Michael Newdow's "In God We Trust" Lawsuit Dismissed
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:
Comments
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.