In God Do We Trust?

In January, 2016 a California atheist, Michael Newdow, who has taken it upon himself to continually “keep fighting, hopefully winning, and getting the government to do what it is supposed to do, which is (provide) equal protection for all religious views” has challenged the phrase “In God We Trust” on American currency.   He believes that the United States government has “substantially burdened” atheists and others to continuously carry around a religious message that goes against what they believe in.  

  Newdow along with being a Sacramento-based emergency-room doctor is also an attorney.  He based his case off of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) -a law specifically designed to protect the free exercise of religion.  In comparison to Newdow’s case, it’s noteworthy that the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case also used this line of defense and was extremely successful.   The court allowed the company an exemption from providing four contraceptives from their health care services because the contraceptives violated the ideals of their Christian faith.  

Newdow goes on to argue that the phrase is based on the Bible and that it basically persists as a statement of belief that is “the antithesis of the Plaintiffs’ religious ideals.”  On the other hand, the court has used the pushback that the phrase is more of a secular motto than a religious affirmation.  Thus, invoking the belief that tradition, although it can have religious connotations, is not an establishment of religion because it does not count as the government endorsing a particular faith.  

From a historical context, congress voted to place the phrase on all U.S. currency in 1955, during the middle of the Cold War.  They believed that this was a pushback against “godless communism.”  The new phrase replaced the old motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” which basically encompassed the notion that out of many states (or colonies) emerges a single nation.    

Personally, I think the origins of “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency are extremely important in deterring whether this phrase is unconstitutional.  The original phrase “E Pluribus Unum” validates the nation’s motto in a neutral manner.  In other words, the phrase is entirely secular which keeps neutrality between religions by avoiding the government endorsing a single religion or embracing certain religious ideals.  Although the term “God” is not specific to one religion the term does go against both those that do not believe in God and those who believe in many Gods.  Thus, “In God We Trust” does promote specific religious ideals, which the government is endorsing by choosing to erase a secular motto for a religious one.  Although this phrase has been coined as a more traditional saying that can be synonyms with “patriotism” and “nationalism” there is inherently religious content behind it.  

With the recognition of the religious connotation I think the usage of the phrase must also be strongly considered.  The phrase is on currency, which every U.S. citizens must use and carry around.  Whenever, people take out money from the bank, pay in cash, or even just pick up their wallet they see the government’s backing of specific religious principles.  Although the government may not intend for there to be an establishment of religion “reasonable observers” or those who don’t know the true intent of the phrase do not understand the motivation behind the religious words.  

Furthermore, if we look to Newdows invocation of the RFRA defense, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” his case has a lot of merit.  He is an atheist, an individual who does not believe in religion, and is being forced to both carry and pass around a message he does not agree with, a message that goes against his standards of living.  Thus, although many do believe in a single God and many may even see the phrase as a support for patriotism, there are many in the minority that would disagree.  So, to be forced to use an object daily that burdens the ideals of one’s moral principles would most definitely seem to violate the RFRA.  To that end, although there cannot be an exemption in this case like with Hobby Lobby there can be a change to the currency itself where the nation embraces the secular phrase it had prior.