Judge ignores reality in IGWT motto case

U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. handed down an incredibly Christian Right themed decision in a New York case challenging the inscription of "In God We Trust" on our currency and coins.

In dismissing Newdow v. United States (N.D. N.Y., September 9, 2013), Judge Baer noted that the Supreme Court and four circuit courts have "assumed the motto's secular purpose and effect." And that's the problem.

First, the Supreme Court has never held on the merits that the "In God We Trust" on our currency or coins (or "under God" in the Pledge) is constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Second, the cases that Judge Baer cites in support of his opinion employ historical revisionism. The IGWT motto (and "under God" in the Pledge") legislation was promoted in the 1950s (during the Second Red Scare) by the Christian Right to put government's imprimatur of god-belief through the use of our motto (and the Pledge of Allegiance).

Judge Baer's decision references typical (and not so typical) secular purposes of "the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society." (Citing Justice O'Conner's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly.)

Make no mistake about it: these are all sham secular purposes. The IGWT motto has but one purpose -- it's a backdoor approach by the Christian Right to subvert our secular Constitution by turning our country into a Christian Nation. (American Christian fundamentalism has striking parallels to fundamentalist Islam of the Middle East.)

There are many truly secular ways of solemnizing our currency, such as, using the "E pluribus unum" ("Out of many, one") that is on the Seal of the United States.

Does IGWT express confidence in the future? This is too ridiculous a purpose to elaborate upon.

And what does IGWT recognize as "worthy of appreciation" -- but God (to the Christian Right)! Clearly, to a reasonable, objective observer, "In God We Trust" is totally a religious expression with no redeeming secular value. I would also note that more than twenty percent of Americans do not trust (or believe) in the Judeo-Christian god.

Third, Judge Baer also lists "ceremonial deism" as a reason for his holding. The term was coined in 1962 by Eugene Rostow, then dean of Yale Law School. Although used the Supreme Court since 1984 as a justification for exempting various religious acts by government from the prohibitions of the First Amendment, it is a legal fiction that has no rational basis in the Constitution. Indeed, there is not a single reference to "God" in the Constitution.

Accordingly, from the same set of facts as before the court in Newdow, it is clear to me that the legislation directing the inscription of "In God We Trust" on our currency had a singularly religious purpose and its principal or primary effect has been to advance Christianity. In addition, because we use currency and coins daily in our financial affairs, I would also argue that the inscription of IGWT on our currency and coins excessively entangles government in religion. (NOTE: The plaintiffs in Newdow did not make the latter argument.)

In my opinion, IGWT as an official motto and its inscription on our currency and coins violates all three prongs of the Lemon test and, therefore, its use should be declared by the courts as unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.