technicality that caused this or does the decision really come down to justifications like this quote from the 1970 decision they referenced:

"that said the use of the motto on U.S. coins and bills is ;of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.' "

Patriotic? Ceremonial? Not a religious exercise?

How does any of that survive ANY kind of scrutiny?

WinePusher · Post by **WinePusher** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:37 am

This seems like a non-issue, does it not? The courts ruling is correct because "In God We Trust" endorses to particular or specific religion, rather it is an inclusive statement of faith that all religions can get behind. The only people excluded from this statement are atheists, but hey, they always claim that they simply "lack a belief" and "make no claim that God doesn't exist" and are simply "waiting for the evidence." So any complaining from them on this ruling would seem nothing short of disingenuious unless they actually have the audacity to admit atheism functions the same way as any religion does. If they can't, won't, or are incapable of doing so then any criticisms they have of this ruling hold absolutely no merit.

Gone Apostate · Post by **Gone Apostate** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:59 am

WinePusher wrote:This seems like a non-issue, does it not? The courts ruling is correct because "In God We Trust" endorses to particular or specific religion,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The First Amendment doesn't say "make no law respecting an establishment of A religion" but even if you don't agree with that interpretation (most people seem to assume that the issue is with a an endorsement of a specific religion so I'll drop that.

Instead i will take issue with your dismissal of every religion that has more than one God. To say that "In God we Trust" doesn't endorse a specific religion may be technically correct but it does EXCLUDE several (Native Peoples, Hindu's, Wiccan, just to name a few) If it said "In Divinity We Trust" your assertion might be valid.

Secondly, to say that the phrase doesn't endorse Christianity is a cop-out and you know it. It is vague enough to allow monotheists to feel like it could apply to them but you and I both know that there was no Muslims voting on that resolution and the political climate in the 50's was such that it is pretty clear that it was referencing Christian beliefs not any other.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:59 am

I disagree with WinePusher. All non-theists, from agnostics, atheists, ignostics and even some theists, do not endorse the concept of trusting in God. How can one say that he trusts in something he does not know?

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:14 am

From the OP:

My question, for those that may understand better than I do how this makes sense is this - isn't this pure bunk?

I'm the last'n oughta be correcting folks on grammar, but you might shoulda capitalized that 'b'.

Is there some legal technicality that caused this or does the decision really come down to justifications like this quote from the 1970 decision they referenced:

I try to think of it as just an error in judgement. We need a Supreme Court, but maybe we need some better folks a'doin' it.

Patriotic? Ceremonial? Not a religious exercise?

I consider it my patriotic duty to take a sharpie to those words on every paper note that crosses my hands.

How does any of that survive ANY kind of scrutiny?

Compartmentalization.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:35 pm

McCulloch wrote:I disagree with WinePusher. All non-theists, from agnostics, atheists, ignostics and even some theists, do not endorse the concept of trusting in God. How can one say that he trusts in something he does not know?

I certainly accept agnostics and atheists do not endorse the concept of trusting in God.

I also think the notion that atheism is a religion is ridiculous.

However, I also think that having this phrase on U.S. currency is not an endorsement of religion, but is legitimately ceremonial. It is simply a reflection of the history of the country producing the money.

It might be an inaccurate statement in the technical sense of "we" potentially referring to non-theists.

But I fail to see how any real establishment of religion is taking place. There is no material affect on anyone.

I would humbly suggest that objections to this are not unlike objections to letting gays have their unions called "marriages." In both cases, the people objecting are not affected in any material way. As far as I can see, they are simply offended.

I will grant that gay marriage is a right and one that should be recognized and having "In God we Trust" on money is not a right and promotes no one's freedom. Getting rid of the phrase would be a harmless change.

Still, I frankly do not see the issue is one worth making a fuss about. There are much more substantial and important freedom of religion issues to be fought over, like gay marriage and DOMA, or the Peter King hearings. Both of these represent substantial attacks on freedom of religion or endorsement of religion. I think you can make a case that the latter are an attack on a religion, and arguably denigrate members of that religion unjustifiably and with possible material harm.

Bans on gay marriage, in my view, endorse a religious view without any compelling secular rationale. They substantively limit the freedoms and violate the rights of some of our citizens.

The money thing, not so much in my view.

Gone Apostate · Post by **Gone Apostate** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:30 am

micatala wrote: Still, I frankly do not see the issue is one worth making a fuss about. There are much more substantial and important freedom of religion issues to be fought over, like gay marriage and DOMA, or the Peter King hearings. Both of these represent substantial attacks on freedom of religion or endorsement of religion. I think you can make a case that the latter are an attack on a religion, and arguably denigrate members of that religion unjustifiably and with possible material harm.

Bans on gay marriage, in my view, endorse a religious view without any compelling secular rationale. They substantively limit the freedoms and violate the rights of some of our citizens.

The money thing, not so much in my view.

very well put in MY humble opinion. I agree that there is much more important issues, and more urgent ones.

I do wonder however, how many people have felt encouraged and validated, however slightly, in the righteousness of their desire to more fully intertwine their beliefs with the laws of the land by the subtle, but prolific endorsement of these symbols. The money, the pledge, etc are often pointed to directly buy people who support the causes you list and I agree are really dangerous.

Glenn Beck's rally to restore God may have been sparsely attended compared to the Rally to Restore Sanity but it wasn't without impact either. I would also add that while I thought Jon Stewart's message was pretty clear the media had a real difficult time with it. Glenn Becks was simple as could be and got LOTS of air time. Symbols matter, they are powerful in large part because they are simple.

I could care less if there is a nativity scene in my town hall, except I think of those that see it and feel affirmed in their belief that this is indeed a Christian nation and not just a nation with a lot of Christians.

I also see the fact that the supreme court did endorse keeping the motto on the coins as a BIG endorsement of that mentality. I'm starting to think it was good that it seemed to go unnoticed.

I really appreciate your VERY constructive comments, and the healthy dose of perspective you offered. I think I can drop it now, thanks in part to that perspective.

Thanks again.

Mr. Newdow, if your reading this, (not bloodly likely) may I suggest you go after the motto itself, not where it's printed, that might have more substantial implications and consequences.

Question Everything · Post by **Question Everything** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:59 am

As I have stated before, I do not want our government making any statement regarding the existence or non existence of a deity. Putting "In God we trust" on our money is as wrong as putting "There is no God" on our money.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:33 am

I agree with micatala. While the implicit recognition of deity printed on our money is a violation of the principle of secular government, I long for the day, Oh happy day, when this issue is on the top of our priority list and all of the more pressing and urgent issues have been dealt with.

I believe also that there is legislation with regard to insurance which refers to "Acts of God". We probably should correct the wording on this, when we have nothing better to do.

What worries me more is the vehemence with which this is sometimes defended. Somehow, the meaning and benefits of secular government is not being taught. It reflects a serious attitude problem. I'm quite sure that if the Royal Canadian Mint were to quietly remove DG (Dei gratia (Latin: "By the grace of God")) from our coinage, few would notice or care. This is as it should be.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:49 am

McCulloch wrote:I agree with micatala. While the implicit recognition of deity printed on our money is a violation of the principle of secular government, I long for the day, Oh happy day, when this issue is on the top of our priority list and all of the more pressing and urgent issues have been dealt with.

I believe also that there is legislation with regard to insurance which refers to "Acts of God". We probably should correct the wording on this, when we have nothing better to do.

What worries me more is the vehemence with which this is sometimes defended. Somehow, the meaning and benefits of secular government is not being taught. It reflects a serious attitude problem. I'm quite sure that if the Royal Canadian Mint were to quietly remove DG (Dei gratia (Latin: "By the grace of God")) from our coinage, few would notice or care. This is as it should be.

How would your life be better if that happened?