In God We Trust?
Ansohn printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:26:09 AM EST
The Christian right acts on the assumption that the United States is a Christian country and has a Christian culture.

Therefore, there should be no problem in establishing Christian symbols in the public square.

But what if a so-called Christian symbol is not really "Christian," or even religious?

Jingoism is on the rise in the United States.  It has arisen before on many different occasions, often in connection with an increase in immigration, especially from countries thought by more recent immigrants to be undesirable, such as Ireland.

Jingoism is defined simply as "extreme patriotism."  It is best expressed, perhaps, in a slogan that was used during the 1964 presidential campaign:  "America:  Love it or leave it!"  

A dear friend forwarded an email to me the other day which was jingoist to the extreme.  It attacks our newest immigrants and claims they are changing the "land that we love" by bringing attitudes and traditions alien to those held by most Americans.  The email was written by an "American citizen" from Tampa, Florida..

In the midst of a diatribe about people who don't speak English and who are challenging the traditional culture of the United States, the writer says this:

"`In God We Trust' is our national motto.  This is not some Christian right wing, political slogan.. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women.......on Christian principles...........founded this nation..... and this is clearly documented.  It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home........because God is part of our culture."

Obviously, the writer is fearful that immigrants might question what is perceived as our country's commitment to God.  What I don't understand is why?  Why this angry defense of our national motto?   Most of the immigrants coming into our country (at least from the south) have a nominal Christian affiliation and it is quite unlikely that they would have any problem with the phrase, "In God We Trust."

Something else is going on here.  If the immigrants are not against the motto, then the writer must be thinking the motto is under attack from other, ungodly people.  Perhaps that idea did come from the Christian right, for that is precisely the message the Christian right is preaching.

What the writer does make clear is his or her lack of knowledge as to how our country was founded.  While the religious beliefs of the founders and the principles on which they founded our nation are beyond the scope of this essay, it can be said forthrightly that the national motto, "In God We Trust" was in no sense adopted "because Christian men and women.......on Christian principles............founded this nation..."  What that statement does is make the writer appear to be an ignoramus, and I'm sure that was not the intent.

Our original national motto was:  "E Pluribus Unum," which is Latin for "One from many," or "One from many parts."  That doesn't refer to the different nationalities or ethnic groups then residing in the country, but to the "welding of a single federal state from a group of individual political units - originally colonies and now states."

The motto was originally prepared for use on the Great Seal of the United States and was turned down several times before being finally accepted by Congress on June 10, 1782.  It was first used in September of that year.  After another 13 years, it also appeared on some federal coins.

During the War of 1812, in 1814, Francis Scott Key, watching a bombardment, wrote what later became our national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner."  The first line of the last stanza reads:  "And this be our motto:  `In God is our trust.'"  The phrase did not catch on for many years.  It wasn't until 1864 that this "motto" was changed to "In God We Trust," and put on a newly-minted two-cent coin.

Fear and frustration often tend to make people more "religious."  They try to reassure themselves by doing "godly" things.  In 1861, as the Civil War began to unfold, eleven Protestant denominations began a campaign to add references to God to the Constitution and other federal documents.  Most likely they thought that by inserting references to God in our political documents, the deity would be enticed to look more favorably on the Union rather than the Confederate cause.

The Rev. M. R. Watkinson of Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, was the first of many pastors to write a letter to Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury.  Watkinson suggested that the words, "God, Liberty, Law" be used in government documents.  

Two years later, in 1863, Chase asked James Pollock, the Director of the Mint, to put together a suitable motto for Union coins to be used during the Civil War.  Pollock suggested several, including "Our Trust Is In God," and "God Our Trust."  Chase decided that "In God We Trust" would be used on some Union coins, as a way of reminding people that the Union was on God's side with regard to the issue of slavery.

Because an 1837 Act of Congress spelled out which mottos were to be put on U.S. coins, it was necessary for another act to be passed to add this latest paean to a deity.  Congress finally got around to it on April 22, 1886, two decades after the conclusion of the Civil War.  That did not mean, however, that the motto was used on all U.S. money.

Since 1909, the motto has been used on the penny.  It has been used on the dime since 1916.  "It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since" July 1, 1908.

Not everyone was happy with the new motto, however.  On November 11, 1907, Theodore Roosevelt wrote these words in a letter for a friend:

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

The younger people among us will not remember those terrible, fearsome days when the Cold War was heating up between the United States and the Soviet Union.  Regular bombing drills were held in public schools and the children would hide under their desks as if those small structures of metal and wood would keep them safe from an atomic blast.  Some people were so frightened they built bomb shelters in their back yards to protect them from a Soviet atomic attack.

The growing hatred for our former ally, the Soviet Union, was instigated in large part by the witch hunts of Senator Joseph McCarthy as well as the jingoism of our political and religious leaders who took the situation as an opportunity to promote religion as a way of gaining God's good graces which, hopefully, would protect us from the big, bad Russian bear.

It was during these years, the 1950's, when references to God multiplied:

     The words, "under God," were added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

     The phrase, "So help me God," became the suffix to the oath of office taken by                Federal judges.

     In 1957, the motto "In God We Trust" was added to paper money.

The latter was the result of the 84th Congress passing a joint resolution to change the existing motto to "In God We Trust."  President Dwight David Eisenhower, a Republican, signed the resolution, making it a law on July 30, 1956.  So the motto of our country, "E Pluribus Unum," which had served this secular nation well almost from its founding, was changed to a specific religious reference!  

There was another important reason the change was made.  The hatred and fear of the Soviet Union prevalent in our country led our leaders to try to make a distinction between communism, which was equated with atheism, and capitalism, which in the west had usually been connected with Christianity.  The phrase, "atheistic communism," was used over and over again by political and religious leaders.  It became a mantra.  So the new motto, many thought, was perfect in that it showed the world that capitalism and Christianity were favored by God.  

The new motto was added to the one-dollar silver certificate (paper currency) in 1957.  By 1966, it was included on all denominations of paper money.

Most people, I believe, don't notice the motto, don't think about the motto and don't really care much about the motto one way or another.  But lately the Christian Right has made it a celebrated cause as part of a larger effort.  The Christian right believes it is imperative to uphold the recognition of the Christian deity in public documents and public arenas.  Donald Wildmon, the "wildman" who is convinced that he knows God's will for every American, who heads up the ultra-right American Family Association, has started an "In God We Trust" poster campaign.

The poster in question has a background of the American flag with the words, "In God We Trust" superimposed.  AFA believes that this poster should be placed in every single public school classroom in the United States.  "It is our hope," says AFA, "that this poster will be a reminder of the historical centrality of God in the life of our republic."

AFA wants you to know that although "many are working to remove any acknowledgement of God from our public life...these words [the motto] are legally sound" because Congress "officially adopted" them in 1956.

According to the AFA, the State of Mississippi has passed a law requiring the display of the national motto in public school classrooms, auditoriums and cafeterias.  Because the Mississippi legislature did not provide funding for the bill, AFA has assumed the role of "coordinator" and because a printer offered his services gratis, now has enough posters for 32,000 classrooms, auditoriums and cafeterias.

There are indeed many who believe the motto and its display in public arenas is unconstitutional.  They stress that the religious freedom guaranteed in our Constitution means that citizens may believe in many gods or no gods and to place this motto in public arenas infringes on the rights of the non-religious:  Any endorsement of God is unconstitutional.  

The further question arises as to which "god" we trust.  Historically, the assumption has been that it is the god of the Christians.  But if that is so, then in essence the government has indeed established a religion, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution!

And if the establishment of a religion is forbidden by the Constitution, is it not appropriate for non-believers to feel discriminated against by the inclusion of a god as part of the national motto, and that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi, Wiccans, etc. feel discriminated against when their particular deity is left off a national motto?  Are they not also Americans?

Everyone would probably agree that at the very least, the motto "In God We Trust" highlights theism over and against atheism and/or a secular lifestyle.  As noted in an article on the Religious Tolerance Website, the motto "promotes the belief in a single, male deity..."  For Mr. Wildmon and other Christian rightists, that is just fine; that's just the way they want it.

Now things get really interesting.  Evidently the motto does not promote theism.  It seems that the legal experts have concluded the motto promotes no religion.  The motto has been challenged in several lawsuits but the courts have said that it can stand, ruling that the motto does not endorse religion.  

In Aronow v. United States (1970) the court ruled:

     "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and            currency...has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.  Its      use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character..."

In 1979, the U.S. Court of Appeals went even further:

     "...it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the primary purpose of the     slogan was secular; it served as a secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously     secular function of providing a medium of exchange."

Another lawsuit, dismissed in 1994 on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a
religious phrase!  

Isn't this great fun?  All across the country, Christian right whackos are tripping over themselves trying to get posters that say "In God We Trust" in our public schools and other public venues.  

BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because the courts have ruled that this motto has nothing to do with religion.  The courts of our country have concluded that it doesn't mean that we trust in any god at all!!!  It is not even a religious phrase!!!  It's a secular motto, pure and simple!    

So Wildmon and Dobson and Sheldon and Robertson and Falwell and the rest of the Christian right goofballs are breaking their backs to get a SECULAR slogan up on the walls of our public school classrooms!  Is that irony or what?

I think these court rulings make things a lot easier for the rest of us.  When we see the phrase "In God We Trust" on our money, we can be assured that it is merely a motto and has no religious significance.  This is truly great and wonderful news for atheists and other non-believers, and for people of other than the Christian faith!  "In God We Trust" has no religious significance, so don't get your shorts in a knot.  Spend your money, enjoy, and trust whomever or whatever you wish!




Display:
In 1859 Thomas Whall was a Catholic student at Boston's Elliot School. The school, which used Protestant prayers and followed Protestant theology, whipped Whall for refusing to recite the King James version on the Ten Commandments which refers to graven images instead of  "having no other gods before me,"---clearly a rebuke of Catholic practice of allowing religious shrines and statues. This is clearly what the seperation of Church and State was meant to protect against.

Now, on a purely llegal ground, is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the phrase, "one nation, under God?"  Maybe. Perhaps this is a colorable argument.

But what of the more important question: is it a battle worth fighting? No, and the reason is really quite simple.

First, ask yourself, what is the harm? If a student saying the Pledge has the the option not to take part that that is sufficient to protect a dissenter's rights.. The option of not having to say the pledge did not arise from atheism, but from a Jehovah's Witness. It is a Witness' basic belief that putting allegiance of a government or a country before God is not acceptable. Thus, out of respect to a recognized religion, in 1942 the United States Supreme Court ruled that there is the option not to recite the pledge of allegiance. It is this option that must be protected at all costs. If it were the child who did not want to say the pledge, then she was free not to stand up and put her hand over her heart and recite.

This brings us to our second point: What good does it do? The pledge does not say "one nation under Jesus," nor does it say "one nation under Allah." Instead, it says "one nation under God." In the most general terms, it leaves the concept of God to each one's own personal understanding. If anything, it appears to be more of an allusion to the Deity, than a prayer. If these words are kept in their current place it will not cause the police to raid the homes of atheists so as to cart them off to religious concentration camps. The Republic will not fall. Simply put, this language does not impose a religion on any of us.

Perhaps it would have been better to not to put those words in to begin with (they were added in the nineteen fifties after much lobbying by the Knights of Columbus. The change was intended as a rebuke to the espoused atheism of Communism at the height of the Cold War. And yet, even Teddy Roosevelt wanted to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, so there is good patriotic authority for the opposite point of view). Now, however, is the wrong time, as it would cause much ill will. There is something to be said for picking one's fights and this is not the fight for this time in our history. Besides, there are more non-generic transgressions against Church-State separation that should be of more concern and would have more popular support.                                                          

by Frank Cocozzelli on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 02:59:21 PM EST



WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (375 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (203 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (111 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (251 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (65 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (177 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (107 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (165 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (163 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (180 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (331 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (149 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.