You may have heard that, back in March, the Tennessee legislature passed a bill (vote 81-8!) requiring the U.S. National Motto, which happens to be “In God We Trust”, to be displayed on the walls of all public schools. (The legislature is Republican, but not 91% Republican.)

As WATE in Knoxville reports, this blatantly unconstitutional incursion of religion into the public schools—which are regarded as organs of the U.S. government—was immediately signed by Governor Bill Haslam:

The measure requires schools to display the motto in a prominent location, either as a plaque, artwork, or in some other form.

Whether this motto represents an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion is a question that has invited legal challenges in other states with similar laws.

But the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Susan Lynn, says the bill shouldn’t bother “faithless people” and “people of other faiths” because it’s the motto of the country.

“Our national motto and founding documents are the cornerstone of freedom and we should teach our children about these things,” Lynn said.

Haslam said he’ll look at the legislation when it hits his desk, but added that “at the end of the day, I’ve never been one that thought that having a motto somewhere changes a lot of people’s thoughts.”

Now it seems to me a clear violation of the First Amendment to have as a national motto for a secular country—a country that forbids the intermingling of religion and the state—a phrase saying its citizens trust in God. (That motto is on U.S. currency, too.) The motto is recent as well: it was suggested by Dwight Eisenhower and adopted by Congress in 1956.

According to Wikipedia, though, lower courts have ruled that the mooto isn’t unconstitutional:

The constitutionality of the modern national motto has been questioned with relationship to the separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment. In 1970, in Aronow v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the motto does not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue.

Trying to find out why this happened, I came across a post by Andrew Seidel, a staff attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), called “The Christian hypocrisy of ‘In God We Trust’.” Andrew’s piece goes into the historical background, the court cases, and the legal reasoning used to prop up the motto. It’s a good short piece, and if you’re an American secularist you should read it. In short, the courts have decided that, through repetition, the motto has lost its religious meaning. But that’s absurd! For if it’s lost its religious meaning, it’s lost all meaning, as who do all Americans trust if it be not God? Further, it’s like saying that the Lord’s Prayer or the Ten Commandments have lost their religious meanings through repetition. Yet the courts still rule that the Ten Commandments can’t be displayed on public property.

I’ve heard that the FFRF is well aware of the Tennessee bill and similar bills in other states, and they’re looking into the possibility of a legal challenge. In the meantime, check those greenbacks in your wallet. They bear witness to our trust in God, though they should say this:

h/t: Andrew

For years the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has been fighting a no-brainer legal battle against the U.S. government, which by law makes all ministers’ housing allowances completely tax-exempt. This means that if a minister is given, say, $10,000 per year by his church to subsidize housing, that money is completely tax free. It is, in effect, a gift.

This is unique for religious organizations and doesn’t apply to nonprofits like the FFRF or charitable organizations.  It’s also patently unconstitutional because it privileges religion over non-religion. The FFRF, or any nonprofit atheist organization, may give housing allowances to its employees or heads, but those are taxable. (According to FFRF lawyer Andrew Seidel’s description of the case on Patheos’s Freethought Now! website, the exemption is for “ministers of the gospel.” I suppose that means all pastors, rabbis, imams, and the like, but only Christians really preach the gospel!”) Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, married co-Presidents of the FFRF, also get a housing allowance, but must pay taxes on it.

As the FFRF notes in an email bulletin, it’s not just the cost of housing (rent or mortgage) that is subsidized:

Clergy are permitted to use the housing allowance not just for rent or mortgage, but also for home improvements, including maintenance, home improvements and repairs, dishwashers, cable TV and phone fees, paint, towels, bedding, home décor, even personal computers and bank fees. They may be exempt from taxable income up to the fair market rental value of their home, particularly helping well-heeled pastors. The subsidy extends to churches, which can pay clergy less, as tax-free salaries go further.

This tax break given to ministers costs the government (i.e., the taxpayers) about $700 million per year! There is no rationale for keeping it unless similar exemptions are given to people, regardless of religion, in similar situations, i.e. nonprofit organizations. And the FFRF’s efforts to overturn a palpably illegal law have been stymied by the government over technicalities.

An original suit filed in 2011 was victorious; Judge Barbara Crabb for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled in 2013 (here) that the religious exemption violated the Establishment Clause (the First Amendment) by privileging religion. This was a major victory for the FFRF—and for secularism. It was also a shock to the government, and to the many churches and ministers who benefit from this illegal arrangement.

The government appealed. They won in 2014, but only on a technicality. The three judges on the Seventh Circuit court of appeals ruled (decision here) that the plaintiffs lacked the “standing” (legal requirement) to sue. That was because Gaylor and Barker had never asked the Internal Revenue Service for a refund of their taxes on the housing allowance. This was a way for the government to dismiss the case without having to face the First Amendment issues involved.

With standing, the plaintiffs went back to court. And they won in October of last year. And once again the government, determined to privilege religion, appealed to the Federal District Court of Appeals. Yesterday the FFRF filed yet another brief before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Annie Laurie Gaylor et al. v. Stephen Mnuchin [Treasury Secretary] et al., pdf here). As an email I got from the FFRF noted:

The 7th Circuit threw FFRF’s original suit out on standing, arguing that Barker and Gaylor hadn’t gone through the motions of asking for a refund of their housing allowance from the IRS. Accordingly, they sought the refunds, and when denied refunds for the year 2012, went back to court.

Also named as a plaintiff is Ian Gaylor, representing the estate of FFRF President Emerita Anne Nicol Gaylor, who died in 2015 but whose retirement was paid in part as a housing allowance she was not allowed to claim in her lifetime.

As FFRF’s brief puts it, “Only ministers can exclude cash housing allowances, a result that is patently unfair.” Even the bible, the brief cryptically notes, commands citizens to “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” The government “ignores basic principles of neutrality and fairness when it comes to clergy taxation,” charges FFRF.

The brief takes digs at the numerous friends of the court briefs filed against FFRF, representing outraged ministers and denominations as varied as Unitarian Universalists, Jewish, Muslim, mainstream Protestant and evangelical Christian groups, and some 8,000 individuals. “The silence of the amici is particularly noteworthy as none even suggests that expanding the cash housing allowance exemption to non-clergy might be fair. They confirm the value of the exemption, while seeking to confine it to themselves,” contends the brief.

As Andrew Seidel notes in his Patheos post, the government’s brief consists largely of a list of religious organizations favoring the exemption, so their argument is basically not a Constitutional one, but simply “a lot of us do it and want that tax break.” If the courts are really determined to keep the ministerial privilege, they’ll have to do some fast tap-dancing this time. And of course if the government loses, they can keep appealing—all the way up to the Supreme Court.  Yet the tax break is really so palpably unconstitutional that I can’t imagine what the courts could do to keep it, unless they give similar tax breaks to atheist nonprofit organizations or any comparable nonprofit.

If you want links to the judicial history of the case, here are some:

• Read about prior challenges, including a 2013 district court victory
• Complaint
• FFRF News Release: “FFRF renews David vs. Goliath IRS challenge”
• IRS Brief in Support of Summary Judgment
• Intervenor Brief in Support of Summary Judgment
• FFRF Summary Judgment Brief

• Mnuchin Brief on Remedies
• FFRF Response on Remedies
• Intervenor Response Brief on Remedies
• Opinion and Order by Judge Barbara B. Crabb in favor of FFRF, Oct. 6, 2017
• Judge Crabb Opinion on Housing Allowance

• Federal Brief
• Intervenors Brief
• Amicus Brief by Foundation for Moral Law
• Amicus Brief by Church Alliance
• Amicus Brief by Pacific Justice Institute
• Amicus Brief by State of Wisconsin et al.
• Amicus Brief by Tax Law Professors
• Amicus Brief by ECFA et al.
• Amicus Brief by ADF
• Amicus Brief by First Liberty Institute
• Amicus Brief by COLPA

Dan and Annie Laurie (and the whole apparatus of the FFRF) are formidable and tenacious foes, and of course I hope they win. Here they are with their new brief:

I’m a member of the FFRF (it’s only $40 a year, and you get a cool and long monthly newspaper), and am also on the honorary board of directors. If you can spare $40, I’d urge you to throw it their way, as they use the money to actually get stuff done—and to keep this country secular, the way its Founders intended.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has its work cut out for it, as there is never an end to the Christian, conservative, and Republican efforts to push God, Jesus, and faith into the public schools, despite its violation of the First Amendment. When they lose a case, they simply grow a new head, like the hydra of mythology.

Now Louisiana has got into the act. As the Times-Picayune of New Orleans reports, the governor of Louisiana signed a law on May 23 that mandates that the “official U.S. motto”, “In God We Trust”, be put on display in every public school by August of 2019. (Dwight Eisenhower proclaimed this the “national motto” in 1956.)

Further, that law requires the schools to teach students about the motto in its social studies classes, as well as “about the U.S. flag and other ‘patriotic customs'”.

This is the kind of sign we can expect in Louisiana’s public schools in about 15 months:

According to the paper, the law was proposed by State Senator Regina Barrow—a Democrat!—to help curb “moral decay” in the schools.

Regardless of the fact that this motto is on U.S. currency, and has been declared legal in that respect, it still violates the spirit of the First Amendment. After all, it entangles church and state, and, increasingly, Americans aren’t trusting in God. Year by year, we’re losing our religion. Really, how many of us “trust in God”, and how do we trust in God?

I don’t know if the FFRF will fight this sign, but I’ve written them to find out. They may find it a useless battle given the legality of that motto on U.S. currency. But that’s money, and this is the public schools, considered an organ of the U.S. government. Promulgating in God in the schools, whether through teaching creationism or displaying an untrue sign that pushes God, is unconstitutional. I’m even wondering if Muslims can sue, requiring “In Allah we trust”—something that would probably sink the whole endeavor.

h/t: Blue