# How many people knew that the US's national motto is "In God We Trust"? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 15, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550 "2004-06-15T21:54:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/101 "2004-06-16T20:20:30Z")
Upon preview. . . **Gadarene** –Great, I was going to use _Schempp_, but you have effectively scuttled the argument I was going to make, so I concede the point that the Supremes have not directly addressed IGWT. I knew I should have gone to law school. **Otto** > [@](#): > > 1. I hope the irony of advocating the avoidance of a situation in which theists would be required to exhibit tolerance in one breath while calling for tolerance in the next isn’t lost on anyone. 2) Why is it that every time someone calls for tolerance it’s the people who are being imposed upon who are expected to be tolerant? I think you have tolerance and tyranny confused. The theists are not being intolerant by having IGWT on the money–it does not harm you, it does not force religion upon you. Merely spending cash with IGWT is not “disseminating” theism. I don’t like it either, but I understand that i have no right to keep IGWT off the money according to my whim.’ **Neuroman**" You’re right about protecting the rights of the minority in a democracy, but the minority has to make a compelling case that they are being harmed by IGWT. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/102 "2004-06-16T20:20:58Z")
**Gadarene** –Sorry for the cross-posting confusion. I was going to use _Abington School District v. Schempp_, but you have effectively scuttled the argument I was going to make, so I concede the point that the Supremes have not directly addressed IGWT. I knew I should have gone to law school. **Otto** > [@](#): > > 1. I hope the irony of advocating the avoidance of a situation in which theists would be required to exhibit tolerance in one breath while calling for tolerance in the next isn’t lost on anyone. 2) Why is it that every time someone calls for tolerance it’s the people who are being imposed upon who are expected to be tolerant? I think you have tolerance and tyranny confused. The theists are not being intolerant by having IGWT on the money–it does not harm you, it does not force religion upon you. Merely spending cash with IGWT is not “disseminating” theism. I don’t like it either, but I understand that i have no right to keep IGWT off the money according to my whim.’ **Neuroman**" You’re right about protecting the rights of the minority in a democracy, but the minority has to make a compelling case that they are being harmed by IGWT. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/103 "2004-06-16T20:26:26Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Let’s be clear: I _do_ think this is a piddly issue, I do _not_ think it is worthy of much attention Which would certainly explain posting to this thread 14 times. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/104 "2004-06-16T20:35:10Z")
No worries, **gobear**. I just wanted to clear that point up; everyone seemed to be taking it as given that the Court has definitively ruled on the topic. **Jodi:** > [@](#): > > Protecting the rights of the minority is done not because they are the minority, but because they are part of the greater “everyone.” You know I love ya, but (isn’t it great when sentences start out that way?) a small quibble: as far as the courts are concerned, protecting the minority because they are the minority is, and should be, part of the job. Especially the federal courts, and _especially_ especially the Supreme Court. Minorities are deemed worthy of special consideration by the judiciary because their interests and rights cannot be reliably addressed by the other branches of government, structurally gimmicked as they are to be primarily responsive to the majority/plurality. Countermajoritarianism is, in my view, a worthy and necessary judicial aim. Sometimes the rights of the minority must secured _as against_ the desires of the majority. I know you probably won’t argue with any of the above, but I think it’s an important addendum to your statement. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/105 "2004-06-16T20:56:26Z")
Let me clarify for you, MUNCH, that it wasn’t the underlying issue that provoked my initial response so much of the “Isn’t this the most horrific thing _ever_? Don’t you just lose the will to _live_?” tone of the OP. And then, well, an argument broke out – here in the Pit! Go figure! – and so here we are. But thanks for following along so closely as to number my posts; heck, even I’m not paying that much attention. And GADARENE, you are of course correct. But that does not mean that the minority _position_ is entitled to any especial deference regarding its merit, simply because it is the minority position. I’m sure we agree, but since this is the Pit, so feel free to call be a goat-felcher instead. And that’s the attitude I don’t get: I must be right because I’m in the minority; you must be wrong – further, have some nefarious intent to oppress me – because you’re in the majority. Can’t we just legitimately disagree? Can’t I, as a judge (I wish; well, actually, no I don’t), say “IGWT is constitutional” without it being because I’m stupid/ morally corrupt/ dishonest/ out to get those hellbound nonbelievers? It makes me impatient: “Ah, yes, it’s unfortunate that IGWT is on the money, but then people fear us atheists and must oppress us and impose their theistic beliefs upon us.” Come _on_. It’s on the money because people who may be smarter than us, and who certainly have thought about it a lot more than us, have repeatedly concluded that that’s okay. Are they necessarily right? Of course not. But they’re not necessarily wrong, either, and they may as legitimately hold their position as you (general “you”) hold yours. (“General You, paging General You!”) ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/106 "2004-06-16T21:01:54Z")
To paraphrase\* Clint Eastwood, as _Dirty Harry_: “…Teachers getting thrown out of 4th floor windows 'cause they don’t give 'A’s…Little old ladies getting stabbed for there Social Security check…bigger and bigger waves of apathy and corruption washing over the city…No, that doesn’t bother me. You know what does bother me? You know what makes me sick to my stomach? It’s watching you- stuff your face with those hot dogs! Nobody, _I mean NOBODY_ puts ketchup on a hot dog!” > [@Jodi](#): > > And _another_ thing: > > I _do_ think you all should have better things to do than worry about this one very minor thing which you have very little hope of changing and which change, even if instituted, would be largely meaningless in terms of effect. Oh, well I have to agree with you there. Its about as important to me as the AIDS “crisis” in Africa or whos picture is on the 12 cent stamp or Abortion or the rights of same-sex couples or poor starving fuckers in any number of third-world hell-holes or the price of Kerosene by the liter. But you know what really pisses me off? The county made a 4 mile stretch of road a “No Passing” zone, and now it takes me forever to get to work in the morning whenever I get stuck behind some schmuck going 45 mph! :rolleyes: It really takes a “special” kind of asshole to pontificate about what other people should worry about. \*because I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it was _classic!_ ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/107 "2004-06-16T21:07:23Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > In addition to Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 435 n.21 (1962), and School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), mentioned below, we’ve got Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), and Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow. Thanks for the cites. About the only one I was familiar with was the Newdow case. I’ll see what I can make of them when I get some free time. Now let me offer up some cites on some of my statements earlier. As I mentioned it is my judgement that the current state of the coins and the pledge should not be judged in a vacuum. The process used to create them and change previously secular ceremonies(or monies) into cremonies(or monies) which offer allegiance to a “god” should be considered. The words themselves may be vapid to the point where there can be reasonable doubt as to their effect, establishing a religion or not, but the intent behind the change is crystal clear. The intent behind re-working the coins in the 1860’s was clearly to establish the US as a religious nation. Take the following evidence, from [the US Treasury’s Fact Sheet on the History of “In God We Trust”](http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html) > [@](#): > > The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read: > > \*Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances. > One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins. > > You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? > > [snip the minister’s idea for a coin design] > > This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.\* > > As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861: > > _Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. > You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition._ Please make note of the Secretary’s portion. It is the portion I believe violates the establishment clause. Now, as to the establishment of this phrase as the national motto. From [A Legislative History of the National Motto](http://www.aclj.org/stories/historyof_us_motto.asp) > [@](#): > > Matthew R. Rothert from Arkansas, was the president of the Arkansas Numismatic Society. Joining the American Numismatic Association in 1946, he was eventually elected president of that association for the 1965-1967 term. In a speech to the Arkansas group on November 11, 1953, he gave a speech concerning the idea of including “In God We Trust” on paper money. The response to his speech was well received and he quickly sent a written proposal to Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey, and also to President Eisenhower and Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks. > > On June 7, 1955, H.R. 619 “Providing for the inscription of `In God We Trust’ on all United States Currency and Coins,” was introduced in the House. In the Congressional Record , June 7, 1955, page 7796, Congressman Bennet of Florida addressed his collegues as follows: > > \*I sincerely hope that the Senate will give its prompt approval to this proposal. In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continuously look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom. At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail. To serve as a constant reminder of this truth, it is highly desirable that our currency and coins should bear these inspiring words “In God We Trust.” \* > > On June 29, 1955, Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-TX) introduced Calendar No. 642, H.R. 619 "A bill to provide that all United States currency shall bear the inscription `In God We Trust.’ " The bill was quickly passed. > > On March 22, 1956, H.R. Res. 396 was introduced to establish “In God We Trust” as a national motto. The bill became law on July 30, 1956 (36 U.S.C. Section 186). Please note the stated intent of Congressman Bennet. “At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail.” This I am also asserting violates the establishment clause. The government is disallowed from making declarations of faith. It can not possibly speak for all the faiths within the nation with the same voice and as such it was designed to remain mute on the subject. I’ll see if I can dig up similar cites for the intent behind the modifications to the Pledge of Allegiance if there is interest. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/108 "2004-06-16T21:11:07Z")
GATOPESCADO – > [@](#): > > It really takes a “special” kind of asshole to pontificate about what other people should worry about. Since you’re now pontificating about what _I_ should worry about, that must make you an _extra_ special kind of asshole. I responded to the part of your post that seemed me to make sense. Was the rest of some sort of performance art? Because then my reply is what I always say when confronted with art I don’t understand: I loved your use of light. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/109 "2004-06-16T21:27:33Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Let me clarify for you, MUNCH, that it wasn’t the underlying issue that provoked my initial response so much of the “Isn’t this the most horrific thing _ever_? Don’t you just lose the will to _live_?” tone of the OP. And then, well, an argument broke out – here in the Pit! Go figure! – and so here we are. But thanks for following along so closely as to number my posts; heck, even I’m not paying that much attention. Fifteen, sixteen… Oh, you’re still here? Lest you get the impression that I’m stalking you, or that your posts were substantial enough to make an impression, I just want to say that it’s not hard to see the fact that you’ve gotten all frothed up about this topic, since you have well over 10% of the posts to your name. Seemed a little excessive, given your “lack of interest”. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/110 "2004-06-16T21:46:23Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > My attitude is more “it’s not that important, so get over it.” But – and the following is not directed at you personally – I have to say that, because you think you’re right, you (and others) _do_ seem to have little regard for the position of the majority. “Justice Jackson, you seem to think that compelling the recitiation of the pledge is wrong, and because you think it’s wrong you have very little regard for the feelings of those who _like_ mandatory flag salutes.” “Justice Stevens, you think you’re right in ruling student-led prayer at high school football games unconstitutional, and Justice Kennedy, you think you’re right to bar similar prayers at graduations, but because you think you’re right you have very little regard for those who _like_ to pray at games and graduations.” Do you see where I’m going with this? I care fuck-all if someone who seeks to impose their religious observances on me gets upset if they aren’t allowed to do it. No one’s stopping anyone who insists on having IGWT on their money from writing it on themselves, with no governmental mandate for the dissemination of a religious message. > [@](#): > > Why is all the deference for differences of opinion supposed to be on our side, while you cloak yourselves in the mantle of perceived persecution? I would _love_ to see some of the deference for difference of opinion on the side of the theists, but to diectly address your point, it is impossible for IGWT to be both printed on all the money and not printed on all the money. If it were not on all the money, the theists would then have the choice of writing it on themselves. Currently those who do not wish to disseminate the message, be they theist or non-theist, do not have the choice. Even if the motto is marked out, it’s still there on the bills, and there is no way to remove or obscure it on coins. If it comes down to a choice, then the person who wants to disseminate the religious message is the person who should have to take affirmative action to disseminate it. They should not expect non-believers and the government to do it for them by default. quote=gobear]The theists are not being intolerant by having IGWT on the money–it does not harm you, it does not force religion upon you. Merely spending cash with IGWT is not “disseminating” theism. [/quote] Of course it is. If I were required to pass out leaflets with IGWT on them then I would be disseminating a religious message. That doesn’t change just because the leaflets I’m passing out can be exchanged for goods and services. > [@](#): > > You’re right about protecting the rights of the minority in a democracy, but the minority has to make a compelling case that they are being harmed by IGWT. Wrong. AFAIK the standard for determining an Establishment Clause violation is still the Lemon test which holds that for a statute not to violate the EC: 1) it must have a secular legislative purpose; 2) its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; 3) it must not fosteran excessive entanglement with religion. There is no requirement of “harm” and the standard of proof is not “compelling.” IMHO IGWT on the money and as the motto violates 1 and 2 and thus is unconstitutional but then I’m not on the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/111 "2004-06-16T21:49:24Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > Sorry, guys, but **Jodi** is 100 % percent right in this thread. IGWT has been upheld by the Supremes and therefore it’s Constitutional because they are the arbiters of constitutionality, not the TMs. Perhaps the Supremes will decide against it in the future, and then it will be un-Constitutional. > > Second, it’s a piddling issues, as **Jodi** said? Do I like seeing superstition on my nation’s currency? Not especially, but frankly it’s not a battle worth fighting. Having theism endorsed on the coinage is not hurting me, so I don’t worry about it. Like it or not, theists are, have been, and always will be in the majority, and removing IGWT would only serve to engender more hatred against freethinkers. It would solve nothing and cause greater problems. If we mean what we say about inclusiveness for all, that means that we atheists have to grit our teeth and accept that our countrymen want to have meaningless religious symbols included in our nation’s ceremonial trappings. Tolereance has to extend both ways, and the constsn whining of atheists strip away all signs of relgion doesn’t strengthn national unity, but weakens it. I’m happy to bow down in the House of Rimmon if I can make **Jodi** feel that her rights are also being respected. > > If the Church/state separationists want to fight a battle, write a letter to your Congresscritters opposing [the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (S. 893)](http://capwiz.com/au/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=6007941) and the Federal Marriage Amendment. > > You guys are straining out gnats and swallowing camels, to borrow an expression. Save your fire for the big stuff, not trivia. Sorry, go, but you missed my point. I’ve never made much of a deal about the phrase being on the money. Filthy lucre and all; not as big a deal to me. Since that’s the only thing you’re objecting too, you’re not really in the right thread. I’m talking about it being the national motto. About the fact that the original national motto–e pluribus unum–was written over. The national motto, not a phrase on a nickel. The single phrase that is supposed to represent the collective voice of this nation. The distilled, most important message this nation has to tell the world about itself. Katie Couric: “Hey, Uncle Sam, can you sum yourself up in a single phrase? What is the United States all about?” Uncle Sam: “In God We Trust.” Not “out of many, one”–“in god we trust.” What kind of bullshit is that? And I’d argue that it IS hurting you, gobear. I’d argue that it’s part of the support system that allows the people who work against gay rights to think that their country thinks like they do. It’s part of the cultural fabric that allows fundamentalists to believe that the government has ANY GODDAMN BUSINESS deciding the rights of gay people versus straight people. It blurs the separation between church and state, and validates the people who think that the government has any right to be involved in religious affairs. It allows religion to color the law, which is a HUGE problem, every day, for people like you and me. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/112 "2004-06-16T21:50:49Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Since you’re now pontificating about what _I_ should worry about, that must make you an _extra_ special kind of asshole. Why, I never said that! {insert “reading comprehension” gag here} ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/113 "2004-06-16T22:01:24Z")
> [@Max](#): > > I know that one of the most frustrating aspects of arguing with libertarian was that he was constantly falling back on “well, that point has already been covered” and “I don’t have the time to answer all of these comments, plus I’ve seen them all before” and so forth. I can see how that might be frustrating. I trust that you can see how it might be frustrating to cover the same point over and over, to attempt to respond to five posts only to find three more on preview, and to have all your responses dismissed by the fiat declaration that your own hypotheticals are ridiculous while everyone else’s are reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/114 "2004-06-16T22:28:31Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > AFAIK the standard for determining an Establishment Clause violation is still the Lemon test which holds that for a statute not to violate the EC: 1) it must have a secular legislative purpose; 2) its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; 3) it must not fosteran excessive entanglement with religion. There is no requirement of “harm” and the standard of proof is not “compelling.” IMHO IGWT on the money and as the motto violates 1 and 2 and thus is unconstitutional but then I’m not on the Supreme Court. For reference, the Lemon test refers to [_LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602#612) > [@](#): > > In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970). > > Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [403 U.S. 602, 613] finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Walz, supra, at 674. Please recall the expressly stated legislative purpose behind the invocation of “God” on the coins. “The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.” – Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. Also you may recall the expressly stated legislative purpose behind the adoption of “In God We Trust” as the national motto. “At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail.” – Rep Bennett. I contend these purposes are clearly non-secular and thereby fail the first portion of the Lemon test. As such they offend the Establishment Clause. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/115 "2004-06-16T22:33:44Z")
OTTO – > [@](#): > > Do you see where I’m going with this? I care fuck-all if someone who seeks to impose their religious observances on me gets upset if they aren’t allowed to do it. Yes, and I in turn care fuck-all if someone wants to see IGWT as an “imposition of religious observances” when it very arguably is no such thing, and repeatedly has been held to be no such thing. And when presented with your “care fuck-all for the other side” attitude, my reciprocating “care fuck-all for the other side” attitude can be summed up in three words: Suck it up. Do you see where I’m going with this? The argument easily reduces: “IGWT is unconstitutional and should be removed, and I care fuck-all if that upsets you.” “Oh yeah? Well, IGWT is constitutional and won’t be removed anytime soon, and I care fuck-all if that upsets _you_.” Again, why do you expect your position to be treated with some degree of deference or respect you don’t accord to the other side? Then you say, if we like it, we can write it on our money. But as you note, you can easily cross it off _your_ money. Heck apparently, some people actually do (amazingly, IMO). But, you say, I can’t get it off the coins! What, are you going to issue us all engraving machines so we can put it _on_ our coins? Look, your entire argument is premised on your conclusion that IGWT, without anything more, somehow advances religion. You admit as much in your correct discussion of _Lemon_. But as you rightly note, the courts disagree. So if it _doesn’t_ advance religion (and the courts have held that it doesn’t), then there’s no more problem to having it on the money than having the Secretary of the Treasury’s signature on the money. And your “I don’t give a hot damn about those who disagree” can just as easily be turned against you. And probably will. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/116 "2004-06-16T23:06:41Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > NEUROMAN – > > Listen, if you’re going to call me stupid, please refrain from posting stupid shit. Ah. But I did not call _you_ stupid (although I definitely implied it), just as you have not called me stupid. I said your _post_ was stupid. Sorry, just trying to get in the spirit of the thread with some nitpicking. > [@](#): > > It undermines your credibility. You know what’s great about the U.S.A.? It’s supposed to protect the rights of all of its citizens, everyone > > Let me say that again for emphasis: > > EVERYONE I knew that jumbo font was going to come back and bite me in the ass, I just knew it. > [@](#): > > Where on earth do you get the idea that our system defers to the minority just because they are the minority? Haven’t you seen all the people taking me to task (correctly) when they thought I was saying “the majority is always right”? Protecting the rights of the minority is done not because they are the minority, but because they are part of the greater “everyone.” Get it? Got it. I think I did not represent myself well with my emotional kneejerk post (which was indeed inspired by my belief that you were saying “the majority is right.”) I do not believe that our system should “defer to the minority” by default. That is a meritless position. Yes, protecting **everyone’s** legal rights is important, and ‘minority’ does not mean ‘right’ any more than majority does. What I should have said in jumbo flashing neon pink letters in my original post is “being in the majority does not mean ‘right’.” (I forgot, what was that definition we decided on for ‘right’?) But usually it is the rights of those in a minorty that need to be most vigilantly defended, as those in the majority often have options for recourse more easily available when _their_ rights are (systemically) violated. As an aside, **Jodi** , thanks for being a sport in this thread. I know that I and the other posters appreciate it. P.S. I love GD threads in the Pit. P.P.S. Jodi, looking at your VB code, I just had to say that the size attribute only goes to 7, not 18 😃 ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/117 "2004-06-16T23:10:53Z")
And everyone please forgive me for merciless use of the terms right (correct, just) and right (inalienable and basic entitlement) in my previous post. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/118 "2004-06-16T23:44:53Z")
I’m just flabbergasted that someone didn’t _know_ about our national motto until they read it here. Does no one play currency poker anymore? If not then you’d think that he’d have happened upon the “In God We Trust” thing while origami-ing his twenty into an eerie resemblance of the twin towers burning. I suppose now is not the time to bring up the pledge of allegiance… ---
**Author:** ![bdandhr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9d8465/32.png) [@bdandhr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdandhr)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/119 "2004-06-17T00:06:37Z")
And just what or whom would it be suggested that we do trust in? If I have not read this thread closely enough, I apologize. Maybe we are not supposed to trust in anyone but ourselves? Geez - that would be a stretch for me… ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550/120 "2004-06-17T00:10:32Z")
> [@bdandhr](#): > > And just what or whom would it be suggested that we do trust in? If I have not read this thread closely enough, I apologize. Maybe we are not supposed to trust in anyone but ourselves? Geez - that would be a stretch for me… Well, my suggestion to the Illuminati board was “In Greenspan We Trust,” which wouldn’t even require changing the initials in message board threads complaining about it. But the suggestion was rejected because it would have caused the “Jews control the world’s banking system” whackos to spontaneously combust. They had some BS reason why that was a bad thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-people-knew-that-the-uss-national-motto-is-in-god-we-trust/250550.md?page=7)