"In 1957, the motto "In God We Trust" began appearing on U.S. paper currency."
I was surprised to realize I was alive when this happened, and so began another deep dive into the bowels of the Internet. Why did this happen? What did this phrase even mean back then? Why was it important to put it on all of our paper currency? Was anyone -- most notably constitutional scholars -- opposed to it at the time? As my brother-in-law would say, these were indeed some of the questions. As I spiraled down the rabbit hole, even more questions emerged.
The first thing I discovered was that "In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States, approved by Congress and signed into law by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956.
Some Background
Prior to 1956, the de facto motto of the U.S. was "E pluribus unum", Latin for "Out of many, one". This phrase hearkens back to our nation's founding, July 4, 1776, when the Continental Congress passed the following resolution for the creation of a national seal:
“Resolved, that Dr. Franklin, Mr. J. Adams, and Mr. Jefferson, be a committee, to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America.”
It took six years, multiple committees and many designs before the Great Seal of the United States was approved. In the end, only one feature of the original committee's design remained untouched: the inclusion of "E Pluribus Unum" to boldly declare the birth of a unified nation from 13 individual colonies.
Learning this, a new burning question was immediately raised. What could have possibly caused the nation to believe that a lofty and patriotic motto such as this, created and designed by three of our most educated and respected founding fathers, should be replaced by "In God We Trust"?
Deeper Background
The use of "In God We Trust" dates back to the Civil War, when Reverend M.R. Watkinson, a Protestant minister from Pennsylvania, believed that the government needed to send a clear message that God was on the side of the Union and its army. In 1961, he decided to send the following letter to Samuel P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury Department:
Chase acted almost immediately, sending the following letter to James Pollock, Director of the U.S. Mint:
A few northern newspapers questioned this change. The New York Times, in particular, wrote: "Let us try to carry our religion — such as it is — in our hearts, and not in our pockets". The general populace, though, approved of the change. The controversy disappeared and the inscription now appears on all U.S. currency.
It Finally Becomes the National Motto
In the early 1950's, the U.S. was embroiled in the Cold War abroad and McCarthyism at home. Similar to the demonizing of the enemy that occurred during the Civil War, ministers began denouncing "godless communists" and insisting that the U.S. declare that God was on the nation's side. In the midst of this fervor, Dwight Eisenhower was elected President. By all accounts, Eisenhower was a deeply religious man who wore his faith on his sleeve. While President, he was baptized into the Presbyterian Church, opened Cabinet meetings with a moment of silent prayer, and initiated something called the National Prayer Breakfast. He also appointed the Reverend Billy Graham as his personal spiritual advisor. With this as fertile ground, Florida congressman Charles Bennett sponsored a bill in 1955 to make "In God We Trust", the national motto. His rationale:
“In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continually look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom.”
A Bit about the Establishment Clause
Before we go any further, a brief discussion is needed of the Establishment Clause, the opening clause of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Thomas Jefferson believed that this clause created an iron-clad "wall of separation between Church and State". In 1947, Justice Hugo Black echoed Jefferson's belief, saying: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state," and that this wall "must be high and impregnable".
With this as an historical backdrop, you might wonder how a national motto centered on God could have penetrated this wall. To date, though, the U.S. Court system has treated this "wall" more like a screen door, allowing the belief in a single Almighty deity to permeate many of the nation's laws and institutions.
In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), while not dealing specifically with the
national motto, the Supreme Court stated that the nation's "institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being" and that the government's recognition of God does
not in any way support the establishment of one religion or another.
In Aronow v. United States (1970), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit specifically ruled that the use of the national motto on currency is "excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact", having only "'spiritual and psychological value' and 'inspirational quality'". Atheists and agnostics aren't being pressured to believe or trust in God in order to live in the United States and use its currency.
In 1962, Eugene Rostow, Dean of Yale Law, coined a new legal term, ceremonial deism, to refer to any religious reference or practice by the government that has lost its inherent religious connotation due to longstanding use. Per Rostow, these references and practices should now be viewed as simply "cultural rituals". Prominent examples of Rostow's ceremonial deism are the references to a single deity in the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. Beginning in 1984, the Supreme Court of the United States began using this term to decide whether to grant an exemption to the Establishment Clause. This leads directly into my final topic.
The Slippery Slope and the Pledge of Allegiance
I've finally reached the real focus of this post: the Pledge of Allegiance. The nation's first pledge was composed in 1885 by a man named George Balch, an officer in the Union army during the Civil War.
“We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country; one language; one flag!”It was rather simple pledge, but it was used by many groups in the U.S. until the 1920's. In 1892, Balch's pledge was revised by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, into a version fairly similar to what is said today.
"I pledge Allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
While Bellamy's version omits any mention of God, it had its own special problem. Bellamy recommended that his pledge be recited while performing the Bellamy Salute. It began with the right hand outstretched toward the flag, palm down and ended with the palm up. With the rise of the Nazi party, Congress made the obvious move in 1942 and replaced the Bellamy Salute with a hand over the heart.
Children performing the Bellamy Salute in 1941 |
Also in 1942, the West Virginia Board of Education made it a requirement for school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance while saluting the flag. Failure to do so would result in expulsion, with parents liable for a fine up to $50 and jailed up to 30 days. While most families in West Virginia complied with this requirement, it created a major problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their strict interpretation of the bible includes the belief that saluting and pledging allegiance to the flag violated God’s command against worshiping graven images.
After a number of Jehovah Witness children had been expelled, one of the families challenged West Virginia's requirement and filed suit against the Board of Education. In West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, the Supreme Court unambiguously stated that the Board's compulsory recitation and salute of the flag was a violation of the student's free speech.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Despite this warning from the Supreme Court against forcing citizens to profess an act of faith against their will, the board of directors of the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization) adopted a resolution in 1951 to add "under God" into their recitation of the Pledge. Again, this was in direct response to the fears of many Americans during the Cold War of "godless communism". In 1953, congressman Louis Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a bill to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. As with the national motto, President Eisenhower was completely on board with Rabaut's bill. As he signed the bill into law on June 14, 1954, Eisenhower issued a statement that began as follows:
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this re-dedication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country's true meaning."
It's difficult to understand why Rabaut's bill isn't seen as a violation of the Court's decision in Barnette. The bill endorses a specific religious belief (a single deity) and incorporates this belief into the Pledge of Allegiance, an oath that all citizens of the U.S. are expected to recite regularly. While the belief in a single deity aligns with Judeo-Christian religions, many other religions hold different beliefs. Indeed, many other people don't believe in a God at all. Per Martha Nussbaum, Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, forcing these individuals to affirm that the United States was created "under God” is tantamount to forcing Jehovah Witnesses to give the Bellamy Salute. She further states:
"What, however, about the timid child, or the child who has reasonable worries about stigma and peer pressure? The history of the pledge and of the related school prayer issue makes it obvious that non-participation often comes at a cost. If Ellory Schempp was greeted with outright persecution for reading from the Quran, we can expect that children who refuse to say the pledge—whether they stand in silence, sit, or leave the classroom—will be courting the hostility of teachers, administrators, and, perhaps most clearly, their fellow students. The whole point of the pledge, in the mind of its original supporters, was to put all Americans on record as supporting patriotism, and to inculcate the value of patriotism by a daily required exercise in the schools. From the point of view of these concerns, the non-participating child is bound to look at the very least weird and not fully American, at the worst subversive and threatening."
Proponents of the new Pledge point to the 1952 ruling by the Supreme Court in Zorach v. Clauson which ruled that the First Amendment couldn't possibly require a complete separation of Church and State because, if it did:
"Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment."
All of this seems quite a bit far-fetched. Would it really be that difficult to remove references to God in our government? Would police, fire and first aid personnel really be prevented from performing their duties at a house of worship? No matter. If there are, indeed, legitimate concerns, I an in total agreement with the conclusion reached by Martha Nussbaum:
"There are traditional references to religion in our public life that should not be pruned away and that pose no constitutional problem. It is extremely doubtful, however, that the pledge, in its current form, is among them."
Paul this is somewhat above my pay grade. My view is that the govt deserves to support of their citizens . The pledge is only a statement of their commitment to support the government and the country. am not a wordsmith but a technician and Engineer who has a shallow understanding of the constitution, I would need to discuss this at a later date say the Mullen reunion in January around the dining room table With a glass os lubricant to help things along
ReplyDeleteGod is everywhere…
ReplyDeleteFor all those who studied Latin, above the unfinished pyramid and seeing eye capstone - ANNUIT COEPTIS, means "God has favored our undertaking.”
How many God’s are on this Bill?
Is this monotheism or polytheism?
Do the three sides of the pyramid represent the Holy Trinity?
Why not just a shamrock?
☘️
These are the questions…
Mike