No, it doesn’t. Because in this country, you don’t get to decide what the Establishment Clause means – the federal courts do. And they have addressed this issue squarely, ruling that the inclusion of “In God We Trust” on money is NOT violative of the Establishment Clause.
Who cares? I said that because the national motto is valuable as is, i see no reason to change it. You ask why another motto couldn’t do just as well. Maybe it could. But since you haven’t proposed any substantial improvement, I see no reason to support a change.
Once again, you also said
In what way?
I am aware of that; I think they got it wrong. Courts do that from time to time.
To have a clearly designated national motto is of obvious value – it suggests a unity of purpose and ideals. The presence of such recognized unity binding together citizens of the land is of both spiritual and psychological value – man, as a social animal, gains comfort from the belief that he is part of a group, tribe, or unit. The phrase is of inspirational value because it alludes to the history that made our country great – to pick one example, it reminds us of the concept of manifest destiny, a popular concept that led us to embrace and transform the western expanse of our land.
Oh, so you’re just sharing your opinion of how you wish things were. Got it.
If I had my choice, I would prefer to have it removed. It’s clearly in violation of church and state. I do not trust in god, because I do not believe in god. But, I’m supposed to accept that as my country’s motto?
If your talking soley about the issue regarding the seperation of church and state, then this symbol is HUGE part of it. It is widely recognized every single day by every single person in the country. It does re-inforce the false notion that we are a religious nation.
Protesting against this motto would be fundamental to re-establishing the nation as secular.
Just curious: do you think every single decision of the court has been decided justly and appropriately? If not, what do you think should be done about those decisions, apart from “Absolutely nothing–live with it”?
Thank you, Oliver Wendall Douglas, for that beautiful paragraph on the usefulness of mottos in Our American Society. Care to talk about the particular motto that happens to be the subject of this thread?
For some people, sure… But you can at least see how it might make a lot of atheists, polytheists, etc. feel excluded, right?
Manifest destiny is pretty controversial, too.
In the spirit of the thread, yes, I was.
“In God We Trust” does not pass the Lemon test. I think it clearly violates item 2, The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and thus fails the test.
What other primary effect does “In God We Trust” have? Considering the de facto motto it replaced, and the historical context in which the motto was legislated.
You say athiests are the most reviled group of people in the United States. Provide a cite.
Here’s a cite.
That cite doesn’t count.
I guess this should be in the IMHO forum, since it amounts to simply announcing our opinions. My opinion is that it does nothing much at all to advance religion. It’s purpose is ceremonial.
Church State and Freedom, Pfeffer, p. 238, quoted by Aronow v. United States, 432 F. 2d 242 at FN 2 (9th Cir. 1970).
But the quote you just provided said
Yeah, but if its value is “it suggests a unity of purpose and ideals” … “unity binding together citizens”, etc., etc., then it’s kind of a shame they picked something that excludes a great many Americans. And excludes them based on their religion, no less.
You’re being unfairly confrontational; I, at least, am sharing my opinion on how I believe things are.
Courts do make mistakes. Ceremonial Deism is still a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said otherwise…and are wrong. And, yeah, that’s an opinion, but not an expression of a wish.
Congress should also not have an official Chaplain.
(And the transfer of the Soledad Mountain hilltop cross to private ownership, solely to preserve it as a religious symbol, was also unconstitutional. So it goes.)
Extending my previous post, I’ll add that it’s doubly a shame, because there are some great American ideals that are much more universally valued. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, democracy, the notion that everyone has (or should have) a chance to succeed, the idea that no one is above the law … A national motto that captured any of these ideals would be truly fitting, IMO.
Again, taken in the context in which it was adopted in 1956, what primary purpose did establishing “In God We Trust” as motto have beyond advancing religion, specifically in contrast to irreligious Communist regimes?
If the purpose was merely a motto that would serve to “suggest a unity of purpose and ideals”, why was the selected motto one that, as tim314 notes, specifically excluded a segment of Americans? Bearing in mind that the de facto motto of the U.S. at the time was a secular one, and which excluded no American, the only reasonable conclusion is that the primary effect of selecting “In God We Trust” to replace it was to advance religion.
Right – which, indeed, confirms your own experience:
Of course, merely because “facile and frequent” misuse of the words exists is not a compelling reason to remove them – indeed, we should instead endeavor to fight ignorance with a better weapon than stale marshmallows.
I daresay there is no motto that would be universally accepted. This one, at least, excludes only a very small number even if its words are taken literally mean a monotheistic-themed religious deity.