# The Constitution does not forbid religious symobls on government property **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973 "2009-01-12T20:51:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/41 "2009-01-13T21:04:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I can respect people who personally believe what you’re saying, but I don’t see how people like **Max** can have such total confidence in such a tenuous argument. Because it isn’t a tenuous argument. The Constitution does not exist in a vacuum. All the history and interpretation and court decisions affect this and have to be taken into account too. If you’re going to try to argue that you’re just talking about the Constitution itself and you’re ignoring those other things, then I guess, yes, you might be able to say that the Constitution does not expressly forbid the placement of religious symbols on public property. However this would just be a semantics argument, and a hollow victory. The fact is that all of the things around it gain validation from the Constitution, and because of them it is as if the Constitution effectively forbids placing religious symbols on public grounds. This has been shown time and time again. > [@](#): > > Writing “In God we Trust” on the money or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not promote Christianity, any more than putting a picture of Barack Obama on the wall promotes the Democratic Party. In both cases, the government is acknowledging the will of the people. I disagree. ‘The Nation’ does not trust god. ‘The Nation’ cannot, the Constitution forbids it. Individuals trust god. Why put the 10 Commandments in a courthouse? Why not important tenets of Sharia law too? And the central rule Wiccan morality? And why not the Code of Hammurabi too? The Courthouse cannot endorse any one of these, and endorsing all of them would contradictory and impossible. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/42 "2009-01-13T21:22:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Writing…the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not promote Christianity You’re \*sure \*you want to hold that position? > [@](#): > > In both cases, the government is acknowledging the will of the people. The Constitution limits the will of the people from being implemented when the people get stupid about principles and rights and that sort of stuff. The framers understood how people tend to think, and understood that such restraints were required, hence the Bill of Rights and later amendments. As for “In God We Trust”, that certainly supports theistic beliefs (monotheistic, at that). It hasn’t been considered politically wise or popular to challenge the government’s use of that in court yet, but at heart it’s no more defensible than the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/43 "2009-01-13T21:25:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Writing “In God we Trust” on the money or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not promote Christianity, any more than putting a picture of Barack Obama on the wall promotes the Democratic Party. In both cases, the government is acknowledging the will of the people. (Further, none of this is tithing, either. To tithe is to pay directly to a religious institution.) There is no Constitutional prohibition on the government promoting one political party or another. There is a prohibition on the government getting entangled with religion. “In God We Trust” is suitably broad to any religion to not pose a problem (except atheists and polytheists I suppose). Regardless there is some historic precedent to let it be. That said there is a good case to be made that it should not be on there. The Ten Commandments in a courthouse is absolutely a government promotion of a religion (in this case judeo-christian theology). It is not there merely as artwork. Want a pretty sculpture for your rotunda? There is an infinite variety of choices you could make. Choosing the Ten Commandments or other religious iconography can only be deemed as an endorsement. Let’s put it this way. Say you are a devout Christian and that is public knowledge. You walk into court for a case involving a dispute with your neighbor, the Wiccan. When you walk into court you see a huge statue of a Wiccan Pentacle in the rotunda that you know was put there by the presiding judge. Are you going to be comfortable in that court house and think you will get a fair hearing? As for the “will of the people” the FFs were all about not letting a tyrrany of the majority form. Preventing the majority Christians from oppressing the minority Jews (or whatever) falls squarely within that and indeed I think is a major reason for the Establishment Clause. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/44 "2009-01-13T21:30:55Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Writing “In God we Trust” on the money or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not promote Christianity, any more than putting a picture of Barack Obama on the wall promotes the Democratic Party. In both cases, the government is acknowledging the will of the people. (Further, none of this is tithing, either. To tithe is to pay directly to a religious institution.) It marginalizes those who don’t believe in any god. It also attempts to speak for those who don’t. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/45 "2009-01-13T21:32:24Z")
It also, just as importantly, and too often forgotten, utterly demeans Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/46 "2009-01-13T21:43:15Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This might be nitpickery, but so far as I understand, this is not a “balancing test” as the term is used in American law. A balancing test is a test that sets forth factors that must be balanced against each other. This is a test in which all three prongs must be met; the prongs aren’t balanced against each other. > > Couldn’t this description be equally applied to nearly any question of American constitutional law? As I said, I can’t recall seeing any other test that’s significantly clearer than this. I agree. From Wiki: > [@](#): > > The Court’s decision in this case established the “Lemon test”, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs: > > The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose; > > The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; > > The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. > > If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. So, what is the “secular legislative purpose” of god on our money or a manger scene on the courthouse lawn? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/47 "2009-01-13T21:45:27Z")
> [@villa](#): > > It also, just as importantly, and too often forgotten, utterly demeans Christianity. Since most money in circulation exists sheerly as a borrowed amount against our future and those loans were made based on the profitability of loaning money–i.e. usury–it’s also rather blasphemous to put Christian icons on money. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/48 "2009-01-13T22:09:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Writing “In God we Trust” on the money or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not promote Christianity, any more than putting a picture of Barack Obama on the wall promotes the Democratic Party. In both cases, the government is acknowledging the will of the people. (Further, none of this is tithing, either. To tithe is to pay directly to a religious institution.) Putting in God We Trust on the money is promoting religion, even if it is not a specific religion. Or are you suggesting that there is a God that is not related to religion? My tax dollars go towards making that engraving just as much as yours. Let me ask you where you draw the line. Suppose the following (numbers pulled out of my ass for demonstration purposes only): The population breaks down as follows: 98% believe in a higher power that could be called God. 88% believe in the Judeo-Christian God 80% believe Jesus Christ is the Savior 70% believe in the Trinity 55% are Protestant 32% are Baptist 18% are Southern Baptist Right now your argument leaves the 2% that do no believe in a singular god paying for endorsement of a religious concept they do not believe in. At what point does it the Constitution come in? Could “Jesus Saves” be added to the money if the 80% that are Christian support it? A statement about the holy trinity if the 70% support it? Can anything go on as long as a majority support it? What if the 32% that are Baptist represented a plurality? Could they add a message specifically supporting their denomination? I sometimes get the impression that because most religious people have a hard time accepting that atheists actually don’t believe in God (as opposed to believing but turning away) they think that as long as they can argue it includes all faiths, it must be OK. Jonathan PS: I am aware of what tithing is. I also know that in the church I grew up in some of that tithe went into advertising and promoting the faith. You are now insisting that it is appropriate for tax dollars to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/49 "2009-01-13T22:23:13Z")
One thing I would like to add about the topic in general. In my political science class in college, the professor acknowledged that everyone knew that God on the money and other tradition religious entanglements should be struck down by the Supreme Court, but no wants to for the simple reason that if anyone pushed it far enough for the Court to actually take action, the backlash would probably be bad enough to force through an Amendment specifically allowing it, and perhaps a lot more. If put to a popular vote right now, we would probably be declared a Christian nation. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/50 "2009-01-13T22:36:11Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Should it matter if it is a specific religion? Government should neither restrict or promote specific religions or religion in general, it should be neutral on the subject. Yes, it should, because there’s two ways to be entirely neutral as far as religious symbolism goes; having no symbols at all is one way, but the other is to have all symbols, or at least be open to all symbols. Neutrality doesn’t mean there can be nothing at all, it just means that all must be treated in the same way, be that a total ban or total openness. To put it another way, a currency with no religious symbolism is neutral. A currency with religious symbolism of but one faith is not. A currency that has symbols from all religions (or, more reasonably, potentially allows from all religions) is neutral, too. [QUOTE=ITR Champion] Writing “In God we Trust” on the money or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not promote Christianity, any more than putting a picture of Barack Obama on the wall promotes the Democratic Party. In both cases, the government is acknowledging the will of the people. (Further, none of this is tithing, either. To tithe is to pay directly to a religious institution.) [/QUOTE] I would argue that both of those examples would be promotion. The government is acknowledging the will of the people to promote those ideas. I believe your argument is that the promotion of a religion (or political party) by the use of symbols is incidental, rather than purposeful; that is, by putting those symbols up, the government says nothing whatsoever about the truth or correctness of that faith/party, but rather seeks to fulfil the wishes of the people. To which I would argue that an incidental promotion is still promotion; indeed, it generally seems to me that quite often those groups or campaigns who are trying to, to use your example, put the Ten Commandments up in a courthouse are doing so entirely in order to get the government to promote their particular religion. That it is their intention, their will. And i’d ask you where you would draw the line as far as religious symbolism goes; would you be happy, as would be truly neutral, to have any religious symbol up in a courthouse as the people so want? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/51 "2009-01-13T22:47:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The post by **Max** that triggered this thread said, “the Constitution clearly forbids it”. Now am I supposed to accept that the conclusion follows “clearly” from the fact that the meaning of the Constitution was intended to change over time, and that this particular clause was supposed to gradually expand? Such an interpretation gives judges the power to allow or deny whatever they choose, without any consideration for the text, the original intent, or the will of the people. > > I can respect people who personally believe what you’re saying, but I don’t see how people like **Max** can have such total confidence in such a tenuous argument. Others have basically made the point I would make. Yes, it’s definitely true that reading the text of the constitution in a vacuum doesn’t say what I said, and certainly doesn’t say it clearly. But it does seem to be definitely the case, given the current framework of constitutional interpretation, that the combination of the 1st and 14th amendment make all sorts of things unconstitutional such as mandatory sectarian school prayer, only hiring schoolteachers if they are of particular religions, etc. And it is 100% clear to me that “in god we trust” being on money falls into this category. Now, there are plenty of smart people who disagree with me, so maybe it’s not as clear as I like to think, but I’m pretty sure I’ll go to my grave firmly believing that “In God We Trust” should not be on money, and if someone proposed removing it and replacing it with “There Is No God”, that would never pass muster, nor should it. Granted, this is one of this issues that’s really not all that important on the macro scale. But it’s also one where I think it’s 100% clear what the “correct” answer is, thus it’s one that I’m much more eager to argue about than a discussion of precise distinctions between moments of silence and school prayer and what if it’s a club and what if it’s a club with a teacher sponsoring it, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/52 "2009-01-13T23:14:41Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Yes, it should, because there’s two ways to be entirely neutral as far as religious symbolism goes; having no symbols at all is one way, but the other is to have all symbols, or at least be open to all symbols. Neutrality doesn’t mean there can be nothing at all, it just means that all must be treated in the same way, be that a total ban or total openness. > > To put it another way, a currency with no religious symbolism is neutral. A currency with religious symbolism of but one faith is not. A currency that has symbols from all religions (or, more reasonably, potentially allows from all religions) is neutral, too. I agree that setting up a zone where anyone can post their beliefs or lack their of is neutral. But when you all any and all religious symbols you are still not neutral because you are basically endorsing the concept of religion. To the best of my knowledge there are no atheist symbols, merely symbols that are not religious. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/53 "2009-01-13T23:22:57Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > I agree that setting up a zone where anyone can post their beliefs or lack their of is neutral. But when you all any and all religious symbols you are still not neutral because you are basically endorsing the concept of religion. To the best of my knowledge there are no atheist symbols, merely symbols that are not religious. > > Jonathan That’s why we Atheists are so sneaky. We have managed to \*not \*post signs all along the insterstate. Anyplace there is no sign saying “Jesus Loves You” or “This section of highway maitained by Ba’hai Local 105” is secretly an endorsement of Atheism. ---
**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:** [January 13, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/54 "2009-01-13T23:36:30Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Further, none of this is tithing, either. To tithe is to pay directly to a religious institution. So, the government could levy a 10% tax on everyone’s income, and then turn that money over to a church, and this would not be a tithe, because only paying directly to the church yourself is a tithe? Or are you saying that _only_ the government levying a 10% tax on everyone’s income and then paying that money directly to a church would be a (state-enforced) tithe? And that, therefore, if the government levied a 10% tax on everyone’s income, and then spent that money on printing Bibles, purchasing votive candles, erecting huge illuminated crosses on top of every statehouse and courthouse in the land, and putting up “Jesus Is Lord Over America” billboards along all the highways, that would _not_ be a tithe, as the money would not go directly to a church. Also, in your view, would Congress declaring the National Motto (to be printed on all the money) to be “In Jesus Christ We Trust” be a violation of the establishment clause? ---
**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:** [January 13, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/55 "2009-01-13T23:46:02Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > “In God We Trust” is suitably broad to any religion to not pose a problem (except atheists and polytheists I suppose). And Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Moslems, Druids and worshipers of Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Christian “God” isn’t even in the majority, world-wise, so “IGWT” is expressing a minority opinion with the government endorsement behind it. Ceremonial deism, my ass. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/56 "2009-01-14T00:19:27Z")
Quoth **ITR Champion** : > [@](#): > > Writing “In God we Trust” on the money or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not promote Christianity, any more than putting a picture of Barack Obama on the wall promotes the Democratic Party. In both cases, the government is acknowledging the will of the people. If I walk into someone’s home or office or whatever, and there’s a picture of Barack Obama on the wall, and he’s not in company with the other 42 presidents we’ve had, then I think I’m pretty safe in assuming that, first, that person is probably a member of the Democratic Party, second, that that person probably thinks that it’d be a good thing if more other people were members of the Democratic Party, and third, that the person probably wants others to come to those conclusions. I can think of plenty of people who acknowledge that Obama becoming President was the will of the people, but who would nonetheless never dream of putting up pictures of him. In other words, yes, putting a picture of Obama on the wall is absolutely promoting the Democratic Party. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/57 "2009-01-14T00:28:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The Ten Commandments in a courthouse is absolutely a government promotion of a religion (in this case judeo-christian theology). It is not there merely as artwork. Want a pretty sculpture for your rotunda? There is an infinite variety of choices you could make. Choosing the Ten Commandments or other religious iconography can only be deemed as an endorsement. > > Let’s put it this way. Say you are a devout Christian and that is public knowledge. You walk into court for a case involving a dispute with your neighbor, the Wiccan. When you walk into court you see a huge statue of a Wiccan Pentacle in the rotunda that you know was put there by the presiding judge. Are you going to be comfortable in that court house and think you will get a fair hearing? Yes and yes. Since someone pops a variant of this question in half the threads I participate in, let’s let that one stand as my final answer. The point of democracy is not merely to be the least bad form of government, but to uphold the truth that all the citizens should have an equal voice. I know that sometimes I’ll personally disagree with the will of the majority. In such a situation, democracy gives me a strong motivation to go along with a majority decision, because I can expect others to reciprocate when I’m with the majority. That logic stops working when lawmaking power is given over to a small group of judges (or of anyone). > [@](#): > > As for the “will of the people” the FFs were all about not letting a tyrrany of the majority form. They were not. In fact they were much more concerned about the majority being oppressed by a ruling minority, than the other way around. In the intellectual climate of America at that time, minorities were often viewed with general suspicion, precisely because they refused to mesh well into the general culture. The devotion to minority rights is largely an invention of the past few generations. I do, of course, support some power of judicial review over the democratic will expressed by elected politicians, for the sake of protecting basic rights. However, I’m opposed to a gradually creeping expansion of that power, with no checks whatever. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2009, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/58 "2009-01-14T00:48:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > They were not. In fact they were much more concerned about the majority being oppressed by a ruling minority, than the other way around. In the intellectual climate of America at that time, minorities were often viewed with general suspicion, precisely because they refused to mesh well into the general culture. The devotion to minority rights is largely an invention of the past few generations. The Founding Fathers were quite suspicious of unchecked democracy, and acutely aware of the dangers of mob rule and the majority running roughshod over the rights of minorities (not necessarily “minorities” in the modern defined groups sense, but any group or faction on the short end of the stick). The whole Constitution is designed to thwart the power of the people at _almost_ every turn–an indirectly elected President, a bicameral legislature with an upper house originally elected by state legislatures, not the people, and a Bill of Rights putting limits on the powers of the Congress–although ultimately the framers of the Constitution did recognize that power comes from and must lie with the people. But they certainly didn’t believe in unchecked democracy, and to say they did is to completely misunderstand their political philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/59 "2009-01-14T02:10:56Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > They were not. In fact they were much more concerned about the majority being oppressed by a ruling minority, than the other way around. In the intellectual climate of America at that time, minorities were often viewed with general suspicion, precisely because they refused to mesh well into the general culture. The devotion to minority rights is largely an invention of the past few generations. Not so. Tyranny of a minority is only dealt with in any way in the Federalist papers in respect to checks and balances within the government. But that’s not really a discussion of tyranny of the minority. On the other hand there are several papers that explicitly do deal with tyranny of the majority. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/60 "2009-01-14T03:00:58Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > And Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Moslems, Druids and worshipers of Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Christian “God” isn’t even in the majority, world-wise, so “IGWT” is expressing a minority opinion with the government endorsement behind it. > > Ceremonial deism, my ass. Meh..as government endorsement of religion goes I cannot muster a lot of righteous anger at this one (putting “In God We Trust” on money). Part of the whole point is for a group who does not buy into that to feel they still have a fair shot in society. Putting that phrase on money does not deny anyone a fair shake in court or see them denied service in a store or what have you. It has been on there since forever and at worst it is annoying to some groups but I suspect mostly no one, even those it bugs, even think about it on anything like a regular basis. Hand over the piece of paper and receive a beer (or whatever). The British have Darwin on one of their bills. I suspect that annoys someone, somewhere but what of it? In the scheme of things I think this ranks low on things to get in a fuss about. I am FAR more concerned with a monster statue of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse than “IGWT” on our money. (Although I will note that I think it should be off there…I just think there are better windmills to tilt at than that one.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973.md?page=4)