# 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:** 9
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/161 "2014-05-31T18:26:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > All I wanted to do was bring up the history behind the motto. I wasn’t making an argument about the people that are supporting it today. This all started when I asked which religion is being “established” by the motto. That question has two parts: 1. Name the religion. 2. Prove that it’s being “established”. People were mostly trying to answer #1, you included. And while your answer might have been true (I don’t think we can say for sure) 150 years, it is not true today. And since we are talking about the case before us today (that is, recently), I think it’s absolutely germane to bring up recent Congressional votes and opinion polls. Now, it’s nice of you to be the thread historian and all, but I’m not seeing what the original vote for the motto tells us about the situation **today** , since we have a **more recent vote** , **more recent polls** , and **more recent court rulings**. And so, I ask again: Which religion **is** being established by having “In God We Trust” on our currency? Note: The verb “to be” is conjugated in the present tense in that sentence. We all do know what “is” means, right? 🙂 ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/162 "2014-05-31T18:30:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This all started when I asked which religion is being “established” by the motto. > > That question has two parts: > > 1. Name the religion. > > 2. Prove that it’s being “established”. > > People were mostly trying to answer #1, you included. And while your answer might have been true (I don’t think we can say for sure) 150 years, it is not true today. And since we are talking about the case before us today (that is, recently), I think it’s absolutely germane to bring up recent Congressional votes and opinion polls. > > Now, it’s nice of you to be the thread historian and all, but I’m not seeing what the original vote for the motto tells us about the situation **today** , since we have a **more recent vote** , **more recent polls** , and **more recent court rulings**. > > And so, I ask again: > > Which religion **is** being established by having “In God We Trust” on our currency? Note: The verb “to be” is conjugated in the present tense in that sentence. We all do know what “is” means, right? 🙂 Christianity. ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/163 "2014-05-31T18:47:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Christianity. OK, that made me laugh! 🙂 ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/164 "2014-05-31T21:41:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So you don’t think was the tag end of the whole thing? Maybe, but 1873 was the 43rd Congress. The 39th Congress didn’t have anything do with any of it. But there weren’t any Jews in the 43rd Congress, so I didn’t bother to look for the vote there, ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/165 "2014-05-31T21:49:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, that made me laugh! 🙂 Why is it when I search for groups that lobby both the Congress and the public to keep that religious saying on our money, all I can find are groups that profess to be Christian in nature? If a Jewish Congressperson votes to keep it, what section of voters do you think he is trying to appeal to? ---
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/166 "2014-05-31T22:31:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why is it when I search for groups that lobby both the Congress and the public to keep that religious saying on our money, all I can find are groups that profess to be Christian in nature? If a Jewish Congressperson votes to keep it, what section of voters do you think he is trying to appeal to? Pretty much all of them: > [@](#): > > [“Please say whether you approve or disapprove of each of the following. How about [see below]?” > > ````auto > > Approve Disapprove No Opinion > . > > % % % > > ."The inscription 'In God We Trust' on U.S. coins" > > 90 8 2 > > ```](http://pollingreport.com/religion3.htm) > > ```` ---
**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:** [June 1, 2014, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/167 "2014-06-01T00:00:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Pretty much all of them: Is it your contention that lobbying plays no part in this decision? ---
**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:** [June 1, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/168 "2014-06-01T00:05:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is it your contention that lobbying plays no part in this decision? I have no way of knowing, and neither do you. But when something can get 90% support by the American people, it would not seem that lobbying would be necessary. Is it your contention that, absent lobbying, Congress would vote to end the practice of putting In God We Trust on our currency? Is it your contention that if an amendment were proposed to make this part of the Constitution that it would fail? Because that is what would likely happen if the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/169 "2014-06-01T00:17:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I have no way of knowing, and neither do you. But when something can get 90% support by the American people, it would not seem that lobbying would be necessary. > > Is it your contention that, absent lobbying, Congress would vote to end the practice of putting In God We Trust on our currency? > > Is it your contention that if an amendment were proposed to make this part of the Constitution that it would fail? Because that is what would likely happen if the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. It is my contention that if the Congress _and_ the public weren’t lobbied so heavily, most people wouldn’t give a shit one way or the other. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/170 "2014-06-01T00:25:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It is my contention that if the Congress _and_ the public weren’t lobbied so heavily, most people wouldn’t give a shit one way or the other. You’re going to have a hard time proving that 90% of Americans have actually been lobbied at all on the subject, much less lobbied “heavily”. But I eagerly await your attempt!! I’ll give you a little help. Starting with me, I’ve never once been lobbied, and I’m part of the 10% that doesn’t want it on our currency. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/171 "2014-06-01T00:30:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course not; there’s never been a majority of atheists. > > Christianity also supported and promoted slavery. It was after all a very successful way of converting the descendents of the enslaved people to Christianity, as well as useful for excusing it. And what ultimately ended slavery more than anything else as that it was finally recognized as economically non-viable. There is more than one type of Christianity at play here. The branch I identified with said another branch that held slavery good in the bible is in error and perverting what was mere tolerance in a world that universally tolerated slavery, and where slavery was also for criminals and POWs since they lacked prisons and detention camps like we have today. In civil war times the nation was growing somewhat intolerant to the specific form of negro slavery practiced in the U.S. while we to this day largely support “slavery” for criminals–freedom taken away and made to work. As far as being economically non-viable–tell that to some African blood diamond slave. I’d somewhat agree the specific circumstances of slaves working cotton became unviable. But how would slaves do where we have migrant workers harvesting vegetables by hand to this day? Probably even more economically viable than the “slave wages” the migrants are paid. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/172 "2014-06-01T00:38:56Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > No offense, but your brother is an idiot. I’m an atheist and a genealogist and would feel about that type of document in my family the way you do. I’d also probably donate it since museums and the like have professionals to store, maintain it and make it available for others to see. > > I also have Bibles from both grandmothers and my maternal grandfather. They are a part of my family history as much as land, marriage, probate records etc. Throwing them away or selling them cutting off one of the few connections I have with my ancestors. Hopefully your brother will get wiser as he gets older. No offense taken, we all have similar opinions of my brother and all my other brothers and sisters agree with me we want it somewhere it can be professionally taken care of. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/173 "2014-06-01T00:41:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No, you may _not_ assume that an approach to one situation is equally valid in all other situations. Real life is just a _bit_ more complicated than that. In other words, you’ll continue to ignore original intent unless it suits you. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/174 "2014-06-01T01:13:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Dred Scott says that the government’s action to deprive a person of property – a slave – under a statute that exceeds Congress’ enumerated powers would be a deprivation of property without due process of law. > > But clearly, there was procedural due process – Congress passed the laws in question following its procedure, didn’t it? > > So what due process was Taney talking about? Nice attempted dodge. I’m not sure we need to re-litigate that entire thing again. I’m just trying to figure out how you can conclude that Dred Scott decision was both a substantive due process case (which you have clearly expressed as being the hallmark of a bad decision) and, at the very same time, that it was a “not a bad decision”. I, myself, would have trouble holding two clearly conflicting views at the same time, but YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/175 "2014-06-01T01:14:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No, you may _not_ assume that an approach to one situation is equally valid in all other situations. Real life is just a _bit_ more complicated than that. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Translation: I’ll affirm the validity of whatever argument suits my purpose at whatever point I’m arguing. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/176 "2014-06-01T01:20:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > BWAHAHAHAHA!!! > > Translation: I’ll affirm the validity of whatever argument suits my purpose at whatever point I’m arguing. And he’s never explained what it is about this issue that makes that type of analysis valid. Given the very recent votes to affirm it, this would seem to be exactly the type of issue for which the intent of the original legislators would be moot. Can you answer my question about how putting “In God We Trust” passes the 3rd item of the Lemon Test? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/177 "2014-06-01T01:34:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Bricker** : Can you explain how this decision passes the Lemon Test: > > \*1. The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong) > > 1. The statute must not advance or inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong) > > 2. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose (also known as the Purpose Prong)\* > > I can understand 1 and 2, but 3? What “secular legislative purpose” does this serve? Sure. The secular purpose is to acknowledge the historical fact of our religious heritage: _Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pitts. Chapter_, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring): “…because of their ‘history and ubiquity,’ such government acknowledgments of religion are not understood as conveying an endorsement of particular religious beliefs.” ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/178 "2014-06-01T01:40:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Dred Scott says that the government’s action to deprive a person of property – a slave – under a statute that exceeds Congress’ enumerated powers would be a deprivation of property without due process of law. > > But clearly, there was procedural due process – Congress passed the laws in question following its procedure, didn’t it? > > So what due process was Taney talking about? I have to inquire what you’re thinking here too, Bricker. Procedural due process is about the fairness of the trial and the like, what does the procedure of the Congress have to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2014, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/179 "2014-06-01T01:42:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. The secular purpose is to acknowledge the historical fact of our religious heritage: _Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pitts. Chapter_, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring): “…because of their ‘history and ubiquity,’ such government acknowledgments of religion are not understood as conveying an endorsement of particular religious beliefs.” Also intertwined with our civil war heritage. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557/180 "2014-06-01T01:44:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. The secular purpose is to acknowledge the historical fact of our religious heritage: _Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pitts. Chapter_, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring): “…because of their ‘history and ubiquity,’ such government acknowledgments of religion are not understood as conveying an endorsement of particular religious beliefs.” Was that particular quote addressed specifically at the “secular purpose” prong of the Lemon Test? Because invoking a specific reference to God, without any context that it’s supposed to be a reference to historical tradition, doesn’t strike me as being “secular”. If the motto had been “In God We Trusted”, maybe. But it references a current condition, not an historical one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust-all-others-pay-cash-second-circuit-upholds-phrase-on-money/689557.md?page=10)