WSBTV reports:
U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said the minted words amounted to a secular national slogan that did not trample on Michael Newdow’s avowed religious views [...] citing a 9th Circuit decision from 1970 that concluded the four words were a national motto that had “nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.” ... “‘Wrongly decided’ or not, this court must and does ... follow 9th Circuit precedent,” Damrell said.
Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers had the words “under God” put into the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto “In God We Trust.”
Referring to that action in Monday’s decision, Damrell said that Congress could not be sued for adopting the law because it was a legitimate legislative activity.
First, it seems strange for Damrell to say that he must follow 9th Circuit Court precedent. That’s generally the rule, naturally, but it is legitimate for a lower court to rule against a higher court’s earlier opinion if the lower court determines that new arguments or issues are advanced. Perhaps that wasn’t the case here — I haven’t read the full opinion — but it’s certainly possible. The fact that Damrell says “wrongly decided or not...” suggests that he may not have considered whether Newdow raised new arguments and was, instead, following precedent regardless of Newdow’s arguments.
Second, what does he mean that Congress was engaged in “a legitimate legislative activity”? It’s true that adopting a motto and putting it on money is a legitimate legislative activity, but that can’t possibly mean that any chosen motto is completely legitimate. What if Congress chose “In Jesus We Trust” for the national motto and put it on the money? Would that be a secular national motto? Would that be a legitimate legislative activity? If not, why not — and why don’t the same arguments work when it comes to “In God We Trust”?
Newdow says that he will appeal, so perhaps the 9th Circuit Court will have to decide for themselves whether their 1970 decision was correct.
I wonder how many Christians are willing to accept the proposition that "In God We Trust" is a purely secular statement, lacking any endorsement or support for their belief in their god.
Separation of Church & State:
I wonder if Damnrell would have considered the statement “In no god we trust” to be equally secular and permissible. If anything such a statement would appear more secular and allowable, assuming there were varying degrees of secularism.
Atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn’t exist.
Atheists are Two Faced because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions.
Atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies — the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology — once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column “Science, God, and Man”): “Agnosticism — reserving judgment about divine purpose — remains as defensible as ever, but atheism — the confident denial of divine purpose — becomes trickier. If you admit that we can’t peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there’s nothing there.”
I think that newdow is total wrong on this you are a american but god created you that is why you here you donkey
@ Brandy
But not everybody has faith in God. You can’t tell somebody who they should believe in because you have no right. People have a right to believe in whatever they want whether it’s Buddhism, Judaism, or no religion at all. Tell someone who to have faith in is like telling someone how to live their life.
why don’t you take your family and leave this country you hate so much i can tell you no one would miss you and if they told they would they are lying. i feel sorry for your kids and wife to have someone like you. what a sick person you are.
Hey, why dont leave county if….just kidding. Yes, the courts decision is truly laughable and ridiculous. Of course the 1955 law is an attempt at ‘establishment of religion’ in a secular society and violates the Establishment Clause and the Exercise Clause in the First Amendment. Eisenhower felt he needed to differentiate Americans from the Commies don’t ya know? 1955 for crying out loud! I look forward to Michaels appeal and am grateful for his persistence. Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. If they could only see how their secular nation has devolved into a bastion of superstitution largely made up of the ignorant masses they would be absolutely shocked and horrified. Let’s not forget that Jefferson completely omitted Matthew, Mark, Luke and John when he wrote his own version of the bible. He didn’t believe in resurrection, virgin births or Noah’s Ark. Neither did the great minds of Franklin or Madison. From Jefferson to Bush….sigh!
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” Sinclair Lewis
“In God we trust” does not violate separation of church and state because “god” has nothing whatsoever to do with either church or religion (and vice versa). As far as we know there is no law prohibiting “god” in secular venues (government or schools, for example). The law regarding separation of church and state is intended to prevent control of church by state OR control of state by church. (It dosn’t work, btw.) The fact is, this country was founded on the basis of a Christian “god” which is why Christmas is a national holiday.
Actually it does because it presumes the existence of a particular sort of deity with a particular sort of relationship with America. That’s a theology which supports the perspective of certain churches and religions but not others – which means the government is taking sides in theological debates.
Actually the law does prohibit the government from promoting belief in gods or belief in particular sorts of gods.
And much more.
Prove it.
You seem unaware of the fact that the courts have ruled that Christmas is a secular holiday.