Return to Home
 
  Freedom Line
   


 


 

 

 

"IN GOD WE TRUST" IN THE CLASSROOM
National Motto or Violation of the First Amendment?

By Stan Morris, Esq.

Mississippi has passed a law mandating that the phrase "In God We Trust" be displayed in every classroom in the state. As a national motto, we find this phrase on our money and other places throughout the nation. This slogan has been recognized as constitutional when used by the federal government. The latest rendition of that opinion by the United States Supreme Court was in 1989 in the case of Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, in which Justice Blackmun recognized the motto as being part of our national psyche. There is even some thought that the motto has lost religious meaning. Certainly Justice Blackmun, writing in Engle v. Vitale, a U.S. Supreme Court case which proscribed state endorsed prayer in public schools, believed that the motto was not an advancement of religion. The test has become whether or not the questioned activity is demonstrating a neutral attitude.

The case that set the parameters for analyzing whether a statute is constitutional is Lemon v. Kurtzman. In that case the Supreme Court set out what has become known as the Lemon test, which asked whether a statute (1) has a secular purpose, (2) has a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or (3) creates an excessive entanglement between government and religion. Statutes and policies not meeting this test will be struck down.

In spite of these rulings, there is constant pressure across the country to impart religious materials to public school students. In 2000, the Colorado State Board of Education tried, by a non-binding vote of 5-1, to have "In God We Trust" signs placed in all classrooms across the state. An election, which changed the composition of the board, quashed that effort. Other states besides Colorado and Mississippi have proposed such bills at various times.

In July of 2000, a few congressmen tried to require that the motto be displayed in all public buildings throughout the country. Public buildings would presumably include public schools.

The motto originated during the Civil War when the United States Treasury had it placed on U.S. coinage. It was not mandatory on U. S. currency until 1908 when it was applied to all U.S. coins. In 1955, the Congress made the phrase mandatory on all coins and paper currency. It was finally made the national motto in 1956. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on its constitutionality although it had the opportunity to do so several years ago.

Why then should there be uproar when the Mississippi legislature adopts the motto and directs that it hang in school classrooms across the state? An analysis of the state statute will help as well as some history. As introduced in the 2001 regular session of the Mississippi State Senate, Senate Bill 2576 provides that administrators, teachers or boards of education may post historical or cultural material regardless of whether or not such material contained religious information.

The other section of the statute requires a plaque, containing the words "In God We Trust." This plaque shall be at least eleven inches by fourteen inches and be placed in every public classroom, school cafeteria and auditorium in the state. A classroom is defined as any room where instruction takes place.

The provision mandates the plaque without regard to context. Many places are amenable to the national motto. A coin going into the slot machine at a casino spreads its message as much as if it buys a school lunch or is placed in a collection plate. In that respect, the motto has become meaningless. However, contrary to holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court, reference to religion can be made in the public schools only as long as there is some secular purpose advanced as opposed to a purely religious one.

The Mississippi statute more closely resembles the "one minute of silent reflection" statute that was invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1985 when it decided the case of Wallace v. Jaffee. There the students were called upon to participate in a minute of "meditation and silent prayer." The Supreme Court put that statute in the same category as "a state religion." The opinion asks that someone looking at a statute attempt to determine "whether government's actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion."

In similar circumstances, the recent case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe announced that the Establishment Clause prohibited the prayers of students before football games in this small Texas school district. In that case, the school official claimed that the microphone was available to students who were chosen by other students to speak on matters of concern such as an invocation. The school policy made it clear that the official sanction of the school district was part and parcel of the selection of student speakers who could be relied upon to deliver an "appropriate" message. The U.S. Supreme Court held this to be government sponsored prayer.

Mississippi’s challenge to the history of the Supreme Court’s decisions is in section 1 of the statute, specifically: "There shall be no content-based censorship of American or Mississippi History, heritage or culture based on any religious references contained in such documents, writings or records." The Legislature is in effect saying that this bill is a religious mandate and the courts should not restrain the citizenry.

As reported by the Associated Press, on March 23, 2001, the Governor of the state, Ronnie Musgrove, said at a press conference: "Our nation was founded as a godly nation and we put it on our money, 'In God We Trust.’" Musgrove signed the bill despite the threat of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a similar vein, an editorial in support of the Mississippi statute was posted on the Internet from an attorney, Kelly Coghlan, in Houston. Mr. Coghlan claims that the U.S. Supreme Court has not barred any prayer in schools. That thought is true enough as long as one thinks of the old cliché that "there will be prayer in schools as long as there are math tests."

Recently, there has been some rethinking of what is and what is not an establishment of religion, notably in the area of state assistance for special education and for disabled students attending parochial schools. This trend has been noted in Agostini v. Felton in 1997 and earlier in Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District in 1993. This direction is a clear reversal of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Twp. A local school district had provided transportation by school bus to local Roman Catholic parochial school students. The Court decided that no state funds could be used to aid parochial education. It was one of the first cases to use the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," and it started a long trend to remove any support for religious practices and ideas from the public schools.

From these cases it can be seen that aid to religious organizations and state prescribed prayer can be distinguished. Indeed the Supreme Court may be counted on to continue the differentiation. The president in his acceptance speech at the Republican Party convention makes the point, "Yet government can take the side of these [faith-based] groups, helping the helper, encouraging the inspired." This expression is not a call for prayer in schools but aid to religious organizations in their secular concerns.

The distinction between this call and Mississippi’s call to confront the idea of religion in the schools and impose that idea on all who are there is a much different proposal. Mississippi’s challenge is, in all likelihood, going to be struck down.


Stan Morris is a trial and appellate attorney with significant experience arguing, researching and writing on a wide range of constitutional and other legal issues. Based in Cortez, Colorado, Mr. Morris also is a skilled presenter on free speech and communication media. For more information, please e-mail him at [email protected]


http://laws.findlaw.com/us/492/573.html
ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/370/421.html
Engle v. Vitale

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/403/602.html
Lemon v. Kurtzman

http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00b/20000717b.htm
Colorado efforts

http://www.house.gov/pickering/pressjuly24-00.htm
Congressional efforts.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/motto.htm
history

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-62.html
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html
Lee v. Weisman

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html
Wallace v. Jaffree

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-552.html
Agostini v. Felton

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/509/1.html
Zobrest v. Catalina Hills School District.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Twp.

http://www.georgebush.com/News.asp?FormMode+SP
Geo.W. Bush 3 Aug 2000


Return to Freedom Line Archive