# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/121 "2014-05-30T23:33:45Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Reminds me of the _Kitzmiller v. Dover_ trial, where the defendants went out of their way to claim that teaching biblical creation in science class wasn’t religiously motivated. Yet one of the proponents (Buckingham) once made a statement in support of the policy, [saying,](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day14am2.html) “2,000 years ago someone died on a Cross, can’t someone take a stand for Him?” > > Nothing religious about that. The point isn’t whether someone had an impermissible motivation. It is whether a public purpose can be advanced for it. Does this law constitute an establishment of religion or not is thus answered. If there is a public purpose aside from any religious trappings, then it is not an establishment, regardless of whether Congress did it because they thought it would enable them access to green cheese from the moon. If it so happens they stumble blindly into a public purpose… We can have a good law with bad intent. We can’t have a bad law (constitutionally speaking) whatever the intent. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/122 "2014-05-30T23:39:47Z")
Are you saying there _is_ a valid public purpose here? ---
**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 30, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/123 "2014-05-30T23:52:01Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It was the 38th Congress. As far as I know there were no Hindu or publicly atheist congressmen. There were two Jewish congressmen; Leonard Meyers and Myer Strouse. I’ll try to figure out how they voted tonight. No luck. I’m having trouble with the LOC site, in that there’s no easy way to search the Congressional Globe, and the index to the debate doesn’t have it. The Index to the Laws of the United States does, but I can’t find that as a separate document. But I don’t think anybody really disputes it was put on the currency for explicitly religious reasons. I’m just not convinced the fact that it was makes it unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/124 "2014-05-31T00:11:33Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > … I don’t think anybody really disputes it was put on the currency for explicitly religious reasons. I’m just not convinced the fact that it was makes it unconstitutional. Then I’ll ask you the same question I asked John earlier: > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What is it if it’s not an establishment of religion? An accident? A poorly formatted haiku? > > On preview, I see you sort of asked this yourself. What _is_ the statute’s secular legislative purpose? ---
**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 31, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/125 "2014-05-31T00:16:35Z")
> [@David42](#): > > The point isn’t whether someone had an impermissible motivation. It is whether a public purpose can be advanced for it. Does this law constitute an establishment of religion or not is thus answered. If there is a public purpose aside from any religious trappings, then it is not an establishment, regardless of whether Congress did it because they thought it would enable them access to green cheese from the moon. If it so happens they stumble blindly into a public purpose… Motivation is often considered in court cases, especially if it is not obvious or the text is ambiguous. What did Congress intend? The framers? What dialogue went down when the legislation was being considered? Such considerations are not trivial for serious matters. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/126 "2014-05-31T00:19:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Not a good decision, but the issue is sufficiently minor. The major issue is a generation away, when the feds move to ban hard currency, and require all transactions to be electronic. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/127 "2014-05-31T00:22:11Z")
What’s “In God We Trust” in binary? ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/128 "2014-05-31T00:36:10Z")
As Rev. Preacherbot would say, “Let’s check the good book 3.0” 10011101011110010111101001111101011111011011011000011111 ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/129 "2014-05-31T00:45:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Are you saying there _is_ a valid public purpose here? not particularly. but fiddling around with what one congressman said and such doesn’t help answer that question. But I do think that it might reflect the belief that many people who died to end slavery believed, and that was a pretty big deal in our history. That’s what I keep thinking of when I see the phrase on our money. So, yes, in a sense it keeps memory of the civil war alive. I do not see a recognition of that belief and the idea God was on the side of the union for freeing the slaves as an establishment of religion. It neither forces you into any church nor makes you support any financially, and that is the big concern in my view, because nothing has really changed too much since the time Madison wrote it–and increase in Aliens and foreign religions, yes, but still the same old problem–so I see it like the man who wrote it saw it. It’s not like religion has taken any turn they couldn’t foresee. Religion is pretty stagnant and the idea some people would force you into their church by law hasn’t really changed either. The people who first made this law specifically practiced what many say would violate it today. Considering what promise of death the soldiers who fought for this had, I think they were entitled to any damn crutch they needed to overcome the illogic of sacrificing oneself. I do not mind remembering them in part for what helped them get through a much harder time than any of today’s atheists have gone through. It is simply respect for the sacrifice our nation would not have made, I am quite sure, without the influence of Christianity. Does Ohio need to close Rankin House, too, since it discusses Reverend Rankin’s Christian views on abolition. And while we’re at it, let’s forbid any monument to Harriet Beecher Stow, too if it says why she wrote what she wrote. ---
**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 31, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/130 "2014-05-31T01:09:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Then I’ll ask you the same question I asked John earlier: I don’t know. Decoration? Identification? In the case of the adoption of “In God We Trust” as the national motto, annoying the Soviets? What’s the non-secular purpose? I can’t see that the motto on the coin has any chance of converting anybody, and atheist though I am, stores take my money as eagerly as they take the money of my religious neighbors. It’s a little bit, I think, like the religious heraldry on various city seals. If there is a violation there, it’s so de minimus that I don’t know that it’s worth well…making a federal case about, especially if it has a long history and consistent presence. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/131 "2014-05-31T01:29:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re implicitly assuming that if someone is a Christian, he can’t be voting for the phrase to mean anything other than a Christian God. > > You are also making the assumption that we must read it today the way people were thinking about it 150 years ago. > > Neither of those assumptions is correct. > > Keep in mind that Congress just a few years ago voted to keep the phrase. Yeah, I have to disagree with you. The evidence provided by Czarcasm that the phrase was instituted to refer to the Christian God is pretty good, and your protests are pretty feeble. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/132 "2014-05-31T01:34:22Z")
> [@David42](#): > > not particularly. but fiddling around with what one congressman said and such doesn’t help answer that question. > > But I do think that it might reflect the belief that many people who died to end slavery believed, and that was a pretty big deal in our history. That’s what I keep thinking of when I see the phrase on our money. So, yes, in a sense it keeps memory of the civil war alive. I do not see a recognition of that belief and the idea God was on the side of the union for freeing the slaves as an establishment of religion. It neither forces you into any church nor makes you support any financially, and that is the big concern in my view, because nothing has really changed too much since the time Madison wrote it–and increase in Aliens and foreign religions, yes, but still the same old problem–so I see it like the man who wrote it saw it. > > It’s not like religion has taken any turn they couldn’t foresee. Religion is pretty stagnant and the idea some people would force you into their church by law hasn’t really changed either. The people who first made this law specifically practiced what many say would violate it today. > > Considering what promise of death the soldiers who fought for this had, I think they were entitled to any damn crutch they needed to overcome the illogic of sacrificing oneself. I do not mind remembering them in part for what helped them get through a much harder time than any of today’s atheists have gone through. It is simply respect for the sacrifice our nation would not have made, I am quite sure, without the influence of Christianity. > > Does Ohio need to close Rankin House, too, since it discusses Reverend Rankin’s Christian views on abolition. And while we’re at it, let’s forbid any monument to Harriet Beecher Stow, too if it says why she wrote what she wrote. It’s too late to edit it, but I meant to say atheists where I said Aliens. Dunno how that happened beyond I screwed it up. ---
**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 31, 2014, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/133 "2014-05-31T03:19:05Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Yeah, I have to disagree with you. The evidence provided by Czarcasm that the phrase was instituted to refer to the Christian God is pretty good, and your protests are pretty feeble. Which particular protest is feeble and why? Do you deny that both houses of Congress voted to re-affirm the motto in the last 10 years? If you don’t then what difference does it make what people were thinking 150 years ago? ---
**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 31, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/134 "2014-05-31T03:38:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Which particular protest is feeble and why? > > Do you deny that both houses of Congress voted to re-affirm the motto in the last 10 years? If you don’t then what difference does it make what people were thinking 150 years ago? Gee, maybe they voted to reaffirm it because of pressure from religious nutcases-you can’t _really_ know why they voted the way they did, can you? ---
**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 31, 2014, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/135 "2014-05-31T03:50:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Gee, maybe they voted to reaffirm it because of pressure from religious nutcases-you can’t _really_ know why they voted the way they did, can you? Hey, you are the one who put forward the proposition that only Christians voted for this. And yet, [only 9 Congressmen voted against in 2011](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/house-of-representatives-affirms-in-god-we-trust-motto.html?_r=0). Is it your contention that there are only 9 non-Christian members of the House? Or, do you want to abandon your earlier argument and put forward a new one? I’d just like to establish where the goal posts are before we proceed. > [@](#): > > The resolution, which went through an expedited process requiring acquiescence of two-thirds of the House, passed 396 to 9, Hint: Eric Cantor is not a Christian. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/136 "2014-05-31T03:55:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Is it your contention that there are only 9 non-Christian members of the House? As of [2011](http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/05/faith-on-the-hill-the-religious-composition-of-the-112th-congress/), there were 7 non-Christians, plus 39 Jews and 6 who refused to answer. Given your reference to Cantor you seem to be counting Jews among the non-Christians, which seems silly. They revere the same mystical authority figure, after all. ---
**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 31, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/137 "2014-05-31T04:00:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Hey, you are the one who put forward the proposition that only Christians voted for this. And yet, [only 9 Congressmen voted against in 2011](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/house-of-representatives-affirms-in-god-we-trust-motto.html?_r=0). Is it your contention that there are only 9 non-Christian members of the House? > > Or, do you want to abandon your earlier argument and put forward a new one? > > I’d just like to establish where the goal posts are before we proceed. > > Hint: Eric Cantor is not a Christian. Once again, _my_ argument concerns the reason the damn thing was brought forth in the first place, so I really have no need to abandon it since it is right on the fucking money. It was proposed by Christians and refined by Christians to put forth a Christian message that our country is supported by the Christian god. If you have any evidence to the contrary(and you don’t, which is why you keep bringing up shit that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about), I’d sure as hell would like to see it. ---
**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 31, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/138 "2014-05-31T04:03:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Hey, you are the one who put forward the proposition that only Christians voted for this. _When it was first proposed._ Are you somehow blocking half of what I post? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/139 "2014-05-31T04:05:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As of [2011](http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/05/faith-on-the-hill-the-religious-composition-of-the-112th-congress/), there were 7 non-Christians, plus 39 Jews and 6 who refused to answer. Given your reference to Cantor you seem to be counting Jews among the non-Christians, which seems silly. Seriously? Counting Jews among non-Christians is “silly”? That’s about the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/140 "2014-05-31T04:13:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Seriously? Counting Jews among non-Christians is “silly”? That’s about the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen. Considering that they both have the same god and that’s what we’re discussing in this conversation, then yes, they get lumped in with Christians. And, frankly, Muslims. Same god, all three. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557.md?page=8)