After advancing in the Pledge dispute, he attacked "In God We Trust". On Friday, November 18, 2005 the headlines read "Newdow Sues to Remove In God We Trust." (CNN). Five days prior to this claim, Newdow attempted to remove the motto from a North Carolina government building, on the same grounds as the other cases. When this was turned down, he attacked the national motto as a whole. Newdow has currently filed a 162-page claim against the government for unconstitutionally endorsing religion. In the suit he requests that the Motto becomes secular by returning to the pre-1955 version. This way the National Motto would become religiously neutral. He also requests that "In God We trust" be removed from all currency because it expresses the government's endorsement of religion.
An example of the problems I personally faced due to the religious endorsement goes back to when I was in tenth grade. It was then that I realized the optional Pledge could not be a sufficient solution. I choose not to say the optional Pledge during homeroom in school. I believe that the government is infringing upon my freedom from religion. My homeroom teacher made a big argument in front of the class saying I'm "unpatriotic" and asked if I'd like to get sent to Afghanistan to the war. I was puzzled. Just because I don't believe the government should decide my religion for me, and I choose to express my feelings the way I am legally allowed, they'd send me to war? My teacher was trying to set me apart from the rest of the class for choosing not to participate in an optional recitation of the Pledge.
During my next class I was paged to her classroom to discuss what had happened. She rudely demanded that I apologize for my actions, and I refused with dignity. I do not think it is right for a student at such an impressionable age to be subjected to such separation. I was trying to express that representing and endorsing religion is in violation of my rights as a student. It also became apparent to me that "In God We trust" was lacking in its purpose to represent America. The government is undoubtedly establishing religion when saying we all trust in "God" because it points directly to Christianity. America is made up of twenty or more religions and not all of them believe in "God." America is made up of a variety of people of different religions; we should be able to unify everyone whether they believe in "God" or not.
The disapproval of the present Pledge and Motto is present throughout America. While researching, I came across an internet blog entry by Ken Harding that expressed strong reasons for why the use of "God" to represent all of its citizens was unconstitutional. Without even reading the article, the title, "GODBLESS AMERICA" says it all. Harding emphasizes that the separation of state and church by supporting any personal representation of religion. But when Congress categorizes all Americans into Christianity, that is where the line is drawn (Harding). He later adds that if the tables were turned, that is, the national motto would be "There is no god" (Harding) and that it would also be found on all currency, the "Christians wouldn't stand for it" (Harding). Harding concludes that religious beliefs are the relationships an individual has with his "God" or leader.
To support the argument against religion in our motto and pledge, you can look at the reasons for changing the Pledge and Motto during the 50's. In signing the 1954 law adding "under god" to the Pledge, President Dwight Eisenhower stated "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." ("QuotesDB"). This clearly displays religious motives. Eisenhower also backed his decision to add the phrase to the pledge by commenting:
In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war. ("The story of the pledge of allegiance")
Eisenhower's decisions were also based on pressures from the Nights of Columbus's religious leaders (San Francisco). To further disprove the Supreme Court's decisions, they argue constitutionality of the references to "God" because they undoubtedly serve a traditional purpose rather than religious. Since the definition of "God" is "a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions ("God")," an establishment of Judeo-Christianity exists. Based on these decisions of similar cases regarding religion, the Pledge and National Motto be considered for unconstitutionality. After all, they do refer to "God", the religious figure, and have clear religious motives for their alterations.
When congress represents only "God" in our national motto and pledge of allegiance, it clearly goes against what Jefferson established. Congress and the Supreme Court must remove "In God We Trust" and "under god" from the US code and replace them with religiously neutral alternatives so they can represent everybody equally. By no means should they establish anti-religion, so the religiously neutral, pre cold war era versions of both the Pledge and Motto would suffice. Although it is claimed that we were founded on Christian morals, the writer of the Constitution was Deist. In addition, there is no way to prove that a majority of America was Christian. When the Constitution was founded, the number of people that were recorded Christian could differ from the actual number of Christians. Just like the modern homosexuals emerging into society, people would be shamed upon for not believing in "God" until society accepts it. A religiously neutral motto and pledge could satisfy the religious and non-religious sides and combine America as a whole, rather then separate it. Just making them optional to recite is not the answer.
To add to the argument, the reason most immigrants came to America was to escape the fundamentalist Church of England. The principles of religious freedom should be enough to remove the references to "God" in our national motto and stating we are "one nation under god" in our pledge. Then all citizens can be fairly represented and government would not be establishing religion. The unconstitutionality of "In God We Trust" and the phrase "... one nation under god..." should be considered unconstitutional based on the aforementioned facts and previous court decisions surrounding related issues. In a reply email I received from Mr. Newdow he left me with the words, "Truth is not measured by the number or position of those who tell you you're wrong" (Newdow). That statement should help others understand that it is not religion that's wrong, but Congress and the Supreme Court's decisions to uphold "In God We Trust" and "one nation under god." The pre-1950 versions of both would be the best alternatives, and hopefully Congress can neutrally represent America, Land of the free.
