Civic References to God: Unconstitutional

In America, there is a myriad of people, each with their own ethnicity, background, religion, and beliefs. When America’s forefathers created the Constitution, they designed it to respect the individual beliefs of citizens by having “separation of Church and State.” However, throughout United States history, references to God have been placed throughout the civic system, and many Americans, particularly those who are agnostics and atheists, are uncomfortable with the use of these religious references in their country’s official motto and currency as well as the Pledge of Allegiance. Since it would not infringe on the rights of believers while also fully respecting the liberties of nonbelievers, all civic references to God should be abolished.

The meaning of the expression “separation of Church and State” has been discussed ever since its establishment. The concept is found in the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (qtd. in Vile 193). This statement affirms that, while the government is not allowed to pass any laws that only respect one or more particular religions, citizens are still able to practice their personal religion. However, the United States government has violated this amendment by adopting “In God We Trust” as its official motto, printing it on American currency, and writing God into the Pledge of Allegiance. The intent of separation of Church and State confirms that these references are unconstitutional.

There are some supporters of civic references to God who claim that the United States’ forefathers had the intention of establishing it as a Christian country because of the references to God in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration, however, was one of the biggest advocaters of the separation of Church and State (Sherrow 32). While the Declaration of Independence does contain several references to a higher power, the Declaration itself is an explanation of the grievances by King George III and reasons why the thirteen colonies had rights to secede from Great Britain (Lucas). Jefferson referenced God in the document because not only was God’s will for humanity a part of his own reasoning, but because King George III could understand it as well. This personalizes the Declaration of Independence to be a reference to events between the people of that time (Lucas); therefore, the Declaration is completely irrelevant to the matter. Jefferson and the other founders may have had their own religious beliefs, but their beliefs did not represent those of all Americans at that time and most certainly not those of the future. The Declaration of Independence proves that the beliefs of the forefathers are unrelated to the current issue.

Two other documents that oppose the claim that the forefathers had religious intentions are the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli. Throughout the entire Constitution, there is not a single reference to a God or deity (Vile 200). If the American founders had an intention of making the U.S. a Christian country, would they not have formally recognized the Christian God in the document? Also, the single most important vision that the forefathers had of their new country was the fact that it was to be a democracy, not a theocracy (Gelernter n.p.). Another document that confirms the forefathers’ intentions is the The Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate with John Adams’ signature in 1797 (Buckner n.p.). The treaty promised money and other considerations to Tripoli and modern-day Libya in exchange for peace. Article 11 of the document stated that: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” (Buckner n.p.). This not only affirmed that the U.S. would never declare war on Tripoli because of religious differences, but it also officially stated the original intentions the forefathers had when the country was established. Moreover, there is no historical evidence that there was any debate or dispute among the Senate or even the public about Article 11 (Buckner n.p.). Therefore, the forefathers had intentions of creating a secular civic system.

Many atheists feel that the civic references to God impose religious beliefs; however, some believers argue that by removing the references, it would impose atheism. Samuel Huntington, professor at Harvard University and political scientist, explains that atheists do not have the right to force their beliefs on others; however, taking out the references to God would not be suggesting atheism. For example, if it were proposed to replace “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “not under a God,” then it would be implying atheism. If a stance of neutrality is taken, nothing can be suggested and no misconceptions can be made because no religious or nonreligious beliefs will be acknowledged.

One court case attacking the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was Newdow vs. Congress in 2002. An atheist named Michael Newdow approached the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals declaring that having “under God” in the Pledge was unconstitutional (Vile 200). The Court agreed with him, stating that it made nonbelievers feel like outsiders (“Lawmakers”). When the case reached the Supreme Court, they ruled against the removal of “under God,” but, according to Charles Lane, a journalist who covers the Supreme Court for the Washington Post, five of the eight participating judges ruled against it only because Newdow did not have legal standing to sue (A01). This proves that the Supreme Court judges still believed that it was unconstitutional. If he did have legal standing, “under God” would have been rightfully removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

There are many outdated reasons for why there are civic references to God. “Under God” was not originally written into the Pledge (“Lawmakers”), and “In God We Trust” was not always on U.S. currency or the national motto (“Fact”). Both references were added during times of increased religious sentiment throughout the country, with “In God We Trust” first appearing on currency during the Civil War and “under God” placed into the Pledge during the Cold War (“Lawmakers”; “Fact”). The Cold War and its accompanying period of McCarthyism was especially responsible for a rising fear of atheistic communism, and many religious Americans, including those in Congress, felt united as a community by having civic references to God (“Lawmakers”). However, even though they felt this way, it does not automatically mean that civic references to God are constitutional. Overall, perceived threats to American security led to a new interpretation of democracy and civil liberty to ultimately violate the Constitution.

The main figure responsible for adopting the existing civic references to God was President Dwight E. Eisenhower. In 1954, during the Cold War, he signed the act that added “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance (“Lawmakers”). According to CNN. com, after he signed it, he stated: “From this day forward, millions of our school children will daily proclaim...the dedication of our Nation to the Almighty” (“Lawmakers”). This demonstrates that Eisenhower had a religious intent when writing “under God” into the Pledge. Two years later, in 1956, Eisenhower officially added “In God We Trust” to all American currency and proclaimed it to be the official United States motto (“Fact”). Because of the increased religious sentiment during his presidential term, Eisenhower’s religious intentions seemed reasonable when, in reality, the acts he passed were unconstitutional.

The one law that deems all legislative laws and actions with religious purposes to be unconstitutional is the Lemon Test. Passed in 1971, this law states that “to pass constitutional muster, a law must have a secular legislative purpose; must not, as its primary effect, either advance or inhibit religion, and must avoid excessive entanglement between Church and State” (qtd. in Vile 199). It helps the judicial system decide if a proposed or existing law is constitutional by further explaining the separation of Church and State. The laws established in the 1950s by Eisenhower do not have a secular legislative purpose because he passed them with religious intent; therefore, they violate the Lemon Test. All laws and acts that would add new civic references to God would also be unconstitutional for this reason.

References to God in the American civic system disrespect the rights of atheists and monotheistic nonbelievers and, therefore, such references violate the Constitution that the American forefathers established. Documented historical and current evidence state the reasons, and American citizens and their government should not ignore this any longer if they wish to be true to the intent and definition of democracy. If civic references to God are removed, it will not be infringing on the rights of believers to practice their religion while respecting all beliefs of a diverse American citizenship. Once this is accomplished, the American civic system will completely honor the freedoms and liberties that it has guaranteed since its forefathers founded the nation.