National Motto: Symbol of Breach of Religious Freedom?

Constitutional Stuff Page
"In God We Trust" On Our Money
Pledge of Allegiance "Under God" Decision [New]

If you take a look at the coins and paper money in your wallet, you will notice that it all has the inscription "In God We Trust," which is the national motto. In other words, "we," being the people and citizens of the United States trust in and honor "God." A motto is a means through which a few words is used to express a wider message, usually some kind of lesson or ideal that we should live up to and honor, a means to show the basic essence of the person or persons holding it. For instance, "all men are created equal," can be seen as a basic motto of the United States, one that expresses this country's ideal of equality for all. Though a motto might become somewhat cheapened by overuse, it still holds a special and symbolic place in our lives. Actually, once it does not, we should start to worry because the cheapening of a motto is often a sign that the message being expressed by it also is being devalued.

Looked through such a lens, the national motto "In God We Trust" can be understood in the proper frame of mind, one that realizes the importance of words we all have taken for granted. This in itself is notable. After all, words that are seen on coins, above the bench in court rooms, in our national anthem (recited in schools, sports events, military events, and so on), and reaffirmed in court oaths are surely rather important both as an expression of belief as well as their use in furthering said belief. A court oath can be replaced with a secular affirmation, though often only by actual request, but the other uses always retain their religious content, even if in a limited form. The message is clearly this: there is a God (capital G), a God who is good, who is to be trusted, as well as used to express that one should be trusted ("so help me God"). Furthermore, it is right to use God for such purposes, even to the degree of putting his name on currency. Such a message can not be completely secularized, even if one wants to use "God" as but a concept not as a deity. One might conceive of such a use, but it surely is not the accepted understanding of motto, one that realistically can not be given a meaning so counter to what it is intended to mean (as shown by looking at the legislative record of those who drafted it).

It is ironical how the purpose behind the motto (and the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance) had just the opposite effect as the motto it replaced. E Pluribus Unum ("Out of Many, One") speaks to our nation's ideal of many groups coming together into one whole, citizens who share certain rights and join together for common goals. The new motto implies that those who do not believe in or trust the "God" spoken of are not truly following the ideals of this nation. The people are therefore divided into pro-God and the minority who share different beliefs, that is, E Unum Pluribus ("Out of One, Many") became our new motto. And since, those who criticized the nation and the popular beliefs of its people, and felt it had many imperfections in serious need of repair were often look upon (and still on to some degree) as unpatriotic and somehow anti-American, this makes perfect sense.

If one supplies the motto with is true meaning, one runs into various problems growing out of the First Amendment and religious freedom in general. The ultimate message of the First Amendment in the area of religion is of the individual's right to practice religion without undue interference of the state, including the state putting in place and supporting its own form of religion. The terminology used is "respecting the establishment" and "free exercise," but the message is the same. Furthermore, the "establishment" of religion does not only consist in fully doing so, as is the practice in certain Islamic countries, or to a different degree in communist ones that bar the practice of religion (a type of establishment of secularism, which in itself is a form of religion, or universial worldview of ultimate truths and our place in it all, which does not necessarily include a "God"). The government is not to fund religion (e.g. directly fund religious schools), support certain aspects of religion faith or belief (e.g. formulate prayers for public school children to say), or use religious belief as an illegitimate factor in its actions (the Constitution bars religious tests for public offices). Such practices not only "establish" particular religious beliefs by a government that represents all religious beliefs, but it necessarily burdens those who hold different beliefs. Therefore, though burdens of free exercise of religion need not necessarily be establishments (drug laws might burden those who use alcohol and other drugs in religious ceremonies), establishments generally in some way burdens free exercise.

The establishment of certain religious beliefs and practices comes about in various ways, usually (1) because they seem the natural way of doing things and (2) their removal is felt to be a threat because other ways of doing these necessary acts seem foreign. This is clearly seen in the ongoing controversy of prayer in school, prayer that usually is of the Christian variety, and often a certain strand of it. The children in the schools are usually vastly of similar religious heritage and come from families fully supporting such practices. It is to be noted that this makes the practice rather self-repeating in that the possibility of a different way as well as different beliefs that might actually exist is silently or expressingly shunned. This will continue even if one informs those who desire governmental supported prayer in schools that true religious freedom includes not letting the government support certain types. Furthermore, religion becomes even stronger when individual practice not governmental mandate (who fully trusts the government anyway? we reject so much of what they do and we want them to get involved in our belief in God?) is the path taken. Finally, this also helps honor our equal protection ideals, since prayer in school as noted tends to not be the prayer of all.

If allowing teachers to lead Christian prayers continues to be matters of controversy, suggesting that "In God We Trust" has religious content that runs counter to the First Amendment, surely will be a hard stance to take. Actually, even many of those who have strong feelings in the importance of the separation of church and state (btw this means no state involvement in religious affairs and vice versa, it does not mean no church at all or the state being anti-church; "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's") feel this is a matter not worthy of concern. It is a "de minimis" breach if anything, but I am troubled with such a view. After all, the symbolism of the motto in itself makes any religious content in it problematic. How can we truly have a government that does not involve itself into matters of religious belief or practice when its very motto is religious? A government that is not to form prayers for its school children should not use God for its purposes in this fashion either.

The support or unconcern of the use of "In God We Trust" grows out of the fact that a vast majority of this nation believes in God,* which obviously includes many of the minority who are not Christians. Nonetheless, even if one percent of the country does not believe in God (actually it is more like at least five percent), that means we have a national motto that does not apply to nearly two and three quarters million of its citizens. Furthermore, many who do believe in God rather not have his/her name and personage used in the ways it currently is by the state. Jesus himself spoke against those who prayed publicly as compared to those more private in their religious practices. Theodore Roosevelt noted God is rather cheapened if placed on such a worldly instrument as currency. People have won battles against being forced to have license plates with mottos held to be ungodly; why should they bear currency so blemished (those who oppose victories such as this sometimes use "In God We Trust" in support of wider use of governmental involvement in religion, which suggests the flaws of such a motto). If small limits on our freedom of speech (even in areas such as pornography and commercial speech such as liquor advertising) are rightly rejected, why should small breachs of our religious freedom be ignored. Furthermore, is such a widespread use of a religious message truly so "small"?

"In God We Trust" is best seen as part of what some call our civic religion, a basic moral and religious set of beliefs that is widely held by the people at large. This religion is not any certain sect, but does have clear Judeo-Christian roots with special emphasis on the Christian. Even in its broadest sense, it clearly does not fit us all. Furthermore, we need not have governmental support of religion, even in a somewhat vague and watered down sense, to be a religious and moral people. In fact, some oppose such a watered down attempt of a religion for everyone, including people clearly religious and moral. This reality runs counter to those who argue that separation of church and state will equal a secularization of the nation and public life in general. In fact, I would argue that a strong respect of religion is one of the major reasons if not the most major in support of my point of view here. A religion of our own choosing without special grace by the government to a certain form of it.

Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are both important parts to our heritage and freedom. It was in the search for a place to exercise religion in ways different from those accepted in Europe at the time that lead many to come to this country in the first place. The passage of time did not make this goal any less important, if anything the growth of a vast many new religions and communities rather different than the more homogenious Protestant society of the past, makes religious freedom and the separation of church and state but more important. Furthermore, stronger respect of religious freedom includes avoiding breaches that in the past might not be seen as that problematic because few were affected by them. I think it is correct to suggest that a national motto that is meant to speak for us all with a religious message (however minor) is clearly suspect, if one follows such guidelines. This is surely the case when one investigates and finds out that the motto was put in expressingly to reaffirm our nation's belief in God in part (as was the case in the 1950s addition of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance) to contrast us to nations that did not so believe (namely the Soviet Union). A symbolic expression of our nation should not expressly or even indirectly also violate our basic (to many the most basic) right of religious freedom, a freedom that is equally to apply to those who do not believe in God or does not want God to be used by the government in such a fashion.