# "In God We Trust" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2001, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011 "2001-04-06T01:35:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/41 "2001-04-06T22:02:23Z")
**Jodi** : Hah! I’d forgotten about switching “God” to “Damn” in that list, but of course your observation was precisely why I did it. I thought I’d only hit preview. Too funny. As for Webster’s, perhaps you missed the second part of that definition I quoted: “a _personal set_ or institutionalized system of _religious_ attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” Websters goes on to define “religious” as “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.” So I think it’s clear your brother has a “personal set” of attitudes and beliefs “relating to . . . an acknowleged . . . deity.” (Please don’t make me define “deity” to include your description of “a higher power - the idea of God, if you will.”) If those religious attitudes and beliefs tell him not to worry about the practices, then I don’t think it matters for the definition that he doesn’t have any religious practices. And with that, I gotta run. Fun thread, though. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/42 "2001-04-06T22:07:48Z")
MINTY – > [@](#): > > You got a weird definition of “religion,” Jodi. Yeah, me and four circuit courts of appeals, out there on the lunatic fringe. :rolleyes: I said: > [@](#): > > This is your definition of religion; it is not mine. Nor, apparently, is it the courts’. And it is irrelevant to the question of whether IGWT advances religion, regardless of which definition we use. To which you reply: > [@](#): > > It’s totally relevant, IMHO. Because if I’m right that “establishment of religion” covers all belief in a supernatural higher power (and the courts have sometimes said exactly that), then invoking “God” on our money is, by definition, religious. We are talking about two different things. I said that the _definition_ of religion is irrelevant (in theory) because _however_ you define it, you must prove _establishment_ or _advancement_ of it (religion, however defined) in order to have a constitutional problem. In your quote, you go beyond asserting that any belief in God constitutes a religion to further asserting that any belief in God constitutes an _establishment_ of religion – a huge leap, IMO. But defining religion and defining the establishment of religion are two different things. > [@](#): > > If IGWT is religious, then it’s awful hard to argue that the government is not promoting/advancing/endorsing religion by taking it as an official motto. If, if, if. Even if it is a religious motto – which I do not believe – it _still_ would not be considered to promote, advance, or endorse religion unless it had the purpose of doing so, appeared to do so a a reasonable observer, or excessively entangled government in religion – in other words, unless it fulfilled the _Lemon_ test. Which it has never been held to do. > [@](#): > > Yeah, but I’m not sure I could convince you much of anything short of a state church or mandatory participation in prayer at public schools was an establishment problem. This is really unfair of you, and I’m surprised to see you post it. I do not believe that IGWT presents an establishment problem; that does not mean that I do not realize that establishment problems exist in other contexts. You may attempt to paint me as a right-wing theocratic Nazi if you choose, simply because I disagree with you, but I will not give you the satisfaction of responding in kind. > [@](#): > > As for your point about begging the question, one of the various tests (Justice O’Connor’s theory, IIRC) for an establishment problem is whether the government action “endorses” religion. When the government has adopted IGWT as an official motto, how can anyone claim that it has not endorsed the contents of that motto? Surely you can see that endorsing religion and “endorsing the contents of the that motto” are two different things. How could you possibly test whether the motto endorses itself? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/43 "2001-04-06T22:15:18Z")
MINTY – > [@](#): > > As for Webster’s, perhaps you missed the second part of that definition I quoted: “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” Websters goes on to define “religious” as “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.” MINTY, “personal” and “religious” are both adjectives defining other terms, respectively “set or system” (plural) and “attitudes, beliefs, and practices” (plural). The definition clearly contemplates more than one belief, and concentrating on the fact that those beliefs, plural, should be both personal and religious does not change the fact that they are also plural. > [@](#): > > So I think it’s clear your brother has a “personal set” of attitudes and beliefs . . . Once again: No, he does not. He has one belief, singular. He believes in the existence of some godlike higher power somewhere. That’s it. I don’t know how the reverse could be “clear” to you when I am the one explaining to you what he believes. He is, after all, my brother. > [@](#): > > . . . “relating to . . . an acknowleged . . . deity.” Yes, his belief, singular, relates to a diety. Specifically, he believes that a diety exists. That’s it. That is not a religion. > [@](#): > > If those religious attitudes and beliefs tell him not to worry about the practices, then I don’t think it matters for the definition that he doesn’t have any religious practices. Once more, with feeling: He has one belief, singular. He doesn’t have any “attitude;” he doesn’t have any beliefs other than that one; he doesn’t have any “practices.” He does not have religion, general, and he doesn’t have a religion, specific. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/44 "2001-04-06T22:41:15Z")
Jody says: > [@](#): > > My point is that there is nothing in the words themselves – “In God We Trust” – that are particularly Christian – or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist – and therefore it is not “demonstrable” that it is understood to be associated with any one particular religion. Part of the reason it is held not to advance religion is because it is not a sentiment limited to one religion alone. 1. To talk of God in the singular implies to me a reference to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. Traditionally, Indian Buddhists have believed in the Hindu pantheon of Gods, though they have argued that this pantheon wouldn’t do them much good. Extending that point, I don’t think a Buddhist be comfortable claiming to “trust” in God. If anything, Buddhists put their trust in Buddhist doctrine (dharma), if I understand these beliefs correctly. 2. I’d say IGWT is broadly monotheist. 3. I find it a stretch to claim that “In God We Trust” is similar to “Thank God it’s Friday”. I only see the former saying on coins and bills, I can’t recall ever hearing it in common speech. I’d say IGWT is closer to “E Pluribus Unim”, the only difference being that the former is more controversial. 4. Historically, an original justification for inserting a God reference in our currency was to emphasize that the US were not “heathens”, images of the Goddess of Liberty notwithstanding. See my link above. 5. Another saying that could be placed on bills might be, “Freedom from G\*d”. Atheists or agnostics would have no problem with that. And, hey, we’re only trying to underline the notion of free will. You do believe in free will, don’t you? :innocent look: 6. Nah, I don’t care either. And if somebody wants write other comments on currency, that wouldn’t bother me either provided the bills are still fit for reuse and the comments are either accurate or amusing. Eye of the beholder, I know. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/45 "2001-04-06T22:42:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Anyone else want to weigh in on whether belief in a supernatural power, by itself, is all that it takes to qualify as religion? Well, **minty** , my dictionary says religion requires more than belief: > [@](#): > > **religion** (rî-lîj´en) _noun_ > _Abbr._ **rel., relig.** > **1. a.** Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. **b.** A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. > **2.** The life or condition of a person in a religious order. > **3.** A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. > **4.** A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. (_The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition_. 1992, Houghton Mifflin Company.) I think the key part in 1.a is “reverence for.” In 1.b it’s “worship,” in 3 it’s “set of beliefs, values and practices,” and in 4 it’s “pursued.” I don’t think we’ve been given any reason to believe that **Jodi** ’s brother holds any reverence for the god whose existence he acknowledges. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/46 "2001-04-06T22:46:57Z")
**flowbark** : > [@](#): > > I don’t think a Buddhist be comfortable claiming to “trust” in God. You are correct. Nor would a Wiccan. Nor a Hindu or Taoist. > [@](#): > > Another saying that could be placed on bills might be, “Freedom from G\*d”. Atheists or agnostics would have no problem with that. Don’t be so sure. This agnostic, at least, would find it repulsive. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/47 "2001-04-06T23:19:25Z")
Jodi wrote: > [@](#): > > Actually, the Sixth Circuit in _ACLU-Ohio_ didn’t address the historical issue much, and certanly never mentioned the Star Spangled Banner. From section V. B. 1. of the full text of _ACLU of Ohio v. Capitol Square Review_, at [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=00a0148p:](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=00a0148p:) > [@](#): > > The national motto, “In God We Trust,” was enacted into law in 1956. See 70 Stat. 732, P.L. 851, 1956. After describing the history of its use in coinage, beginning with the Act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat. 518), and the adoption of the Star Spangled Banner(13) as our national anthem (and particularly its fourth stanza),(14) the legislative history regarding our national motto reads: > > “It will be of great spiritual and psychological value to our country to have a clearly designated national motto of inspirational quality in plain, popularly accepted English.” > > H.R. No. 84-1959, 1956 U.S.C.C.A. 3720. Footnote 14 near the bottom of the page contains the entire 4th stanza of the Star-Spangled Banner. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/48 "2001-04-06T23:57:15Z")
YOu know what? As long as it spends, I really could care less. How about this: In God We Trust. For everything else, there’s Visa. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/49 "2001-04-07T00:12:07Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Jodi_ > I would like to see a citation, please, where anyone has asserted that because IGWT is okay, therefore school prayer must be okay, too. Even if you could find such a citation (which I kind of doubt) it would not be persuasive, since the courts have specifically held that school prayer is not the sort of “ceremonial deism” reflected in IGWT and therefore is not to be considered in the same class. Why am I looking for a citation, when you’ve already said you’ll just reject it anyway? Oh well. > [@](#): > > We stamp the words “In God We Trust” on our money. If religion is good enough for our judges and our elected officials in Washington, then why isn’t it good enough for our school children? Maybe we need to invite God back into our schools before the tragedies, not after they occur. – [When God is Expelled](http://www.americanpartisan.com/rmag/yoho/042799.htm) by Robert Yoho > [@](#): > > IN A NATION whose every form of currency affirms a belief and trust in God “In God We Trust;” whose Pledge affirms that we are “One Nation Under God;” whose federal courts open each day with the prayer, “God, save the United States and this Honorable Court;” whose Congress and Senate open each day with a prayer; whose 'Declaration of Independence refers to God three times as “Creator,” “Supreme Judge,” and “divine Providence;” it is paradoxical that there are no publicly stated prayers occurring in the buildings that are home to the 46,280,000 children attending public schools each day – arguably the place where prayer is needed most. – [School boards: let students take lead in resolving prayer issue](http://209.35.218.162/solemnization/pdfs/ceditorial.pdf) by Kelly Coghlan > [@](#): > > Before the game, the players and the spectators honor America, a country whose motto is “In God We Trust,” by singing The Star Spangled Banner. Then the players on both teams begin to yell, curse, and work themselves into a frenzy. The game begins. Wait, something is missing. What is it? The answer: PRAYER! This summer the Supreme Court decided prayer before football is unconstitutional. Because of this loss of prayer, I believe that communities, teams, and America will suffer. – [Should you pray before you play?: Yes](http://www.channelonenews.com/feature/2000/09/20000905/index1.html) by Gordon Fellows > [@](#): > > I pray that the community will pull together and encourage each other - maybe now we can think about bringing prayers back to school. We are able to pray when we have a tragedy hit - why not before? In God we trust - even our money makes thisstatement. – [Memorial for Columbine High School](http://www.wecanhelp.net/columbine/columbine4.html), “Marina” from Cape Coral, FL > [@](#): > > However, the recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which apply with equal force to Puerto Rico as they do the 50 states, prohibit student-led prayers and other displays of religious faith in public schools. These decisions have crossed the line - a line of sensibility, common sense, and above all, a line of morality. This country was founded on a strong belief in God. “In God We Trust” is the national motto… – [The Separation of Church and State: A Puerto Rican perspective](http://www.puertorico51.org/reference/editorial_090100.htm) by Samuel Quiros > [@](#): > > Christians, let’s start to put to an end this wrongfulness. Christians founded our country and it is our duty to not fail all that they worked for and fought for. Even the money we spend states “In God We Trust.” Let’s fight to get prayer back into our school systems, fight to keep perversion out of our community and fight to raise our children with good morals and deeds. “Faith by itself, if not accompanied by action is dead.” James 2:17 – from a [letter to the editor](http://www.timestocome.com/bible/july222000.html) by John Blackinton > [@](#): > > this is a country that is free,we have IN GOD WE TRUST on our money,so why not have prays at school or any school function,I think we need to have a vote on this issue > _and_ > The almighty dollar has in God we trust, but yet we can’t have prayer at school. This is very contradictory. – both from [Give your opinion: Do you support ‘prayer’ at school sporting events?](http://www.giveyouropinion.com/viewcomms.cfm?question=question8) > [@](#): > > I ordinarily don’t advocate more and more governmental laws. However, if it takes a law to allow school children in school to pray, then I am in favor of one. Our forefathers that wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution believed in God and wanted this nation to grow in the understanding, love for fellow man, and guidance of God. The currrncy of this country reads “In God We Trust” (though I don’t expect this to be the case much longer). No, not every American must be a Christian; however, those of us who are should be allowed to practice our faith. When I was in public school I always liked the prayers said before football games, etc. I don’t recall that anyone was ever forced to participate. Now, we’re forced NOT to pray together. – [Should there be a federal law specifying the right of children to voluntarily pray in school?](http://www.star-telegram.com/interact/surveys/starvote/vote96.htm), response from “Kay” These sorts of statements are pretty common in letters to the editor and small-town editorials and computer bulletin boards and things like that. I guess the _hoi polloi_ just aren’t subtle enough to appreciate the reasoning of the great and wise Justices of the Supreme Court. Oh, by the way, it looks like the unwashed and ignorant masses who foolishly think that “In God We Trust” has something to do with religion (and therefore prayer) include at least some of the honorable members of the Georgia Legislature. No surprise there, I guess. > [@](#): > > WHEREAS, our coins bear the motto “In God We Trust” and the pledge of allegiance describes the United States of America as “one nation under God”… > > NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that the members of this body urge those members of the Congress of the United States elected from the State of Georgia to sponsor and vote for passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution which will permit voluntary group prayer in public school classrooms while respecting the religious freedom and diversity which helps to make this a great nation. – [Georgia House of Representatives Resolution HR 807; Prayer in schools; am to U.S.Const; urge Ga delegation vote for passage](http://www.legis.state.ga.us/Legis/1999_00/leg/fulltext/hr807.htm) But I guess no one would call state legislators “reasonable observers”, eh? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/50 "2001-04-07T00:14:17Z")
And if you think it’s a pain crossing IGWT off of your _paper_ money before you spend it, think of how tough it’s going to be to cross IGWT off of your _coins!_ Incidentally, I heard about a group of people in the gay rights movement a few years ago who rubber-stamped the words “gay dollars” onto all the paper money they spent. It supposedly helped drive home, in the mind of the recipients, the notion that gay people are a rather large demographic and are responsible for a considerable amount of the recipients’ business. A pro-gun friend of mine heard about this practice, made his own rubber stamp, and now stamps all of his paper money with the words “second amendment dollars”. – **tracer** , wondering if he shouldn’t rubber-stamp his money with the words “vegetable hater dollars”. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/51 "2001-04-07T00:42:24Z")
By “I fail to see any reasonable argument” I meant “I do not find the given or cited arguments reasonable.” I am sorry that my usage apparently misled you into thinking I had been unable to read the words. I do have one further question, though, does your brother trust God? ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/52 "2001-04-07T02:16:23Z")
Here in Topeka, Kansas there has been a running brou-haha over the “In God We Trust” issue. The Shawnee County Treasurer, Rita Cline, put up two small signs of IGWT in the offices where people come to transfer auto titles, pay for licenses, etc. Two local women, Mary Lou Schmidt and Darlene(can’t remember last name) filed a lawsuit with the ACLU to get her to take them down. It went badly, as Cline, IMHO, is a rather provocative personality, and the others seem to be esily provoked. Cline replied to Schmidt on office stationery, questioning her patriotism, and Schmidt, a self-declared Pagan, got hot. Cline said she was just putting up the “national motto”, but other statements she made seemed to indicate it was a religious issue. Cline has recently switched to Republican from Democrat because of what she calls a gay agenda at work in the latter party. There are too many articles and letters to the editor to cite them all, but if you go to [http://cjonline.com/archive](http://cjonline.com/archive) and try enterin “Cline”, “In God We Trust”, or “Schmidt” you will, in the first three months of 2001, find a lot of info. And by the way the ACLU lost the case. Here is an address for that story. [http://www.cjonline.com/stories/020701/com\_clineaclu.shtml](http://www.cjonline.com/stories/020701/com_clineaclu.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/53 "2001-04-07T02:43:54Z")
[shameless hijack] Another thing you can write on your bills is [http://www.wheresgeorge.com](http://www.wheresgeorge.com) , The Great American Dollar Bill Locator. The website allows you to register your dollar bill serial codes. If somebody finds a marked bill and lets wheresgeorge know, you get… well, you get to find out where your currency traveled to. Cheap thrills. [/shameless hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/54 "2001-04-07T03:34:02Z")
FLOWBARK – Responding to your numbered points in order: 1. “To talk of God in the singular implies to me a reference to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.” To talk of God to me implies whatever your personal iteration of God might be. That is up to you, not to me. 2. I’m not sure I disagree, but I don’t believe that mention of a “broadly monotheistic” God constitutes the establishment of religion. 3. Whether the phrase is used in common speech is irrelevant to whether or not it is constitutional. 4. This is also largely irrelevant to the effect of the motto today. 5. Yes, that also could be on the bills – provided it had a secular purpose unrelated to the establishment of religion. As I have already said, I don’t think the analysis changes just because you change the phrase in question to a hypothetical one that you imagine might be offensive to me personally. 6. Me too. TRACER, I stand corrected, but if you found that historical detail you surely observed the Sixth Circuit directly afterward quoting the Ninth Circuit as saying: > [@](#): > > It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. In fact, you also surely noticed that the Sixth Circuit exhaustively reviewed the history and usage of IGWT, in an opinion running some thirty pages, and found the motto constitutional. MEBRUCKNER – I apologize for misleading you; when I asked for a citation, I meant a legal one, since this is a legal question. The _hoi polloi_, as you see fit to call them, have a host of opinions on how the constitution should be interpreted, from the sound to the truly bizarre. If you doubt this, try a Google search on the constitutionality of income tax – a settled matter as far as the courts are concerned – and you will be able to come up with a host of “cites” on its unconstitutionality. What some people – or even a lot of people – think _ought_ to be constitutional (or un-) is not particularly persuasive of what _is_ constitutional. This thread exemplifies that. SPIRITUS – > [@](#): > > I do have one further question, though, does your brother trust God? Not so you’d notice. But then, to my knowledge he doesn’t care that IGWT is on currency, either. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/55 "2001-04-07T04:59:58Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. I’m not sure I disagree, but I don’t believe that mention of a “broadly monotheistic” God constitutes the establishment of religion. Yup, it appears that we’re at an impasse. If the bills merely mentioned the word God, as in “Some believe God exists, others don’t”, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. However, you (along with certain members of the judiciary) seem to imply that “In God We Trust” is the functional equivalent of “(God) Bless You”, a phrase that I would agree lacks religious content when preceded by a sneeze. (Luckily nobody seems to care too much about this. 🙂 ) **Repeating an old Argument** Part of the point of separating church and state is to avoid contaminating either. Religion is compromised to an extent when petitioners are forced to argue that the phrase, “In God We Trust”, is one which is devoid of religious substance. I’d say that it is an elegant statement of faith that is broadly ecumenical within Monotheistic traditions. To pretend otherwise is unfortunate, IMHO. [sub]Oh, and I think my 5th point generated more heat than light.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/56 "2001-04-07T05:03:56Z")
> [@](#): > > MEBRUCKNER – I apologize for misleading you; when I asked for a citation, I meant a legal one, since this is a legal question. The _hoi polloi_, as you see fit to call them, have a host of opinions on how the constitution should be interpreted, from the sound to the truly bizarre. If you doubt this, try a Google search on the constitutionality of income tax – a settled matter as far as the courts are concerned – and you will be able to come up with a host of “cites” on its unconstitutionality. What some people – or even a lot of people – think _ought_ to be constitutional (or un-) is not particularly persuasive of what is constitutional. This thread exemplifies that. Yes, I know those weren’t legal opinions. My initial point–the one for which you asked for cites–had more to do with how a “reasonable observer” would perceive IGWT. As I understand it, it’s been crucial to the federal courts’ finding that IGWT does not violate SOCAS that a “reasonable observer” would not find the use of the phrase to constitute an endorsement of religion. I’m not sure how the honorable judges determine how a “reasonable observer” would view something. To quote [_Gaylor v. United States_](http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/95-1033.html) : > [@](#): > > The application of the reasonable observer standard helps explain why we reject the [Freedom from Religion] Foundation’s insistence upon further factfinding at the trial level, including the introduction of expert testimony and polling data. Perhaps the judges ask their clerks: JUDGE: Say, Bob, what do you think of when you think of our national motto being “In God We Trust”? CLERK: Why, ceremonial deism, sir. JUDGE: Doesn’t make you think the government’s endorsing religion or anything like that? CLERK: Oh, no, sir. JUDGE: Doesn’t make you think this is a Christian nation? CLERK: Of course not, sir. JUDGE: How 'bout school prayer? CLERK: Oh, that’s entirely different, sir. Organized school prayer isn’t ceremonial deism at all. Why, the two subjects have nothing in common with each other, sir. JUDGE: And you definitely don’t think of the precious blood shed by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? CLERK: Oh, no, sir. Not at all. JUDGE: Okey-dokey, then. Meanwhile, out in the real world, who knows how many Americans look at the words “In God We Trust” on their money (or the walls of the courthouse) and naively think it has something to do with God and the Bible and religion and stuff, blissfully unaware that they are “unreasonable observers”. Some of those people are elected to high political office. I have a sneaking suspicion that quite of few of the people who voted to make IGWT the national motto back in 1956 probably held “unreasonable” views on just what it was they were approving; they might even have believed they were “endorsing religion”. Fortunately, we have wise and learned judges to straighten us out on these matters. ---
**Author:** ![Randy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2acd7d/32.png) [@Randy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/57 "2001-04-07T07:50:51Z")
I think it’s sad. For all those years only a few protested having those words on our currency. Mom’s apple pie, baseball, Coca-Cola, Chevrolet, Norman Rockwell, Andy Griffith, pledge alliegence to the flag, church on Sunday, In God We Trust. Now, everyone is too smart to believe in God. We Christians believe that only God has made this Nation as great as it is. Why not honor Him? I know, I know about the political correct thing, but I had to say it. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/58 "2001-04-07T08:11:52Z")
Thanks, Randy. See, Jodi? Another poor deluded non-lawyer who thinks “In God We Trust” has something to do with being a good Christian and going to church on Sunday and, you know, religion and stuff. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/59 "2001-04-07T15:42:32Z")
**Jodi** : So as long as the only relevant belief (in the singular, as you insist) the government is promoting or endorsing is “the existence of some godlike higher power somewhere,” then it isn’t religion, right? That is, from my p.o.v., ridiculous. If that were the case, the feds could require belief in a higher power as a prerequisite to federal employment or benefits. Or maybe just call out the federal marshals to force every citizen to affirm his or her belief in the existence of some godlike higher power somewhere. After all, if the mere belief in the existence of generalized godlike higher power isn’t religion, then there can be no First Amendment problem with requiring people to believe in that higher power, right? Sorry, all you Buddhists, atheists, Taoists, atheists, and agnostics, but the First Amendment simply doesn’t apply to you guys. That’s why I think your definition of religion is weird, and that is why I said I doubt I could convince you that much of anything is an establishment problem. **MEBuckner** : Your judge-clerk conversation had me laughing out loud. Well done! ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011/60 "2001-04-07T21:08:08Z")
Yeah, but there went my chances of ever successfully arguing a case before the Supreme Court. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-god-we-trust/61011.md?page=4)