In God We Trust

[Emsworth]

I am inclined to vote for option 1, although I am open to arguments that might convince me otherwise.

[Schmitz in 1972]

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the rights of people, not the rights of the nation. A government should feel free to have a state religion, provided this religion is not mandatory for private citizens.

A motto is a statement used to express a principle, goal, or ideal of an entity. This motto is the motto of the nation. Not the people of the nation but specifically the nation itself. It is not a private citizen's motto.

Now, whether the motto's inclusion on coins violates the Constitution is another matter entirely.

Please note, I do not necessarily believe all of this, this is just a possible argument I see for option 2.

[braces for the entire argument to be smacked down immediately with a few well chosen sentences by either Emsworth or A18]

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry Emsworth, but I suspect you have bought into the argument that the Establishment Clause is tantamount to a declaration of war on religion.

In fact, the establishment clause merely prohibits the national government from establishing a specific sect as the national church.

If you look you will see that the clause immediately following  it is the 'free exercise' clause.

Also, look at the related documents.

The Declaration of Independence appeals to Nature's God.

Congress has had a long tradition of Chaplins.

The extension of the 'establishment clause' into an attack on religion is a product of Warren et al who chose to ignore Constitution and insert their own prejudices into their misinterpretations instead.

[Emsworth]

The argument that the establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a specific sect as a national church, and nothing more, is in my opinion invalid. The clause goes much further: it prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." These words have a much greater scope: they forbid, to quote James Madison, "everything like an establishment of a national religion."

The First Amendment had the effect of totally and completely separating the federal government from the subject of religion. Rather, to quote Justice Story, "the whole power over the subject of religion [was] left exclusively to the state governments" (at least until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted). Any national law touching religion--including a law affirming the existence of God--is unconstitutional.

The views of Thomas Tucker, a representative from South Carolina, are illuminating. In 1789, Representative Elias Boudinot of New Jersey asked the House to pass a resolution recommending a "day of public thanksgiving and prayer." In response, Tucker said, "It is a business with which Congress have nothing to do, it is a religious matter, and, as such is proscribed to us. If a day of thanksgiving must take place, let it be done by the authority of the several states." Tucker clearly advanced the view that any "religious matter" was "proscribed" to Congress, and was subject only to the authority of the states.

Thomas Jefferson expressed a similar position in a letter to the Rev. Samuel Miller. He wrote, "I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power ... to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states." Clearly, Jefferson understood the Constitution as forbidding the federal government from "assum[ing] authority in religious discipline." When the federal government presumes to tell us that God does or does not exist, however, that is precisely what it does--it assumes authority in religious discipline.

The original understanding, therefore, seems to be that the establishment clause completely removed the issue of religion from the sphere of the federal government, and committed it to the states. For the federal government to declare that God exists--whether through a national motto, through the pledge of allegiance, or otherwise--violates this constitutional precept.

The Declaration of Independence appeals to Nature's God.

The Declaration of Independence has no relation whatsoever to the meaning of the establishment clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I cannot fathom how the chaplaincy practice can be reconciled with Article VI, Clause 3, which provides: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Needless to say, a religious test is required as a qualification to the office of chaplain. (The chaplain must, at the beginning of every congressional session, offer a prayer to God; if that is not a religious test, then I do not know what is.) I suspect that Congress was simply ignoring the religious test clause (and the establishment clause as well).

Not all Framers supported this abhorrent practice, however. Madison, for example, wrote:

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

"In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles."

[ATFFL]

The establishment clause prohibits the establishment of religion, prohibits the estbalishment of a national religion or promoting one religion above another..  Religions, by definition, believe in a higher power.  This higher power is generically known as a god.  Since the motto "In God We Trust" does not specify which God (Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Thor or any other), it does not establish a religion and cannot violate the establishment cause.

[Emsworth]

Religions, by definition, believe in a higher power...

There are two important consequences if we accept your definition. Firstly, under this definition, the government would be able to establish atheism, agnosticism, or Buddhism, because these belief systems do not involve a higher power.

Secondly, if we accept your definition, the right to free exercise does not extend to atheists, agnostics, or Buddhists. The word "religion" must have the same meaning with respect to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause; something cannot be a religion for one purpose but not for another. Thus, free exercise would extend only to those belief systems that involve a higher power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The First Amendment prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion," not laws "respecting an establishment of a religion." It does not matter whether the law relates to one particular religion, or to many religions.

[Speed of Sound]

the adoption of such a motto would most certainly violate the establishment clause because it targets certain religions, while leaving others out.

[Dr. Cynic]

The targeting of certain religons as opposed to others is unacceptable to me. It is a violation of individual rights to have a state religon. I don't believe in attacking religon for the sake of attacking it. I believe everyone's beliefs should be just that. Your own personal belief in a deity or not or multiple dieties.

Religon should be left out of the government, and the government should be left out of religon... We all know what happened in Salem when religon and government tried to co-exist in society.

[angus]

I'm inclined to say no, but I haven't voted.  Let me start by saying Carl makes some valid points in this thread and the other one, and so do you.  I don't have much to add to what I said earlier, except that I don't immediately see the inscription as tantamount to establishment.  Consider this:  I may very well send my son to a Catholic school or a Jewish school, because those schools have excellent reputations whereas public schools sometimes don't.  And the performance gap between public and private school students in many parts of the country, as measured by various parameters, is growing.  Now, he'll obviously be exposed to comparative religion studies as well as some amount of Cult, Creed, and Code in such schools.  Does this amount to my establishing a religion in my family?  Does the mere mention of god amount to establishment?  I have not gone out of my way to establish any religion in my home, nor do I intend to, but I certainly don't have anything against organized religion.  Isn't it possible to allow religiosity and irreligiosity to coexist? 

Also, consider the phrasing:  "In God We Trust"  Probably it would be more accurate to say In God(s) Some Trust.  But this is a minor point.  Who is the "we" in the phrase?  And, as Tredrick asks, who is the god?  And does the fact that WE, whoever that is, trust in GOD, whoever that is, mean that WE are also trying to establish religion.  All of which suggests the need for a clearer definition of establishment to begin with.

You'll recall that the first phase in any reasonable thesis is a definition of terms.  And we haven't even begun to define what it means to establish a religion yet.  It's clear that the word has some specific denotation in the constitution, as it is used elsewhere, namely in the Preamble, so clearly the framers had in mind a definition of the word.  Removing several prepositional phrases which need not interest us at the moment, the text reads "We ... do ordain and establish this constitution..."  I think a reasonable definition here might be something like "to institute or bring into existence by agreement"  Thus the constitution was brought into existence when ratified by at least 9 states.  Three more quickly ratified.  Rhode Island finally agreed to ratify after the Bill of Rights was added, and it is in this appendix where you'll find the establishment clause.  If the same definition is applied herein, then it is clear that Rhode Islanders were keen on separating church and state, that is, not having the government "bring into existence" a national religion.  And I do not think it has.  I do not see that the printing of words on a paper creates a religion.  I think Speedofsound's claim that adoption of a motto amounts to instituting religion is a very long stretch.   Religions may be reasonably defined as a set of beliefs concerned with Ultimate Reality, and often, but not always, include references to and recognition of dieties.  As an aside I will say that I do not accept Tredrick's narrow definition of religion either, but it should be noted that in another classification system (one which is not my favorite) such religions are termed Theistic Religions, and are often ethnocentrically viewed as superior to the so-called Primitive Religions and the Oriental Systems.  I don't know whether we have any true objective religious scholars among the posters, but it'd be interesting if there is, and if that scholar would be willing to testify as to whether the printing of a four-word phrase on a piece of paper amounts to establishing a religion. 

I will reserve the right to cast a vote in this straw poll at a later time after I have heard more testimony and arguments.  I do change my mind often, but I am initially inclined to vote NO in this case.

[Dr. Cynic]

It does however say "In God We Trust". Now personally, I don't. I just wonder why I must be forced to trust him when I don't. Likewise, I see the other POV, saying Why should I not be able to trust in him, because some fat putz from Pittsburgh doesn't....

Quite the conundrum actually.

[Gabu]

The establishment clause prohibits the establishment of religion, prohibits the estbalishment of a national religion or promoting one religion above another..  Religions, by definition, believe in a higher power.  This higher power is generically known as a god.  Since the motto "In God We Trust" does not specify which God (Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Thor or any other), it does not establish a religion and cannot violate the establishment cause.

What about religions that believe in multiple gods and goddesses?

[Dr. Cynic]

But what about us that don't believe in god? But I always go back to my beloved arguement: The rights of the Minority MUST be respected by the Majority.

[Emsworth]

You'll recall that the first phase in any reasonable thesis is a definition of terms.  And we haven't even begun to define what it means to establish a religion yet.  It's clear that the word has some specific denotation in the constitution, as it is used elsewhere, namely in the Preamble, so clearly the framers had in mind a definition of the word ... I do not see that the printing of words on a paper creates a religion.

The problem is that the First Amendment does not say, "Congress shall not establish a religion." Instead, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." To quote Madison, "The Constitution of the US forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."

The House of Representatives actually rejected several versions of the establishment clause that were narrower than the one that was finally adopted. These rejected versions include:

"No religion shall be established by law."

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion."

"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion."

"Congress shall make no law establishing One Religious Sect or Society in preference to others."

"Congress shall not make any law ... establishing any Religious Sect or Society."

"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another."

All of these narrow versions of the establishment clause were rejected; instead, the much broader version that we have now was preferred. The effect of this clause was to leave religion completely and exclusively in the hands of the states, not in the hands of the national government.

[minionofmidas]

though the "no law establishing religion" appears closer to the current version than to the other rejected versions.

[angus]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." To quote Madison, "The Constitution of the US forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."

a subtle, but important, difference.  And Madison's point is well taken.  And so is Carl's for that matter.  But none of that seems to address the question, which has to do with whether the adoption of a motto disallowed by the clause.  Does Madison ask us to avoid adopting mottos?  Only if the adoption respects the establishment of religion.  Someone, somewhere trusts in some god.  To remind me of that fact doesn't force me to acknowledge anything else.  To suggest that it goes on to require, or even request, that the nation adopt a religion does not follow logically.  Do I feel compelled to trust in any gods in order to spend the money?  I cannot speak for you, but I can assure you I am unmoved by the motto.  I am moved only by the fact that I have a piece of paper which can be traded for food.  I may also be aware that members of atheistic religions my find the motto peculiar.  I may be aware that agnostics may find the motto downright offensive.  I personally went through a long period, as I mentioned before, during which I found the motto profoundly offensive.  But offended or not, I have come to realize that one cannot reasonably argue that using money imprinted with the motto obliges me to incorporate the gods, in whom WE trust (whoever WE are), into my own vision of reality.  Am I the only one among the 291 million citizens who can stare at a dollar bill and not be moved spiritually?  My guess is that I am not, particularly since I know many irreligious sorts who spend the same money and whose irreligiosity doesn't seem to have been adulterated by the motto.  Again, counterexamples serve as disproof.  People are looking at this motto.  People are not as a result of this motto compelled to religion.  People are not as a result of this motto being denied jobs in the federal government for stating they are not moved to religion by the motto.  I cannot imagine what definition you have in your head of "respecting establishment of religion" that would convince you that these and many other counterexamples don't serve as a logical contradiction to the claim you seem to be making.  You can say that all it takes to become a Muslim is to face mecca and say that There is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet.  I would argue that this isn't true.  I think it is also necessary to actually feel and think and believe what you are saying.  I myself have uttered it, in Arabic, to the best of my ability, while facing Mecca, to the best of my ability, to see if I felt anything.  I did not.  I have also tried Om Ma Ne Pad Meh Heh, and many other chants to see if I can gain access to enlightenment or to a state of spirituality which would make me less an asshole and more patient and clam.  Apparently I'm just not the religious type.  I lack faith.  I am not sure why, and I wish it were otherwise, but alas it is true.  I have on my bookshelf a Book of Mormon, a Hebrew Bible, the Holy Qur'an, a protestant Bible in Jamesean English, a Catholic Bible in modern English, the Tripitaka, a Zen poetry book, the Bagavad Gita, the Saint Joseph's Baltimore Catechism, Umphrey Lee's Our Fathers and Us.  And maybe a few more I'm forgetting.  And though I cannot claim to have read all of them entirely, I have read some of them all, and all of some.  And although I have never purchased it, I have read the Tao of Elvis in its entirety in a bookstore while sipping the complimentary coffee.  I feel nothing.  I am type A.  I will die of a heart attack at an early age maybe, unlike say Jehovah's Witness folks, who have a longevity which exceeds all other Americans, or like Tao practicioners, who have a longevity which exceeds all other Japanese.  Thus, the utterance of a motto does not force me to religion.  I am certainly willing to try any reasonable experiment you suggest, however, in order to gain enlightenment.  My point is that even if you try to tell me I'm the only one out there who doesn't feel compelled by the motto, you still have one counterexample.  Thus the statement that the motto forces religion cannot be accurate.  (and again I can see clearly that I'm not the only one, but if I am the only one who is willing to be honest about this then so be it.)  Neither the reading of, nor the utterance of, any motto constitutes religion.  And it seems to me that the printing of a motto on a bill does not compel one to religion or respect any establishment of any religion, monotheistic or otherwise.  But, like you, I do sometimes change my mind and I welcome arguments which may help me to "see the light"  You simply haven't done that yet.

[Emsworth]

Angus, as far as I can tell, you are arguing that "In God We Trust" is constitutional because it does not compel or coerce anyone to believe in a religion. I agree that "In God We Trust" compels nothing. However, I still believe that it violates the establishment clause.

The free exercise clause already prevents the government from compelling individuals to adhere to any particular religion. What would be the point if the establishment clause did the exact same thing, and nothing more? If the establishment clause is reducible to a test of coercion, then it would be totally subsumed by the free exercise clause; it would have no independent value whatsoever. But, if we adhere to basic rules of statutory construction, it cannot be presumed that provisions of the same amendment are redundant. It must follow, therefore, that the establishment clause goes beyond a prohibition on coercion: it completely removes federal power over the subject, and leaves it in the exclusive control of the states.

[ATFFL]

The establishment clause prohibits the establishment of religion, prohibits the estbalishment of a national religion or promoting one religion above another..  Religions, by definition, believe in a higher power.  This higher power is generically known as a god.  Since the motto "In God We Trust" does not specify which God (Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Thor or any other), it does not establish a religion and cannot violate the establishment cause.

What about religions that believe in multiple gods and goddesses?

They get to pick which one of theirs it refers to.  Lucky them.

Religions, by definition, believe in a higher power...

There are two important consequences if we accept your definition. Firstly, under this definition, the government would be able to establish atheism, agnosticism, or Buddhism, because these belief systems do not involve a higher power.

Secondly, if we accept your definition, the right to free exercise does not extend to atheists, agnostics, or Buddhists. The word "religion" must have the same meaning with respect to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause; something cannot be a religion for one purpose but not for another. Thus, free exercise would extend only to those belief systems that involve a higher power.

Under my definition atheism is not considered a religion.  Establishing it as a national rule would still be prohibited as, as you point out, the wording prevents laws regarding establishment of religion, thus outlawing laws which would establish them as a second tier faith.

Busshism does believe in a higher power.  They do not, however, personify it in a creator-god.  This leads to a lot of confusion.  Keep in mind that my definition is based on linguistic sophistry.  Something Busshists would appreciate.

Agnosticism is, by its very nature, not a religion as it is not a belief.

[A18]

You'll recall that the first phase in any reasonable thesis is a definition of terms.  And we haven't even begun to define what it means to establish a religion yet.  It's clear that the word has some specific denotation in the constitution, as it is used elsewhere, namely in the Preamble, so clearly the framers had in mind a definition of the word ... I do not see that the printing of words on a paper creates a religion.

The problem is that the First Amendment does not say, "Congress shall not establish a religion." Instead, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." To quote Madison, "The Constitution of the US forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."

The House of Representatives actually rejected several versions of the establishment clause that were narrower than the one that was finally adopted. These rejected versions include:

"No religion shall be established by law."

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion."

"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion."

"Congress shall make no law establishing One Religious Sect or Society in preference to others."

"Congress shall not make any law ... establishing any Religious Sect or Society."

"Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another."

All of these narrow versions of the establishment clause were rejected; instead, the much broader version that we have now was preferred.

The House version of the First Amendment originally read: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

The Senate version stated: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

It was in conference committee that the "respecting" phraseology was adopted. All the addition of that word does is to ensure that Congress shall neither establish a national religion, nor disestablish a state religion.

[Emsworth]

It was in conference committee that the "respecting" phraseology was adopted. All the addition of that word does is to ensure that Congress shall neither establish a national religion, nor disestablish a state religion.

I would go much further, and say that the "whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments" (to quote Justice Story). Congress is prohibited not only from establishing a national religion or disestablishing state religions, but also from endorsing or promoting any religions or beliefs. The states retain absolute authority over the subject; Congress may not infringe that authority by affirming any particular religious tenet (such as the existence of God).

[angus]

Emsworth, I'm going to have to admit to some ignorance here.  My impression was that these arguments were all based on the first few words of the first amendment, which consists of an independent and a dependent clause separated from the rest of the amendment by a semicolon.  These two clauses seem equally important, and not redundant in any way.  I may be missing your point.  And I may be missing something huge.  probably am.  Is there some other relevant portion of the consitution to which you refer.  Maybe the 9th amendment?

Tredrick, there seem to be two popular classifications of religion.  The one I like, which classifies them according to the number of deities worshipped:  mono-, a-, and polytheistic.  And the one you seem to prefer:  Primitive, Theistic, and Oriental.  The latter seems to me to be highly ethnocentric and somewhat insensitive, but it does have the advantage of dealing with some of the messiness left by the former classification scheme.  E.g., we need not argue over whether henotheism is mono- or polytheistic; we may include various forms not included in the former such as pantheism and panentheism; we don't have to have the age-old argument over whether Buddhism is truly an atheistic religion.  (Remember, although in his famous Sermon on the Mountain, the Enlightened One never denied the existence of any gods, but rather assigned to them no special place.  Unlike Hinduism, Buddhism does not claim that the gods created or maintain the universe.  And, in Theravada Buddhism (The Way of the Elders; second-hand accounts) the gods are subject to death and possible rebirth into lower states of existence.  In any case, human existence is the preferred mode of rebirth since only humans can achieve enlightenment.)

Beyond that, you seem to be suggesting that only the Theistic religions within the latter classification system are truly religions.  You are certainly not the only one who holds that view, though you should understand that it is not a universally held view.  Part of this problem is historical.  While attempting to understand and translate into Latin other religious documents--no doubt in an effort to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over other forms--Europeans, in the age of European economic and military advancement looked for points of similarity, not recognizing that mysticism, as understood in the context of monotheistic religions, doesn't always translate to poly-, and atheistic religions.  It must also be borne in mind that Eastern systems (Tao, Shinto, Chinese tribal religions) are not mutually exclusive.  You cannot be both an Evangelical Protestant and a Muslim, or both a Jew and a Roman Catholic, etc.  Pick one.  Not so in eastern religions.

We do need to agree on a definition of all terms if we are to debate the question.  I have offered a reasonable and widely accepted definition of religion (a system of beliefs that deals with ultimate reality).  Perhaps Emsworth would care to give us his definition and we can all agree to debate the question based on that.  I was also about to ask for a clearer definition of "respecting" but I see that the last post gives just that.  Though it isn't immediately clear even now that respecting religion occurs with the mere mention of any gods.  Endorse and promote are clear enough terms though.  If I say "emsworth fetch me a beer" have I endorsed emsworth's existence?  And whether or not I have endorsed emsworth's existence have I promoted Emsworth over all other beer fetchers?  For that matter, have I suggested the need for a beer anyway?  I have only suggested that I am thirsty.  This does not seem like an endorsement or promotion to me.  And certainly a less vague statement than IN GOD WE TRUST since at least the pronoun "me" is clear in my example.  The pronoun "we" in the motto still has no apparent antecedent.

[Emsworth]

Emsworth, I'm going to have to admit to some ignorance here.  My impression was that these arguments were all based on the first few words of the first amendment, which consists of an independent and a dependent clause separated from the rest of the amendment by a semicolon.  These two clauses seem equally important, and not redundant in any way.  I may be missing your point.

My point is, if the establishment clause prohibits nothing more than compelling people to be religious, it would be redundant with the free exercise clause. The free exercise clause already prohibits compelling people to be religious. Thus, in order for it to not be redundant, the establishment clause must go further than merely banning compulsion or coercion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have affirmed that I exist; therefore, you have endorsed the belief that I exist.

Affirming that God exists constitutes an endorsement of a religious belief.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Presumably it refers to the federal government, since that is the body that adopted the motto.

[angus]

I think I take your point.  You're saying, for example, if it's illegal to prohibit the free exercise of religion, then it follows that it is not permissible to establish national religion.  Therefore, the first part must mean something else, something which isn't subsumed in the second part.  A good point.  Unfortunately it isn't a valid point.  For example, many Latin American nations have had national religions in the past, but these same nations have allowed complete religious freedom.  A more modern example would be that of the United Kingdom of GB&NI, which establishes a national church, but allows total religious freedom.  At least in principle.  So the first part isn't redundant even if it only means exactly what it says it means.  That is, the prohibition of establishment and the prohibition of limiting religious exercise are different ideas, and need to be individually enumerated.  One need not go any further than this to avoid redundancy, since it is possible to establish yet allow others to exist, or not to establish but still prohibit free exercise.

Also, calling out to Emsworth the Beer Fetcher doesn't assume its existence, but we have had this exact same argument elsewhere, and eventually agreed to disagree.

I think I'll stipulate that WE might mean the federal government, but it may also mean a subset of individuals.  In fact, the latter is more probably since governments can't "trust" anything, only people can.  WE then is some set of people.  Whether it means all citizens has not been demostrated.  Given that it isn't stated in the form of an imperative, only dative, it doesn't amount to compulsion.  But I think you have said it isn't about coercion.  I'll go further and suggest that it doesn't amount to promotion.  Only advertisement.

Still haven't voted.  You probably have some other angles up your sleeve.  And I don't think we have exhausted all our arguments yet.  I'm tempted to look at the results thus far though.   Think I'll wait till I decide.

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."
   --Neil Peart

sorry, couldn't resist. 

[Emsworth]

I think I take your point.  You're saying, for example, if it's illegal to prohibit the free exercise of religion, then it follows that it is not permissible to establish national religion.  Therefore, the first part must mean something else, something which isn't subsumed in the second part.  A good point.  Unfortunately it isn't a valid point...

In your earlier post, you said that, in order to constitute a violation of the establishment clause, a law must "compel one to religion." I responded that, if the establishment clause merely prevented the government from compelling people to be religious (and has no other effect), it would be redundant with the free exercise clause.

You then pointed out the example of the Church of England. I don't see how this example undermines my point; in fact, I think that it supports my argument. In your previous post, you said that something does not violate the establishment clause if it does not "compel one to religion." But the Church of England does not "compel one to religion." Does that mean that an identical setup would be constitutional in the United States? Clearly, the answer is no. Therefore, even if something does not "compel one to religion," it can still be a violation of the establishment clause.

Essentially, that is my whole point: "establishment" does not necessarily imply coercion. Hence, it does not matter whether or not "In God We Trust" compels anyone.

[angus]

Sorry, a carload of friends from Boston showed up at my apartment around 3:30 CST yesterday and have been camped with us till about an hour ago.  I still am not swayed, but it seems that now we're past the argument about coercion, as we agree that the motto compels nothing.  I also agree that a similar setup would not be allowed here according to the bill of rights.  At least I'm saying you and I agree on that.  But I'm saying also that the English example shows that the "prohibition" clause doesn't get subsumed by the "establishment" clause, and that the example undermines a specific point.  I'll have to find a better way to put this

Here, you posted the following:  "if the establishment clause prohibits nothing more than compelling people to be religious, it would be redundant with the free exercise clause. The free exercise clause already prohibits compelling people to be religious. Thus, in order for it to not be redundant, the establishment clause must go further than merely banning compulsion or coercion."

I want to clarify that my position is not that the establishment clause merely prohibits compulsion to religion, but disallows the institution by agreement any religion.  That is, even if each and every voting citizen agreed upon its establishment, it would still be illegal under the constitution.  I also agree that free exercise clause already prohibits compulsion as well.  I am arguing with the third sentence only:  "in order for it not to be redundant..."  Here, I have provided an example showing specifically that it isn't redundant.  The third sentence does not follow since the first isn't accurate.  (That is, you have convinced me that the compulsion isn't necessary for it to be in violation, so we needn't continue along that line of argument.)  We have in the English example a government which formally establishes a religion, yet does not "prohibit the free exercise thereof."  Therefore the two concepts are mutually distinct.  No redundancy exists.  This in no way that I can see supports your argument.

Maybe we have just a fundamental disagreement as to whether adoption of the motto itself constitutes anything meaningful.  You claim that it does.  I fail to see that it does, but apparently am unfit to explain to you why it doesn't.  And I think you deserve to have this explained to you.  Or that I deserve to have it explained to me that it does.  It must be one way or the other, wouldn't you agree?  Or is this possibly similar to the morality question?  i.e., if you believe in Absolute Morality then no one can talk you out of it.  On that point I agree with you, and moreover I agree with you that religion isn't necessary to morality.  But obviously that doesn't mean that we are "right" only that we agree.  Here, we disagree.  I'm inclined to think one of us is wrong, but I'm not clear which.  Still, I'll give it some thought to see if I can come up with a better explanation of how the motto neither establishes any religion, nor prohibits its free exercise. 

[John Dibble]

I lean yes to the question, but there are more important issues to deal with than the words on money. For instance, how the government is spending that money...