SCOTUS Makes BIG Decision In Case Involving Atheists’ Wanting ‘In God We Trust’ Taken Off Currency

SCOTUS Makes BIG Decision In Case Involving Atheists’ Wanting ‘In God We Trust’ Taken Off Currency

Did you know that the phrase “under God” has been a part of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance since the 1950s?

Did you know that the history of the phrase “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins goes back to the days of the Civil War?

Religious or not, they are a part of our country’s history and serve to remind of of our present and our past.

None of this apparently matters to atheist attorney Michael Newdow, however, who sees our country’s Christian heritage as a burden on his back.

As reported by the New York Post:

The Supreme Court rejected an atheist case Monday to remove “In God We Trust,” the national motto, from all coins and currency from the Department of Treasury.

Michael Newdow, the same activist attorney who tried to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his case, arguing Congress’ mandate to inscribe “In God We Trust” on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment.

Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their “sincere religious belief” that there is no God and turned them into “political outsiders” by placing the phrase “In God We Trust” on their money.

While it’s true that the 1st Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the SCOTUS didn’t feel that the motto was in violation and completely dismissed the case without even feeling the need to explain why.

Take that.

As reported by the Epoch Times:

The Supreme Court did not give a reason for its rejection of the case.

Back in August 2018, Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the atheists’s appeal, ruling that the printing of “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency is constitutional, citing its longstanding use and saying it was not coercive.

Gruender also said that it also did not constitute an establishment of religion under a 2014 Supreme Court decision requiring a review of “historical practices.”

Moreover, the judge said the Constitution lets the government celebrate “our tradition of religious freedom,” and that putting the motto on currency “comports with early understandings of the Establishment Clause” without compelling religious observance.

Popular Post