Do the Words "In God We Trust" Violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause?
- June 11, 2017
- Posted by: marlenedubois
- Category: CPR Training
The words “In God we trust” does not violate the first amendment’s establishment clause. The clause reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, as well as also also to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The words “In God we trust” does not pertain to any one religion or another, the word God is actually ambiguous referring to a supernatural being, applicable to a myriad of monotheist as well as also also polytheist religions alike. The common assertion in which the words “In God we trust” is actually directly analogous to a Judeo-Christian God is actually fallacious.
Further, in which is actually ignorant of the universality held across major cultures, beliefs as well as also also values spanning almost all nations as well as also also time periods. The central core idea of trust in a singular or central supernatural force or deity is actually found in nearly every major world religion, thorough polytheism as well as also also monotheism. For instance, inside Hindu religion they trust in Brahman, in Islam they trust in Allah, the ancient Egyptians trusted inside sun god as a central deity in which breathed life onto This particular earth. The words “In God we trust” signify the United States’ adherence to the establishment clause by promoting a non-specific universal belief in which encourages the free exercise of religion not the absence of in which.
The establishment clause shows in which the United States can show no bias toward any one religion; in which is actually to therefore promote freedom of religion, not freedom of religion. The majority of opposition comes through atheists who claim in which the words “In god we trust” found on U.S. currency violates their right to freedom of religion found inside establishment clause.
However, atheism is actually not a religion, in which is actually the lack there of, Webster’s dictionary defines religion as: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, as well as also also practices. The antonym of religion in which atheism falls under is actually religionless which is actually defined by the 1913 variation of Webster’s dictionary as “Destitute of religion.” This particular accurately describes atheism, as the centric core of This particular philosophy. Atheism being a philosophy deserves protection under freedom of speech nevertheless deserves no protection as an establishment of religion. Can you image the chaos if we allowed peoples personal philosophy to hold the same legal merit as religion? If This particular became legislation or court precedent the effects could be catastrophic.
During the draft during the Vietnam War, if you were a Quaker you were exempt through This particular obligation; due to freedom of religion the government cannot pass laws in which violate your religion, because in which is actually there for restricting “the free exercise thereof”. If personal beliefs as well as also also philosophies held the same merit as religion in U.S. state as well as also also federal law, than personal philosophies can be held as valid excuse for the war e.g. “I don’t agree with violence.” Further people could create their own holidays which could hold the same merit as religious holidays, which are in fact created through no religion nevertheless through their own personal philosophies.
Legal obligations like jury duty can be excused due to your personal philosophy against This particular obligation. This particular is actually in no means a slippery slope argument, nevertheless simply a cause-as well as also also-effect analysis of adopting the precedent restricting the words “In God we trust” into our English common law system. In accordance with such, in which is actually rational to say in which This particular precedent could cause personal philosophies to hold the same legal merit as religion in American jurisprudence. This particular argument is actually not amusing or anticipating, expansion of such precedent, nevertheless merely in which’s effect as a de jure definition.
This particular court decision does not as well as also also will not address U.S. history as argumentation for original intent, nor will in which try to adopt a fresh meaning or precedent to the constitution as inside “Living Constitution.” This particular decision relies on the U.S. Constitution verbatim, or what in which says literally. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” in which says an establishment of religion, or a particular religion or faith not religion all together. In an article in Slate magazine the prominent atheist David Greenberg reads his own words into the constitution. He stated in which the use of the word “God” denotes endorsement of a particular establishment of religion.
He reasons in which the absence of the word “God” signifies a clear message advocating the absence of the word God in anything pertaining to the government, clearly voiced by its absence in This particular document. Greenburg states in his article The Pledge of Allegiance: Why we’re not one nation “under God.” “in which the founders made erecting a church-state wall their first priority when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution reveals the importance they placed on maintaining what Isaac Kramnick as well as also also R. Laurence Moore have called a “godless Constitution.” (Greenberg , Par. 2)This particular statement is actually logically invalid as well as also also relies on speculation, a not what the document actually says verbatim, nor the original intent. He states This particular hypothesis as a matter of fact, as if he knew the founding fathers as well as also also knew their original indent. He cites historically inaccurate evidence in which is actually extremely deceiving. He states “When Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention in which the founders begin each day of their labors that has a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated.” (Ibid)
In every weak argument there is actually always a shred of truth to help in which stand, in This particular case Benjamin Franklin did make a motion to start each meeting with prayer. However in which wasn’t “defeated” nor was in which approved respectively in which was just left alone all together. The philosophy was a hands-off, neutral approach, due to the disastrous articles of the confederation. This particular failure was partially induced by a superfluity of Christian prayer as well as also also dogma causing distraction. Regardless of original intent which is actually subjective, the constitution verbatim is actually what should take precedence. In reading This particular verbatim, we see in which secularism as well as also also atheism are not establishments of religion. Therefore they deserve no protection under freedom of religion. Further, atheism is actually a philosophy; if we allow philosophies to have equitable rights as religions the results will be disastrous to our English common law system, inhibiting due process, as well as also also preventing enforcement of laws as well as also also obligations.
In sum, the words “In God we trust” does not violate the first amendment’s establishment clause nor freedom of religion therein, in which promoting in which. in which promotes free exercise of religion by promoting a non-specific universal belief in which encourages the free exercise of religion. Through the use of the words “In god we trust”, the State has not produced or regulated any religious establishment, nor has in which given authority to any current religion. The words “In God we trust” do not coherence anyone to be associated or take part in any established religion. Additionally no various other free-exercise rights or civil liberties are in conflict. The words “In god we trust” fully comply with the constitution.