# In God We Trust (all others pay cash) - Second Circuit upholds phrase on money **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2014, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557 "2014-05-29T13:52:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/41 "2014-05-29T17:39:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > A textualist reading would say it’s not the establishment of religion. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say the motto is an “endorsement” of religion. Perhaps “acknowledgement”. But neither of those is “establishment”. > > **Darth Panda:** Words do not stand alone in the constitution. In the phrase “Establishment of religion”, the word "establishment’ means something very specific. It does not take on every shade of meaning of that word. Right. “Establishing” a religion involves the government either: 1. Giving public funding to a religious group for the purposes of assisting that group in furthering its cause. This doesn’t mean paying a religious group fair fees or purchase prices for services or products or land bought or rented. 2. Requiring citizens to attend services at, profess faith in, perform rituals related to, or fund a specific religion with specific penalties applied for refusal. E.g. “Get baptized in the Church of the New America, Reformation of 2012, or you can’t vote. If you won’t attend at all, you get three years in prison. You are expected to tithe at least $50 a week to the Church, penalties are applied after six months in arrears and back tithes and penalties may be enforced by seizure of property by the Sheriff.” Handling cash with a religious slogan isn’t a profession of belief, the performance of a ritual, or attendance at a service. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/42 "2014-05-29T17:47:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because compelling people to join in these kinds of declarations of faith is an establishment of religion. You can cite case law to validate that? Or, you can cite some historical document that tells the phrase has been intended to mean that? > [@](#): > > If the question is “how do you know what ‘establishment of religion’ means”, that is not a worthwhile game. That’s always the question in such matters. Especially when taking a textualist viewpoint. If you claim that’s a “game”, and it’s not “worthwhile”, then you are free to take your marbles and go home. But that’s certainly not an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/43 "2014-05-29T18:06:12Z")
How do I know what you meant by any of the words in your post? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/44 "2014-05-29T18:19:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Darth Panda:** Words do not stand alone in the constitution. In the phrase “Establishment of religion”, the word "establishment’ means something very specific. It does not take on every shade of meaning of that word. Me and my law degree differ with you that textualism does not encompass this ordinary meaning of the word in this document. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/45 "2014-05-29T18:31:12Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Handling cash with a religious slogan isn’t a profession of belief, the performance of a ritual, or attendance at a service. So you admit that “In God We Trust” is a religious slogan? Those are only SOME of the ways of establishing a religion. It’s not an all-encompassing list. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/46 "2014-05-29T18:38:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Not a good decision, but the issue is sufficiently minor. Too damn minor to even bother the courts with, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/47 "2014-05-29T18:53:05Z")
I believe in the G-d of Abraham. I thank Him when things go well. I ask for His help and guidance when things go badly. I feel His presence in my daily life. He has no place on our money or in our government. I want my rights guaranteed by a fair and impartial Constitution. I want the government to take no position as to whether G-d exists. **Bricker** I like and respect you. But I must agree with others who point out that while this decision is consistent with earlier law, so was Dred Scott. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/48 "2014-05-29T18:54:28Z")
For those who claim this is too minor to bother with, why not remove the phrase from future money, all points will be moot, and all will be happy? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/49 "2014-05-29T18:58:13Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > But I must agree with others who point out that while this decision is consistent with earlier law, so was Dred Scott. Right. Consistency in law is generally a good thing. Consistency to the extreme that contradicts reasoned morality is not; it is nothing short of perversity. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/50 "2014-05-29T18:59:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Too damn minor to even bother the courts with, IMHO. But apparently not to minor for some religious groups to have a hissy fit and spent ghod knows how much money combatting this vile evil. Check out the links I provided in post #21, then tell me how minor a deal this is. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/51 "2014-05-29T19:00:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > A textualist reading would say it’s not the establishment of religion. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say the motto is an “endorsement” of religion. Perhaps “acknowledgement”. But neither of those is “establishment”. It certainly can’t be an “acknowledgement”, as millions of Americans do \*not \*acknowledge a god. Are atheists and Buddhists not citizens? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/52 "2014-05-29T19:14:15Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Right. “Establishing” a religion involves the government either: > > 1. Giving public funding to a religious group for the purposes of assisting that group in furthering its cause. This doesn’t mean paying a religious group fair fees or purchase prices for services or products or land bought or rented. > 2. Requiring citizens to attend services at, profess faith in, perform rituals related to, or fund a specific religion with specific penalties applied for refusal. E.g. “Get baptized in the Church of the New America, Reformation of 2012, or you can’t vote. If you won’t attend at all, you get three years in prison. You are expected to tithe at least $50 a week to the Church, penalties are applied after six months in arrears and back tithes and penalties may be enforced by seizure of property by the Sheriff.” > > Handling cash with a religious slogan isn’t a profession of belief, the performance of a ritual, or attendance at a service. But by providing advertising, the US Gov’t is helping to promote religious belief (while not promoting atheist points of view or arguments). Part of many religions, including ones that refer to their deity as “God”, is spreading their faith. Thus the government is acting as an agent of the religion, helping further its cause. Truly, if it isn’t a big deal and it doesn’t _really_ mean anything, then why is there a problem with removing it? Oh, that’s right: because it is a big deal and because it does really mean something, but somehow the ideals represented by the words are better served by lies so the words can continue to be displayed than they would be served by the truth and their removal from publicly funded media. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/53 "2014-05-29T19:19:17Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan;17415552 I disagree that this is minor. Considering how I would feel if the words were 'In Satan We Trust" or “There is No God”, this is a bad ruling, and a clear violation of the Constitution. [/QUOTE] That text on currency would also likely be constitutionally allowed and also minor in effect. Putting any of those three phrases on the currency may make people who don’t agree with the statment feel bad or might make them lose arguments with their teachers, but it doesn’t impose any behavior on them or subject them to any disability or penalty. The law doesn’t say that only thrusts can use cash or anything. I’d be happy enough if we took it off the money. I don’t really think ut should be on there. But there’s a way to do that. Pass a law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/54 "2014-05-29T19:23:12Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > **Bricker** I like and respect you. But I must agree with others who point out that while this decision is consistent with earlier law, so was Dred Scott. Sure. And guess what: Dred Scott was not a bad decision. OK. It was a terrible decision for what it represented: that slavery was not in the purview of the federal government to stop. But that was the correct law. The Constitution had no amendment outlawing slavery when Dred Scott was decided, and it had provisions which implicitly accepted slavery: the infamous “three-fifths” clause. (Brief digression: modern ears think it was terrible that blacks were ‘only’ counted as three-fifths of a person, when it was actually the Southern states that wanted to count them as a whole person; the enumeration was to determine how many seats each state got in Congress, and more people meant more political power for the South. The North wanted blacks to count as zero, since they could not vote and served only to inflate the South’s influence in Congress). What ended slavery (apart from the case of Grant v. Lee) was not the courts, but the legislature’s adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment and Congress’ adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And that’s as it should be. As a nation that vests sovereign power in the people, and a nation in which the people exercise that power through their elected legislature, the courts are NOT the right venue to enact change like the elimination of slavery, as desirable a goal as that was. For it to have had lasting effect and meaning, We, The People, needed to reject slavery. And we did. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/55 "2014-05-29T19:34:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And that’s as it should be. As a nation that vests sovereign power in the people, and a nation in which the people exercise that power through their elected legislature, the courts are NOT the right venue to enact change like the elimination of slavery, as desirable a goal as that was. For it to have had lasting effect and meaning, We, The People, needed to reject slavery. And we did. No. An unjust law is no law. While I agree that for most things the courts are not the appropriate venue - some things are so abhorrent they should be rejected in EVERY venue. That would be through the legislature, the justice system, and taking up arms with any who would support them to defeat that evil. The slave ought not wait for the slow march of the legislature for redress. This has the problem of interpretation in that groups will feel their cause too, is just. So be it - history will decide. “In God we Trust…” Not as severe. Slavery - bullshit people should wait for the legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/56 "2014-05-29T19:36:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What ended slavery (apart from the case of Grant v. Lee) was not the courts, but the legislature’s adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment and Congress’ adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. You make it so easy to gloss over slavery’s legacy of segregation and separate but equal, which continued past the Civil War and was reinforced by _Plessy_ 50 years later. _Plessy_ was not legislative action and _Brown_ was a court reversal. Consider the misery the court perpetuated for 100 years in the holy name of _stare decisis,_ which you hold in such reverence. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/57 "2014-05-29T19:51:04Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > You make it so easy to gloss over slavery’s legacy of segregation and separate but equal, which continued past the Civil War and was reinforced by _Plessy_ 50 years later. _Plessy_ was not legislative action and _Brown_ was a court reversal. Consider the misery the court perpetuated for 100 years in the holy name of _stare decisis,_ which you hold in such reverence. Bricker’s post wasn’t about stare decisis. And Plessey was wrongly decided. At best it represented the ignorance of the times. At worst it was simple racism. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/58 "2014-05-29T19:56:13Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I’d be happy enough if we took it off the money. I don’t really think ut should be on there. But there’s a way to do that. Pass a law. Woe unto the party which passed such a law! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/59 "2014-05-29T20:01:37Z")
As a minor observation, “blacks” and “slaves” are not interchangeable terms, even in the antebellum South, and should not be used as such. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/60 "2014-05-29T20:08:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Bricker’s post wasn’t about stare decisis. No? What do you call this: > [@Bricker](#): > > Entirely consistent with prior law. Correct decision. [stare decisis defined](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis) > [@](#): > > Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling > [@John\_Mace](#): > > And Plessey was wrongly decided. Which was my point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557.md?page=4)