This just in from Reuters (click on screenshot to read it):
The official U.S. motto, “In God We Trust”, became official only in 1956, with “E Pluribus Unum” (“out of many, one”) having been the unofficial motto—and appearing on the United States Seal—since 1782. The new motto, which privileges religion over non-religion, is clearly unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment of the Constitution. And, in fact, I am one of many American who doesn’t trust in God, as I don’t think there are any gods. I much prefer E Pluribus Unum, which makes no faith claims. As Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-President of the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) said, ““To be accurate it would have to read ‘In God Some of us Trust,’ and wouldn’t that be silly?”
Nevertheless, with religion waning yet with goddy Republicans wanting to promulgate their faith all over the country, state after state is passing laws mandating that “In God We Trust” be displayed prominently in public schools—laws that are being challenged in court as First Amendment violations as well.
Those cases are yet to be decided, but yesterday a big appeals court rejected atheists’ challenge that “In God We Trust” appearing on all U.S. currency is a constitutional violation. As Reuters reports:
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota rejected claims by 29 atheists, children of atheists and atheist groups that inscribing the national motto on bills and coins violated their First Amendment free speech and religious rights.
While other courts have allowed the motto’s use on currency, Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender said it also did not constitute an establishment of religion under a 2014 Supreme Court decision requiring a review of “historical practices.”
Gruender said the Constitution lets the government celebrate “our tradition of religious freedom,” and that putting the motto on currency “comports with early understandings of the Establishment Clause” without compelling religious observance.
“In God We Trust” began appearing on U.S. coins in 1864 during the Civil War, a period of increased religious sentiment, and was added to paper currencies by the mid-1960s. (here)
President Dwight Eisenhower signed a law making the phrase the national motto in 1956.
Tuesday’s 3-0 decision upheld a Dec. 2016 lower court ruling, though one judge refused to join part of its analysis.
Michael Newdow, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in an email called it “utterly revolting” that “the history of governmental denigration of a suspect class should trump [the] principle” that neutrality be the “touchstone” for analyzing claims under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Newdow is also known for unsuccessful litigation challenging the inclusion of “under God” in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.
You can find the full court decision here. A snippet:
Instead, as with other parts of the Bill of Rights, the Court has increasingly returned to a focus on the historical meaning of the Establishment Clause. An early example of this approach is Marsh v. Chambers, where the Court upheld the practice of legislative prayer because it was “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.” 463 U.S. 783, 786 (1983). The history, the Court said, “sheds light not only on what the draftsmen intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the practice authorized by the First Congress.” Id. at 790.
This historical approach is now the norm. In Van Orden v. Perry, a plurality of the Court upheld a Ten Commandments display by applying an analysis “driven both by the nature of the monument and by our Nation’s history.” 545 U.S. 677, 686 (2005) (plurality opinion); see also id. at 699-700 (Breyer, J., concurring) (looking to “national traditions” and the monument’s historical context). Similarly, in Hosanna-Tabor—the Court’s first decision addressing the ministerial exception, which is rooted in the Establishment Clause—the Court examined the history of colonial “[c]ontroversies over the selection of ministers,” as well as “two events involving James Madison,” to determine that “[t]he Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers.” 565 U.S. at 183-84. And in Town of Greece—the Court’s most recent Establishment Clause decision—the Court held that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings.” Town of Greece, 134 S. Ct. at 1819 (emphasis added). Thus, the Court’s current jurisprudence clearly gives preference to historical analysis over the discredited Lemon test.
This is the same reason the courts have used to keep religious symbols in the public sphere for decades: they’re seen as no longer promulgating religion, but simply a “cultural” motto that reflects American history. But that’s clearly not the case, for why would Republicans and religions be pushing to have the motto installed in the public schools? As a symbol of “national tradition”? Don’t make me laugh!
The FFRF wasn’t part of this case, but I asked Andrew Seidel, one of their attorneys, if he or the FFRF had a comment. Here’s what he said, giving me permission to quote:
Of course, we think the decision is wrong and think “In God We Trust” is undeniably unconstitutional, but getting a court to agree in this climate is unlikely to happen. Right now, public education about the motto — its religious purpose, theocratic inception, and continued religious use — and building public sentiment against the exclusionary sentiment are more likely to succeed than a court challenge.
As always, I maintain that the legal fiction courts have adopted to permit “In God We Trust” to remain the motto is hypocrisy of the worst kind. You can quote me on that.
In a government where state and church are walled off from one another, federal courts have basically declared that entrusting this world to god is not religious. Imagine for a moment if the courts had declared that John 3:16 or praying the rosary had “no theological or ritualistic” importance because it had been so often repeated. The Religious Right would have had a collective stroke, and rightfully so.
. . . And therein lies the hypocrisy. Christianity benefits when the federal courts declare that “In God We Trust” is not religious, since this allows godly office-holders to use their public office to promote their personal religious agenda. Religious Right groups and activists are perfectly willing to let the government desecrate their religion so long as it also allows them to promote their religion.
I’ll add that the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals is regarded by liberals as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the U.S. It has 17 judges, but only one was not appointed by a Republican President. (And even judge, Jane Kelly, an Obama appointee, ruled in favor of the motto in this case!) Further, three of those who sit on the court were appointed by Trump.
Woe is us.
