Recently, the Colorado Board of Education in Denver considered displaying the motto “In God We Trust” in public schools.
Unlike the Ten Commandments or prayers after a football game, “In God We Trust” has the political force behind it of being the official U.S. motto. This makes it much tougher for a Federal court to declare its display in a school as Unconstitutional, without implicating its display on U.S. currency as also being Unconstitutional.
This may be just the test-case we need for “In God We Trust”. This will force the Federal courts, once and for all, to look the religious nature of this motto straight in the face, and finally get the Supreme Court to stop denying Certiorari to cases involving “In God We Trust.” (The Supreme Court has denied every appeal of previous suits to get “In God We Trust” off U.S. money.)
I could be mistaken, but I believe “E pluribus unum” (translates as “One, From many”, indicating a single nation composed of several states) is the official motto of the U.S., not “In God we trust”.
I’m sure a dozen people will rush to correct me if I’m wrong.
It might be noted that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the request of the State of Ohio for a review by the whole court of the ruling that the State’s motto (“In God All Things Are Possible”) is unconstitutional.
Keep in mind that it became the national motto only about 40 years ago during the height of the cold war. I believe it used to be “E pluribus unum” previously.
Here’s the catch: the school board only made a SUGGESTION that the words be posted in schools, and left it up to individual schools whether or not to post it. Because it isn’t an actual rule, it can’t really be challenged on constitutional grounds above the level of individual schools.
True, the Colorado schools are not required to display the motto. However, the moment one of them does display the motto, the ACLU is going to file suit to get it declared unconstitutional. So we’ll have to wait a little while before we get our Test Case.
Incidentally, one news clip I watched mentioned that pinning a dollar bill up to a school bulletin board face-down, so that “IN GOD WE TRUST” is showing, would be sufficient to test the Consitutionality of the motto.
In the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, columnist Tom Teepen wrote a column about this, saying it was wrong and stuff. The next day some Christian supremacist wrote the paper saying that “Colorado put God above Godless laws” and that Teepen should “be run out of the country” as a threat to the security of our nation.
Well now…looks like somebody forgot to take their Prozac and read their Constitution…but anyway.
“In God We Trust” was first put on the money by Treasury Secretary Salmon Portland Chase in 1864. What I’m wondering is, what is the constitutionality of that and why has it never been challenged?
You know, since money is the root of all even, I don’t think real Christians would want it on money… Kind of gives others the wrong idea. But, oh, the posers…
We already did a pretty thorough discussion of “In God We Trust;” I’m sure you could find it in the archives.
“In God We Trust” was placed on coins during the civil war. It was placed on folding money in the 1950s. Many of the numerous legal cases dealing with it on money were cited in the previous thread. Suffice it to say that several courts have looked at the issue, and none (to my knowledge) have found it unconstitutional. I’m fairly certain that the reasoning for why it isn’t unconstitutional in the context of money would transfer, so that for the same reasons it would not be unconstitutional if posted in or on a school. Of course, if you aren’t convinced by the rationale in the former case (and several posters were not), you probably won’t be convinced of it in the latter case. Anyway, all the cites are in the earlier thread.
Oh, and the Supreme Court can and does tacitly “rule” on issues by refusing to look at them. That’s what’s happened in the context of IGWT. It’s not that they haven’t had the opportunity to review such a case, it’s that they have refused to, which might indicate that, in their eyes at least, IGWT is pretty clearly constitutional.
Yes, yes. But without man’s love for it, money is only stone (and/or paper). It is the love of these round, flat stones which give them the intrinsic value we call money.
'Sprix, you’re too late…I already brought that up. Good to see my GDer’s are swift as ever to correct misquotes and factual errors, though.
jmullaney, I don’t think anyone “loves” money (well, I really like the new Sackie–but we’re just friends. ), although they may love what money represents: power, security, luxury, etc. Money has no intrinsic value; it is only a representation of the value of other things. That’s like saying “you love house deeds” because you love the idea of having a home of your own. And you wouldn’t claim that it is the love of the deeds that gives the house deeds their value–it is the fact that (almost) all have agreed that that scrap of paper represents a house.
(BTW, money is not stones unless you are talking about certain islanders! It is made of metal and paper and concepts and trust! I know you are using a little artistic license here, but it’s starting to drive me nuts to hear money called “round, flat stones.”)
People for the American Way recently set out the precedents on this type of religious speech in an open letter to the Lumpkin County School Board in Georgia. The whole letter is here: http://www.pfaw.org/news/press//show.cgi?article=963861980
In relevant part:
So, it appears the courts could disallow the posting in a school, but allow it to remain on currency. Funny, I still find the word “God” to have significant religious content, but I’m just an atheist, and I shouldn’t even be considered a citizen, so what does my opinion mean?
Hey, great. Can I trade you this shiny new nickle for your dull old quarter? People love money because it is worth something. It is only worth something because other people love it also. I think it is fairly simple.
Deeds are different. They are merely a legal representation of owner ship of something you would already own. Money has no intrinsic value.
Metal isn’t a type of stone? “a concretion of earthy or mineral matter” per Websters? Mineral, meaning ore, which in fact comes from the word for copper or bronze (old high german).
No, because the quarter represents 5 times the value as the nickle, therefore I can get 5 times as much “things” with it–because other people think so too. If people truly loved money, wouldn’t they prefer the shiny nickle?
It is worth something because other people think it can be exchanged for something they want. Just like an IOU, or a check, or a winning lottery ticket. Do people love the ticket? Or do they love what it represents? Do they love the paper and metal of money? Or do they love what it represents?
Oh all right, but yeesh is that ever counterintuitive. You don’t say “I want a stone knife” unless you want one made our of granite; you say “I want a metal knife.” I submit that one does not generally call refined metals, sulfur, mercury, etc., “stone”.
And once again we’ve managed a major hijack, so I’m going to leave this alone from now on.
They would if they were coin collectors. Really, the “love” of money will take on a whole new meaning for you when you see a bunch of neumismatists drooling over a Proof condition $4 Gold Stella from the 1860s. Heck, I get all misty-eyed looking at my common, circulated-quality antebellum Seated Liberty quarters. And not just because they don’t say “In God We Trust”, either. (Heh, I knew I could get this thread back on topic!)
I don’t generally call sulfur a “metal,” either, unless I’m discussing an electrically-conductive high-pressure allotrope of sulfur, or astrophysics (astrophysicists refer to anything in a star that isn’t hydrogen or helium as “metals”).
Good to see my GDer’s are swift as ever to correct misquotes and factual errors, though.