Most people in the US know that the official national motto is "In God We Trust". However, I suspect that many don't realize that this motto was only officially adopted with the enactment of legislation signed by President Eisenhower in 1956, only two years after the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance. While the words "In God We Trust" did appear on US coins and currency intermitently prior to 1956, it was not an official motto.
Last week, a number of people posted warnings on Facebook not to accept certain $1 coins because they allegedly omit the national motto. As I pointed out in my response, this allegation is NOT true, as a quick search on Snope.com will show. However, both the allegation and my rebuttal fail to address a more central problem.
I know that some people will (strongly) disagree with me about this, but both the national motto and the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are clear and unambiguous violations of the First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion. While neither of these invocations of "God" is sectarian (in that they broadly apply to many, perhaps most, religions), they nevertheless represent an establishment of religion because they necessarily presuppose the existence of some "God". The very notion of 'freedom of religion' requires that we also acknowledge that in some cases this is embodied as a 'freedom *from* religion'. Just as government cannot promote any specific form of religion over any other, the government likewise has no business addressing the very existence (or not) of any "God". Such matters are rightly the domain of religious institutions, and the government has no authority or right to intrude into this realm.
We have had a long history of denying the patriotism of groups of people because of their religious views (or lack thereof). For that matter, we often question the loyalty of those who hold differing political views. Perhaps we should (finally) acknowledge that while we might not share common beliefs (whether religious or political) and our ideas for what might be best for the country may be different, it does not mean that either side is any less loyal or patriotic. I have many friends who are atheists, and I have not found that their lack of faith to be any threat to my own beliefs. I will defend their right to *not* believe as a fundamental component of the principle of religious freedom.
Removing the phrase "In God We Trust" from our money and the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is NOT an attack on religion. Such changes in NO way impose any barriers to the free exercise of religion or harm religious institutions. Instead, it is an acknowledgement that not everyone believes in any god, and that they are perfectly free to so believe. So to everyone out there that has been fussing about the (non-existent) removal of "God" from our currency, please take a moment and honestly ask yourself how such a measure would really hurt you or your faith. As for me, my faith does not require confirmation by the government, and I find any efforts by the government to encroach into this domain to be much more of a threat, because it would endanger my freedom to choose what I believe.
Last week, a number of people posted warnings on Facebook not to accept certain $1 coins because they allegedly omit the national motto. As I pointed out in my response, this allegation is NOT true, as a quick search on Snope.com will show. However, both the allegation and my rebuttal fail to address a more central problem.
I know that some people will (strongly) disagree with me about this, but both the national motto and the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are clear and unambiguous violations of the First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion. While neither of these invocations of "God" is sectarian (in that they broadly apply to many, perhaps most, religions), they nevertheless represent an establishment of religion because they necessarily presuppose the existence of some "God". The very notion of 'freedom of religion' requires that we also acknowledge that in some cases this is embodied as a 'freedom *from* religion'. Just as government cannot promote any specific form of religion over any other, the government likewise has no business addressing the very existence (or not) of any "God". Such matters are rightly the domain of religious institutions, and the government has no authority or right to intrude into this realm.
We have had a long history of denying the patriotism of groups of people because of their religious views (or lack thereof). For that matter, we often question the loyalty of those who hold differing political views. Perhaps we should (finally) acknowledge that while we might not share common beliefs (whether religious or political) and our ideas for what might be best for the country may be different, it does not mean that either side is any less loyal or patriotic. I have many friends who are atheists, and I have not found that their lack of faith to be any threat to my own beliefs. I will defend their right to *not* believe as a fundamental component of the principle of religious freedom.
Removing the phrase "In God We Trust" from our money and the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is NOT an attack on religion. Such changes in NO way impose any barriers to the free exercise of religion or harm religious institutions. Instead, it is an acknowledgement that not everyone believes in any god, and that they are perfectly free to so believe. So to everyone out there that has been fussing about the (non-existent) removal of "God" from our currency, please take a moment and honestly ask yourself how such a measure would really hurt you or your faith. As for me, my faith does not require confirmation by the government, and I find any efforts by the government to encroach into this domain to be much more of a threat, because it would endanger my freedom to choose what I believe.