Not if the Freedom from Religion Foundation has anything to do with it. FFRF is suing to prevent Congress from engraving the national motto “In God We Trust” as well as the Pledge of Allegiance–which includes the words “under God”–in the (new)(already criminally expensive) Capitol Visitor Center in Washington.
Advocates for separation of church and state are hopeful that the courts will finally see things our way. Unfortunately, a district judge is likely to skirt controversy and cite precedent (stare decisis), after which the Supreme Court will just refuse to review it. Status quo. Worse, the Supremes could actually uphold the precedent, which held that “In God We Trust” was not religious but rather “patriotic or ceremonial” in character. This, however, is a crock and a dodge, and everybody knows it. If it’s purely patriotic and ceremonial, why is it that this phrase is always and only attacked or defended on religious grounds?
Here’s more from a recent article:
Atheists sue to keep ‘In God We Trust’ off Capitol Visitor Center
By Rob Hotakainen
McClatchy Newspapers
A California Republican congressman wants to do a little writing on the walls of Washington’s newest federal building. If Rep. Dan Lungren gets his way, Congress will spend nearly $100,000 to engrave the words “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent spots at the Capitol Visitor Center.
Lungren’s proposal drew only a whimper of opposition last week when the House of Representatives voted 410-8 to approve it. Now, however, Lungren finds himself tussling with a national atheists and agnostics group.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc. sued this week to stop the engraving, accusing Lungren of trying to force his religious beliefs on as many as 15 percent of all U.S. adults. That comprises “atheists, agnostics, skeptics and freethinkers, none of whom possess a belief in a god,” according to the lawsuit.
“It really is a Judeo-Christian endorsement by our government, and so Lungren is wrong,” said Dan Barker of Madison, Wis., a co-president of the foundation.
“Lungren and others are pro-religious, and they want to actually use the machinery of government to promote their particular private religious views. That is unconstitutional, and that’s what we’re asking the court to decide.”
The Senate has approved a similar plan introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. The congressional directive orders the Capitol architect to make the changes in the design of the $621 million center, which opened last December.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which has 13,500 members, sued in U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. It alleges that Congress is trying to make belief in God synonymous with citizenship and “discouraging nonbelief” among Americans, a contention that Lungren rejects.
Lungren said that the phrase “In God We Trust” had a long history and was consistent with the beliefs of America’s founding fathers. He also said the Declaration of Independence referred to rights given by a creator.
Lungren, a former California attorney general, said that while the proposed engravings incorporated religious references, they didn’t violate the Constitution.
“What we’re doing is making a specific historical reference to the beginnings of this republic,” he said. “To ignore this or to forbid this statement or something like it to appear is to distort history. … We’re not trying to change history. We’re trying to enshrine history in the Capitol Visitor Center.”
Barker said history was better left to others.
“It’s not the job of our government and our government buildings to do that,” he said. “Historians can point out that many of our founders were indeed religious. But saying ‘In God We Trust’ in the visitors center of the Capitol is not just some historical reference. It’s actually government speaking for all of us Americans.”
Barker said the foundation had been waiting for the right case to challenge “In God We Trust.” He said government actions could be challenged on state-church grounds if they had specific religious agendas. In this case, he said, backers of Lungren’s plan have provided “the smoking guns” by giving specific, overt religious reasons for doing the engraving.
Barker said that atheists regarded the phrase “In God We Trust” as rude, uncivil and un-American.
“Tens of millions of really good Americans don’t believe in God,” he said. “In fact, there’s many more nonbelievers than there are Jews, and we wouldn’t think of offending Jews on our national monuments. … Why is it wrong to offend a Jewish minority but it’s not wrong to offend those of us who serve in the military and sit on juries but we don’t believe in God?”
He said no hearing had been set.
Lungren is confident that a federal judge will allow the engraving to proceed.
“I never thought I’d see the day when someone would sue to stop us putting in the United States Capitol a statement of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance,” he said. “Suggesting that the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto is un-American in some way – talk about turning ideas on their heads.”
Religious nuts justify their positions by claiming some kind of weak neutrality, when in fact what they are doing is breaking the governments ability to be secular.
“In God We Trust” should be removed from any and every government related establishment. They try and claim it’s part of out heritage and not religious. Really, because it has the word “GOD” in it, I say that makes it pretty damn religious.
Sanford says he’s learned a lot in the past couple weeks, but It looks like he’s still missing the point. Adultery, lying and hypocrisy are not against the law (oops, I guess in South Carolina adultery is a felony!). He left his post for four days! In most jobs, if you don’t show up for work and don’t tell anyone where you were for four days that would be grounds for dismissal. But he doesn’t have an ordinary job. He’s the governor of South Carolina! Such a profound lack judgment should be grounds for recall. To let your personal, emotional life get so out of control that you go AWOL from your job as governor, is a serious breach of public trust. It’s not even a moral issue. He simply demonstrated that he’s not capable of being governor.
Like many fundamentalists I’ve known, he seems to think his personal view of morality is all that matters. The way that he chooses to deal with his affair is between him and his wife. He might take comfort thinking Jesus forgives him or whatever but he needs to understand that he also has a responsibility to real live flesh and blood people. If he really wanted to take responsibility for what he did he should either step down or let his constituents decide what to do with him.
What’s even worse is when he says he might not step down because he wants to teach his sons that when you’re down you should tough it out and hang in there. What exactly is he trying to say? You can make catastrophic flaws in judgment but if you fess up to Jesus you don’t have to be responsible to the actual people you let down? Or if you’re powerful enough you can mess up as much as you want? And if you’re caught, you just have to mention god a million times and people won’t hold you accountable?
Personally, I think he did America a favor, by showing that politicians who go around saying that they are morally superior, in actuality are not. The lesson is that there is nothing noble or special about a “Christian” politician. Except that if they mess up, we’re going to hear even more ‘god talk.’