The Wrong Within “In God We Trust”
May 17, 2005, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it is constitutional to post “In God We Trust” in a courtroom. In doing so, the Court held that a portion of the Lemon Test -- that portion which says that a law is unconstitutional if motivated by a desire to establish a religion -- is a “low hurdle” that will block a law if that law is “ entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion.”
A low hurdle indeed. It is a test that no theocratic law could fail to pass. At the very least, those who seek to enact theocratic laws argue that it is necessary to boost the moral character of its citizens. Since this is not a purely religious objective, the establishment of a national religion itself could not be deemed unconstitutional on this test.
However, it is not my purpose to discuss the constitutionality of this issue. I am concerned with its moral quality, and the moral character of those who would support “In God We Trust” as our national motto.
"We" versus "They"
It is not only the word “God” that makes this motto problematic. It is the word “We”.
If “We” (or “US”) refers to those who trust in God, then those who do not trust in God must fit under the category of “They” (or “Them”).
“We” versus “They”.
“US” versus “Them”
This motto asserts that there are two classes of people in this society. There is an “US” group -- an included and accepted group -- that share one thing in common, which is a trust in God. It also says that there must be a “Them” group — an alienated group that is to be neither welcomed nor accepted — a group of people who share one thing in common, which is that they do not trust in God.
Making this the nation's motto is a way of saying that there is nothing more important in this country -- no greater ideal, no cause more worth fighting for and dying for -- then that of dividing populations into groups of “us” and “them” based on religious belief.
Freedom. Tolerance. Kindness. Peace. All of these possible sources of national pride are made subservient to the one principle that rules them all — the supreme principle of dividing populations up between “us” and “them” on religious grounds. This is the lord of all the other rules.
Is this really what America stands for?
Is it really what America should stand for?
Do our friends and family fight and die (and maim and kill), first and foremost, for the sake of dividing peaceful neighbors into groups of “US” and “Them” based, not on the harm they do, but merely on their beliefs?
Trust In God
I imagine that some would seek to characterize this argument as saying that trusting in God is a bad thing — that this article criticizes “trust in God”.
That would be so far from the truth that it must be seen as a rationalization, an excuse being grasped by a mind that is determined not to let go of its prejudice.
The person who should post “I trust in God” has done nothing wrong. He has done that which he has every right to do, and which it would be wrong for any fellow citizen to prevent.
However, I am not talking about a person sincerely asserting his own belief. I am talking about a government that divides its citizens into groups of “We” and “They”. I am talking about a government that tells its citizens, “Either you share this belief, our you are not fit to be counted as one of us.”
The Issue of Harm
No decent person can support such a motto.
A decent person is a person who tires to get along with his fellow human being, as long as those fellow human beings are themselves peaceful. He does not judge his neighbor according to his neighborr’s religion. He judges his neighbor according to a willingness to contribute to the well-being of others, and judges harshly those who act to harm others.
Supporting such a motto counts as willingness to harm others. It may not break a neighbor’s leg or destroy his property to categorize him as one of “them”, in a context that suggests that “they” are not welcome. However, it does him harm nonetheless. It does him harm in the same way that spreading a rumor that the neighbor is a criminal would do him harm, when he is no criminal. The neighbor must still suffer the ill effects of the prejudice that this rumor will kindle, and that is to suffer harm.
In fact, this motto inflicts exactly the same sort of harm, because the message “This neighbor is not one of one of ‘us’ but one of ‘them’ — who must be thought of as being outside of the group of ‘us’” is no different than the message that the neighbor is a criminal — unclean, dangerous, un-American, not to be trusted.
Evidence of Wrongdoing
Virtually every ethical system in existence recognizes that a good rule-of-thumb test to determine if one acts morally or immorally is to ask, “How would I react if somebody did the same thing to me?”
So, ask, “How would I react if others were to support a policy of a national motto of ‘We Trust In No God?’” Assume that you are a peaceful citizen who is no threat to your neighbors, that you have children, that they attend public schools, that you may at any time be required to fight in a war or to participate in a trial, that you must use the nation’s money, and everywhere you look you find the motto, “We Trust In No God?”
Would you not feel that your neighbors have slighted and wronged you?
Would you not protest that the government has no right to put up such plaques, or post such mottos, or teach your children that true and welcome citizens embrace the slogan, “We Trust In No God?”, thereby denigrating and degrading any citizen or classmate who happens to trust in God?
If you would hold that it is wrong for other citizens to impose such a policy against you and your beliefs, then consistency demands accepting that you wrong your neighbor if you support such a policy against them.
This proof of wrongdoing means that it is quite appropriate to feel anger — ‘moral outrage’ would be a more legitimate term — against those who would harm and wrong their neighbors in this way.
A Fair and Just Government
Just law is distinguished from unjust law by its conformity to higher moral principles. One of those principles is the principle of equal respect due to all peaceful citizens. Government mottos that afford different levels of respect based on their beliefs about God stands squarely in violation of that principle.
There is injustice, not justice, in a law that divides its peaceful citizens into groups of “we” and “they” as this law does. The injustice is compounded when it makes this injustice against a segment of its population the national motto.
It compounds the injustice when the victims of this law are forced to send their children to a school, where teachers are assigned the task of indoctrinating them with the message that this group is not welcome here.
It compounds the injustice yet again when those wronged or harmed can not appear in court without facing a sign that says that they are a member of the excluded group of “they”, and must ask for justice from those who belong to the included group of “we”.
“In God We Trust” is not a motto for a fair and just society. The motto is no different in kind to the attitudes behind the crusades, inquisitions, 30 Years’ War, and the holocaust of the past. It is decidedly less severe than these other wrongs. However, it is reasonable to ask — and to fear — how much injustice we can eventually expect from a nation that has made injustice its national motto.
Merit
The question of whether a law is good or bad — just or unjust — is not a question of whether it is constitutional or not. Slavery was unjust long before it became unconstitutional. So, we cannot measure the merit of a law by its constitutionality. We can only measure its legitimacy, and that is a separate issue.
A national motto of “In God We Trust” is an unjust and unfair law, regardless of what any court may say. “E Pluribus Unum”, the motto that our founding fathers had agreed to before Congress changed it under McCarthyism in the 1950s (an era infamous for its abandonment of justice and reason), was a motto for a fair and just government belonging to a fair and just people. It was a motto to be proud of.
It did not denigrate and degrade any peaceful citizen, but openly committed the nation to the principle of treating justly and fairly all citizens who can live at peace with their neighbor. It was an ideal that we sometimes fell short of. Yet, that is the nature of ideals, that they are to be strived for. Never did we fall so far short as the day when we made injustice and the division of peaceful citizens into groups of “We” and “They” our new national slogan.
Should the opportunity arise for others to post a national motto of “We Trust in No God” on buildings and make it a national motto, I would require some very strong arguments before I could see any merit it belittling the beliefs in neighbors who do me no harm, and to make it a national slogan to do so.
Think of this when you see “In God We Trust” on a public building or a public document. Look at the word “We”, and recognize this motto for what it is. It is, as it was intended to be, a slap in the face of all who do not trust in God, regardless of how peaceful or honest or kind that person may be.
It is simply is not a fit motto for a fair and just country.