Religion has nothing to do with it - Uhm,,, yes it does

People see “In God We Trust” on currency, so why not display the words in Pennsylvania schools?

A Republican lawmaker's proposal to do just that is likely to touch off fierce debates within communities and courtrooms.

Education officials and others question the need for the bill authored by Rep. Rick Saccone of Elizabeth Township that would require school districts to post the phrase — America's national motto — within 60 days of passage.

Ignoring the religious overtones for the moment, I think Mr Saccone needs to rethink his priorities in regards to what is important.  People are homeless, schools are woefully understaffed/under funded and hunger is rampant among the children at these schools but yet, “,,,[t]his is what he's spending his day doing? He needs to find more useful legislation. I would hope he's finding ways to solve funding problems facing public schools. That's what the people elected him to do.” 

Now there's a concept, "what the people elected him to do."  Something that has escaped Mr Saccone since early 2012 when he began trying to legislate "his" religious belief for all of us:

• January 2012, sponsored House Resolution 535 to proclaim it the “Year of the Bible.”
• May 2012, supported House Resolution 609 recognizing May 3 as the “National Day of Prayer.”
• April 2013, sponsored House Resolution 17 recognizing April 30, 2013 as “National Fast Day.” A that stated we owed our dependence “upon the overruling power of God” and that the only nations that are blessed were the ones “whose God is the Lord.”
• Oct 2013, set to propose National Motto Display Act

As with all of Saccone's previous legislative efforts, there are problems with this one as well, as Justin Vacula of NEPA Freethought Society Podcast points out [1]:

Public schools which ought to be secular — neutral in regards to religion — will be forced to prominently display religious messages if Saccone’s proposal is passed. Students will undoubtedly receive the message that belief in God — particularly the Christian god — is patriotic and the false message that the United States is a ‘Christian nation.’

[,,,]
but what about those who do not ‘trust [the Christian] God’ whether they are atheists, agnostics, Unitarian Universalists, pagans, secular Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or people of other religious traditions? Rick Saccone has a response in his video:

“No matter what god you serve or if you serve no god at all, “In God We Trust” is still our national motto.”

In other words, the faith of a particular subset of Americans should be memorialized on coinage and public schools ought to take part in the fusion of patriotism and Christianity.

[,,,]
I wonder if Saccone would want public schools to talk about the secular history of the United States including founding fathers who believed in a deistic god – a ‘god of nature’ who designed the universe but was not active in human affairs. Saccone’s “traditional values” — whatever they might be — and conflation of patriotism with Christianity ignores the contributions of secular Americans who “made our country a nation like no other.”  [Emphasis mine]

Holding that thought for a moment, let's take a look at these two statements from the article:

"Religion has nothing to do with it, Saccone said. He wants to honor the 150th anniversary of having “In God We Trust” stamped on coins."

VS

“I think it's a great idea. Back in the 1800s, Congress approved it to put on money. We need to be reminded to put our trust in God in good times and not just in bad times,” said Tracy Johnston Caruso, 44, of Elizabeth Township, the president of Central Elementary School PTO. [Emphasis mine]

Actually Mr Saccone, to some individuals, it has everything to do with religion and I am concerned as to what "history" you want taught.  Your lack of forethought concerning the legal ramifications and cost to taxpayers in this matter is very Bartonesque (maybe Chris Rodda, author of Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, Vol. 1could confirm or deny this point for me.)

"In God We Trust" is so woven into the American fabric that it is impossible to hear the phrase without stirring feelings of pride and allegiance to our country," Saccone said in a statement earlier this month. "Our youth need to hear the story of our heritage and learn from positive role models in a time of decaying values. The story of our national motto is a positive story and one that is uniquely Pennsylvanian.[Emphasis mine]

While I do agree there is a unique Pennsylvania twist, what Saccone "fails" to mention, the strict religious impetus behind the inclusion and adoption of "In God We Trust."  It reeks of an extreme Christian patriotism that is still prevalent today; a point that Vacula strongly suggests as well. As with Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va., 2011), who incorrectly opined,

[t]o understand the significance of undermining the motto, it is important to first understand our nation's rich spiritual history. The Founders acknowledged our nation's trust in God in our foundational document, the Declaration of Independence,,, [Emphasis mine]

Saccone seems to think that there is yet a crisis of national identity, confusion among Americans about their nation’s motto.  I will wager that the ideology (Christian Revisionist history put forth by David Barton) that forced Forbes into his erroneous statement also rules the mind of Saccone.  I will also wager that neither Forbes nor Saccone "know," or understand, the history behind the phrase beyond what fits into their personal or political agendas.

It is commonly held, that the Declaration of Independence is NOT a “foundational document” of the United States; it has no legal authority.  The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation; it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or us.  The sole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to dissolve the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.   End of story!!

Daulton Dickey in his write up, "Does the Declaration of Independence Establish America as a Christian Nation?" explains it quite well:

When considering the “Founding Fathers” or the Declaration of Independence, you should keep in mind that this is a political paper—not a legal document. The differences are not minor: one is a logically structured instrument, sometimes used to appeal to the emotions of the masses, to the so-called ‘herd instinct,’ or to political opponents, while assuming the form of a logical argument; the other is a logical argument composed entirely of neutral language, ratified and codified only if it doesn’t conflict with existing laws.

The Declaration of Independence doesn’t possess the force of law. To note an example, the phrase, “all men are created equal” is a powerful statement, but in the United States it cannot be cited as legal precedence. Judges can’t cite this phrase by itself to support a ruling. Politicians can’t pass laws by employing a legal argument supported solely by this passage.

That’s not to suggest that lawyers or legislators, public orators or politicians don’t cite this passage—many do; but when they cite it, they’re doing it for demagogic reasons: they’re appealing to the emotions when citing that, or similar passages, from the Declaration of Independence.

But by law, it can’t be cited as legal precedent. Judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, can and do cite these passages when attempting to discern the ‘intentions’ of the ‘framers of the constitution,’ but they can’t cite these passages as themselves establishing rights. In some cases, legal problems may be so obscure or outside what has been anticipated that Judges sometimes consult a wide range of evidence meant to establish the intentions of those who wrote laws. From this pool of evidence, they attempt to infer a conclusion to the argument they’re obligated to form. [Emphasis mine]

A second point that Dickey points out, neither "religion" nor Christianity, or what passes for Christianity today, is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The men who signed the Declaration adhered to different sects, understanding Christianity—and Christian doctrines—in profoundly different ways. Among those who scribbled their names, exegetical opinions varied; that they agreed on broad themes of Christianity probably wouldn’t have tempered heated arguments had they attempted to base a political system on explicitly Christian values.

That being the case, it is difficult to argue that any religious principles guided, or should guide our government. Our rights do not come from the Christian "God" they come from the Constitution.  Furthermore, the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”  none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution. 

“Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.”   No where in the Declaration of Independence is '"the" Christian "God" of today's fundamental evangelicals mentioned.  Despite the claims of Barton, and his merry band of followers, to the contrary, Thomas Jefferson was a deist, influenced by Enlightenment thinking and opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural. 

Again referring to Dickey:

If we turn our attention to the religious language used in the Declaration, we can discern an interesting pattern. Of the approximately 1400-words in the document, only a handful were dedicated to religious ideas,,,

This broad language designed to appeal to people of all denominations and religious affiliations, included in the document for rhetorical purposes—to establish moral sanctions for independence and appeal to the emotions of the people, some of whom professed allegiance to non-Christian theologies such as Judaism.

But here is what I find interesting about Dickey's analysis, a point I never considered before,

It’s worth noting that although the arguments employed in the Declaration draw on religious language, the list of grievances designed to criticize King George III’s political policies toward the colonies do not mention religion.

The absence of politico-religious grievances in the document invites several conclusions, of which we’ll focus on two,,,(2), the absence of politico-religious grievances articulated a reasoned approach to politics and religion,,,

In short, a distinction between what we’d call church and state is implicitly drawn by relegating religious language entirely to emotional appeals. This distinction, it seems, is largely overlooked in discourse on the religiosity of the Declaration of Independence. [Emphasis mine]

And so ends the idea that "Founders acknowledged our nation's trust in God in our foundational document, the Declaration of Independence,,, "  (Dickey, in his article goes into more detail discussing Article IV and its role in establishing the Constitution and satellite documents and agreements, as “the supreme Law of the Land.")

Now you may be wondering why this mini history lesson.  What does The Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution)  have to do with "In God We Trust" and Saccone's push to display the motto in schools?  Remember, "Religion has nothing to do with it, Saccone said. He wants to honor the 150th anniversary of having “In God We Trust” stamped on coins." 

Well it's not quite that simple.  It was not the Founding Fathers who established “In God We Trust” as a motto of the United States. The phrase can be traced to the minting of the two-cent coin in 1864 in large part thanks to the joint efforts of a Pennsylvania minister, a “Christian nation” advocate, and a wishy-washy U.S. treasury secretary. 

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania,,,

We will deal with that in our next post though,,,

"As a matter of observation, accepting Barton's conclusions about church and state refutes just about every secular and religious universities' conclusions about American history. It is as if everyone else got it wrong, but Barton alone discovered the real truth of American's Christian heritage."