Do the Words "In God We Trust" Violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?

The words "In God we trust" does not violate thereligion in American jurisprudence. This argument is
first amendment's establishment clause. The clausenot amusing or anticipating, expansion of such
reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting anprecedent, but merely it's effect as a de jure
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the freedefinition.
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofThis court decision does not and will not address U.S.
speech, or of the press; or the right of the peoplehistory as argumentation for original intent, nor will it
peaceably to assemble, and to petition thetry to adopt a new meaning or precedent to the
Government for a redress of grievances." The wordsconstitution as in the "Living Constitution." This
"In God we trust" does not pertain to any onedecision relies on the U.S. Constitution verbatim, or
religion or another, the word God is ambiguouswhat it says literally. "Congress shall make no law
referring to a supernatural being, applicable to arespecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
myriad of monotheist and polytheist religions alike.the free exercise thereof." It says an establishment
The common assertion that the words "In God weof religion, or a particular religion or faith not religion all
trust" is directly analogous to a Judeo-Christian God istogether. In an article in Slate magazine the prominent
fallacious.atheist David Greenberg reads his own words into
Further, it is ignorant of the universality held acrossthe constitution. He stated that the use of the word
major cultures, beliefs and values spanning almost all"God" denotes endorsement of a particular
nations and time periods. The central core idea ofestablishment of religion.
trust in a singular or central supernatural force orHe reasons that the absence of the word "God"
deity is found in nearly every major world religion,signifies a clear message advocating the absence of
thorough polytheism and monotheism. For instance, inthe word God in anything pertaining to the
the Hindu religion they trust in Brahman, in Islam theygovernment, clearly voiced by its absence in this
trust in Allah, the ancient Egyptians trusted in the sundocument. Greenburg states in his article The Pledge
god as a central deity that breathed life onto thisof Allegiance: Why we're not one nation "under God."
earth. The words "In God we trust" signify the"That the founders made erecting a church-state wall
United States' adherence to the establishment clausetheir first priority when they added the Bill of Rights
by promoting a non-specific universal belief thatto the Constitution reveals the importance they
encourages the free exercise of religion not theplaced on maintaining what Isaac Kramnick and R.
absence of it.Laurence Moore have called a "godless Constitution."
The establishment clause shows that the United(Greenberg , Par. 2)This statement is logically invalid
States can show no bias toward any one religion; it isand relies on speculation, a not what the document
to therefore promote freedom of religion, notactually says verbatim, nor the original intent. He
freedom of religion. The majority of oppositionstates this hypothesis as a matter of fact, as if he
comes from atheists who claim that the words "Inknew the founding fathers and knew their original
god we trust" found on U.S. currency violates theirindent. He cites historically inaccurate evidence that is
right to freedom of religion found in theextremely deceiving. He states "When Benjamin
establishment clause.Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention
However, atheism is not a religion, it is the lack therethat the founders begin each day of their labors with
of, Webster's dictionary defines religion as: a personala prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was
set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,defeated." (Ibid)
beliefs, and practices. The antonym of religion inIn every weak argument there is always a shred of
which atheism falls under is religionless which istruth to help it stand, in this case Benjamin Franklin
defined by the 1913 version of Webster's dictionarydid make a motion to start each meeting with prayer.
as "Destitute of religion." This accurately describesHowever it wasn't "defeated" nor was it approved
atheism, as the centric core of this philosophy.respectively it was just left alone all together. The
Atheism being a philosophy deserves protectionphilosophy was a hands-off, neutral approach, due to
under freedom of speech but deserves no protectionthe disastrous articles of the confederation. This
as an establishment of religion. Can you image thefailure was partially induced by a superfluity of
chaos if we allowed peoples personal philosophy toChristian prayer and dogma causing distraction.
hold the same legal merit as religion? If this becameRegardless of original intent which is subjective, the
legislation or court precedent the effects would beconstitution verbatim is what should take precedence.
catastrophic.In reading this verbatim, we see that secularism and
During the draft during the Vietnam War, if you wereatheism are not establishments of religion. Therefore
a Quaker you were exempt from this obligation; duethey deserve no protection under freedom of
to freedom of religion the government cannot passreligion. Further, atheism is a philosophy; if we allow
laws that violate your religion, because it is there forphilosophies to have equitable rights as religions the
restricting "the free exercise thereof". If personalresults will be disastrous to our English common law
beliefs and philosophies held the same merit as religionsystem, inhibiting due process, and preventing
in U.S. state and federal law, than personalenforcement of laws and obligations.
philosophies can be held as valid excuse for the warIn sum, the words "In God we trust" does not
e.g. "I don't agree with violence." Further people couldviolate the first amendment's establishment clause
create their own holidays which would hold the samenor freedom of religion therein, it promoting it. It
merit as religious holidays, which are in fact createdpromotes free exercise of religion by promoting a
from no religion but from their own personalnon-specific universal belief that encourages the free
philosophies.exercise of religion. Through the use of the words "In
Legal obligations like jury duty can be excused due togod we trust", the State has not produced or
your personal philosophy against this obligation. This isregulated any religious establishment, nor has it given
in no means a slippery slope argument, but simply aauthority to any current religion. The words "In God
cause-and-effect analysis of adopting the precedentwe trust" do not coherence anyone to be associated
restricting the words "In God we trust" into ouror take part in any established religion. Additionally no
English common law system. In accordance with such,other free-exercise rights or civil liberties are in
it is rational to say that this precedent would causeconflict. The words "In god we trust" fully comply
personal philosophies to hold the same legal merit aswith the constitution.