Michael Newdow, the guy who
challenged the phrase "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, will go at it again,
this time against the appearance of "In God We Trust" on currency.
Atheist plans lawsuit challenging motto on U.S. currency
The Associated Press
Last Updated: November 13, 2005, 08:40:22 PM PST
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - An atheist who has spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is now challenging the national motto printed on U.S. currency.
Michael Newdow said Sunday that he planned to file a federal lawsuit this week asking for the removal of the national motto, "In God We Trust," from U.S. coins and dollar bills. He claims it's an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and "excludes people who don't believe in God."
Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer who is an avowed atheist, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "under God." He took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2004 said he lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of his daughter.
An identical lawsuit later brought by Newdow on behalf of parents with children in three Sacramento-area school districts is pending with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a judge sided with the plaintiffs in September.
Newdow said his efforts are not spurred by an atheistic agenda, but rather by a desire to see the government adhere to the U.S. Constitution. He dismissed opponents' arguments that references to God in government honor the country's religious roots, saying constitutional rights should take precedent.
"It's not the history that counts. It's not the patriotism. What it is, is these people want to get their religious views in our government," he said.
So how about this "In God We Trust" thing? I'm used to it, it's sort of part of the national culture, and yet I do believe Dr. Newdow is technically correct. One need only look at the reverse to show the bias. If the Trasury Department started printing "We Do Not Trust In God" or "We Do Not Believe God Exists" on dollar bills, it would quickly be struck down as an unconstitutional bias for one religious view over another. The only real difference is popular support. Most people are comfortable with "In God We Trust", but that does not make it any less an establishment of one religious view over another.
I looked for arguments supporting "under God" in the Pledge (since people presumably haven't had time to respond to the new Newdow lawsuit yet), and I found, from Jay Sekulow, a typical argument:
The Pledge began as a patriotic exercise expressing loyalty to our nation. It first appeared in print in 1892. Congress added the phrase "under God" in 1954. President Lincoln used the phrase "under God" in the Gettysburg Address, which concludes with "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and the government of the people, by the people, shall not perish from the earth."
The Pledge is part of an American tapestry of time-honored and historically significant traditions that have come under attack in this country. "One nation, under God" is no more the establishment or endorsement of religion than our national motto, "In God, we Trust" or the phrase "God Bless America" - the closing words used by the President when making public comments or speeches. All of these are ways that the government properly and constitutionally acknowledges our religious heritage.
That argument by itself, though, does not wash. It doesn't matter how many Presidents have used it in speeches, for two reasons: 1) A President can say whatever he or she wants about his or her own personal religious beliefs without constituting an establishment of religion; and 2) many presidents endorsed slavery prior to 1863, and it was indeed part of our national heritage for some time; that doesn't mean it was right or that we should print "Enslave The Negro" on our dollar bills. We've since enacted the Fourteenth Amendment, and such action would violate equal protection, I believe. But we've always had the First Amendment, which prohibits an establishment of religion. We've just been remiss about it in some areas.
That a phrase makes the majority feel comfortable does not make that phrase immune to Constitutional scrutiny.