The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upholds "In God We Trust" on coins & curre

Goldbully · March 11, 2010 10:14AM

Is there hope for the 9th???

Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance
(AP) – 5 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected arguments by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the phrase violates the separation between church and state.

Newdow's previous lawsuit against the pledge in public schools reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. But the high court said he didn't have the legal standing to make the challenge on behalf of his daughter.

So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed a similar challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to their children being required to recite "under God."

In a separate ruling Thursday, the appeals court also upheld the use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on coins and currency.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Bloomberg

Leave my coins alone, Michael Newdow!!

ocon4008 · March 11, 2010 10:18AM

Thank God!

Aegis3 · March 11, 2010 10:26AM

Bravo to Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

clw54 · March 11, 2010 10:27AM

This dingleberry drives around looking for crosses on hilltops, then files suits.

DRUNNER · March 11, 2010 10:27AM

I see these types of kids in my sophomore English class. Frankly, there are times I actually call them out when they are too determined to draw attention to themselves for no reason. It usually shuts them down and we can progress with our instruction. Unfortunately, there are a few doctors and lawyers who never attended my English class and still need undue attention.

Drunner

Weiss · March 11, 2010 10:30AM

Hey, you can't win 'em all. We'll take it off eventually.

Barbercoin · March 11, 2010 10:33AM

Thanks for posting this news.....

I am pleased (and a bit surprised) that it didn't go the other way.

gsaguy · March 11, 2010 10:35AM

In Broccoli We Trust does have a better ring to it.

Weiss · March 11, 2010 10:36AM

<< In Broccoli We Trust does have a better ring to it. >>

I think they're about equally silly.

TwoSides2aCoin · March 11, 2010 10:36AM

It's a good motto, even if some are no longer part of a Christian nation.

clw54 · March 11, 2010 10:37AM

In Global Warming We Trust might please smoe people.

DieClash · March 11, 2010 10:38AM

Sounds like an "activist" Judge ruling to me.

P.S. Oh ye of little faith! Thou must rely upon an "activist" jurist to validate your faith?

Seems to me the true faithful don't need assurance from the Govmint, Justices or slogans on coins and in the Pledge of allegiance.

Somehow, I see people who chant "USA...USA...USA..." chanting to themselves "YOU GO JESUS!.

JMHO.

Cheers!

ocon4008 · March 11, 2010 10:40AM

<<Hey, you can't win 'em all. We'll take it off eventually. >>

I wish you luck, but if they could not get it throught the ninth I would not hold my breath. I hope I will not see this in my lifetime.

pakasmom · March 11, 2010 10:40AM

<< It's a good motto, even if some are no longer part of a Christian nation. >>

fastrudy · March 11, 2010 10:40AM

Oy Vey! Ven Vere Ve a Christian Nation?

DieClash · March 11, 2010 10:42AM

<< Oy Vey! Ven Vere Ve a Christian Nation? >>

Another victory for Jeebus!

Weiss · March 11, 2010 10:46AM

<< It's a good motto, even if some are no longer part of a Christian nation. >>

Huh. Well I'll take my place with the great Americans who lived before its use in the 1860s: Washington. Jefferson. Adams. Madison. Hamilton. They might have been rebels and trouble-makers. But I think they were pretty swell.

19Lyds · March 11, 2010 10:53AM

Which God would that be we're putting our Trust in?

Zeus?
Venus?
Mars?
Brahman?
Vishnu?
Allah?
Ra?
Isis?

I find nothing wrong with the motto whatsoever and fully understand that it is not directed at any one religion but in the freedon to choose whatever beliefs those that live in this country may feel the need for.

gsaguy · March 11, 2010 10:56AM

<< 

<< It's a good motto, even if some are no longer part of a Christian nation. >>

Huh. Well I'll take my place with the great Americans who lived before its use in the 1860s: Washington. Jefferson. Adams. Madison. Hamilton. They might have been rebels and trouble-makers. But I think they were pretty swell.

>>

You'd have been eaten alive back then.

TwoSides2aCoin · March 11, 2010 11:07AM

Excuse the use of the phrase "Christian nation" in a previous post. I didn't mean to imply that the motto was an inference to Christ only, as fellow Americans are concerned.
We, as a nation of people are free, like Lee says... "to choose".
People tying up the courts with this stuff really need a better life.

dbldie55 · March 11, 2010 11:17AM

<< People tying up the courts with this stuff really need a better life. >>

They have no purpose in life other than creating havoc for everyone else. Every time that nut case goes to court, the founding fathers must roll over in their graves. At least this was a victory for America, although it happens much less every day.

botanist · March 11, 2010 11:17AM

There's a retail store in my area with a sign behind the counter reading: In God We Trust --- all others pay cash.

richardshipp · March 11, 2010 11:23AM

<< 

<< 

<< It's a good motto, even if some are no longer part of a Christian nation. >>

Huh. Well I'll take my place with the great Americans who lived before its use in the 1860s: Washington. Jefferson. Adams. Madison. Hamilton. They might have been rebels and trouble-makers. But I think they were pretty swell.

>>

You'd have been eaten alive back then.

>>

I can see Weiss having dinner with our founders....

Weiss: George can you pass the bread.
George: Sure... here's some roast beef as well.
Weiss: Oh... I don't eat meat.
George: huh?

HalfStrike · March 11, 2010 11:31AM

In Debt we Trust is more like it.

19Lyds · March 11, 2010 11:45AM

<< 

<< People tying up the courts with this stuff really need a better life. >>

They have no purpose in life other than creating havoc for everyone else. Every time that nut case goes to court, the founding fathers must roll over in their graves. At least this was a victory for America, although it happens much less every day. >>

Actually, they would probably have rolled over in joy since this is the primary purpose behind the nation. Freedom to contest without fear of retribution from tyrannical leaders. Make the same claims back in the days when the colonies were under the King of England and death would have been either through witch trials, treason or heresy laws. All without due process.

Yes some of these suits seem totally ridiculous but the ridiculous is sometimes necessary to temper the ideals the country was built on. Liberty and freedom from oppression and tyranny.

cmerlo1 · March 11, 2010 11:50AM

I'm not religious, but I think they made the right decision. I really don't see why this was even an issue.

crispy · March 11, 2010 11:51AM

The founding fathers would be more disgusted with the designs on today's coinage than anything else.

TomB · March 11, 2010 11:58AM

I know his mother; she is a nice woman.

ziggy29 · March 11, 2010 11:40PM

<< The founding fathers would be more disgusted with the designs on today's coinage than anything else. >>

+1.

Washington in particular was noted for his disapproval of turning public political figures into royalty; this was also demonstrated by his virtually unprecedented stepping down from power after two terms when he could have been like a king -- "president for life." I suspect many of the founders would be dismayed to see that we have created royalty on our coins rather than having the allegorical concept of liberty be greater than any individual.

crypto79 · March 12, 2010 12:40AM

The argument is an interesting one as we use a trust backed currency and that trust is backed by the government not god. In fact while maintaining a strong ability to practice faith we are supposed to maintain at least a semblance of separation as so were not confused with a secular government; esp when we are attacking a religious one and they are then able to rally their base by claiming we are engaged in a holy war.
We have to ask 2 ?'s. What are we saying about us as a country and to whom and second who is the "we" in god we trust, The government or the people or some homogenization of the two? While no one persons opinion or will represents the say of a democratic people as a whole it often falls on issues like this that the "magic space men" side will fall on the pro side and the skeptics, disbelievers and the progressives will say that it should come off.
While people complain about activist judges on both sides, our system of ruling has its merits as galvanizing issues would never pass a vote one way or another as on 50%-%50 issues (more or less) it is political suicide to vote either way if you have an election in your future. While the motto has little merit towards the fact the words we and trust are loosely definable at best it also should be noted that it does little harm as some people suggest as the term god also has the ability to be self defined by each and every individual. If you don't like what the phrase means to him/her have it taken a different way internally. And for the people who think it is a rally cry for Jesus, they would find a different reason to hate Americans if it was removed so that’s not the best reason to do it.
My whole point is issues like this do more harm to us as a people acting like divisive wedges then sorting out any worthwhile political direction because at the end of the day people don't care what is on the coins unless other people are talking about them and then they feel the need to pick a side till people stop talking about them. If we are going to start a national dialog how about an issue that has a little more merit then a motto on a coin. Seems like a silly thing to pick a fight with your country men over to me.

cardinal · March 12, 2010 12:41AM

<< People tying up the courts with this stuff really need a better life.

They have no purpose in life other than creating havoc for everyone else. Every time that nut case goes to court, the founding fathers must roll over in their graves. At least this was a victory for America, although it happens much less every day.

Actually, they would probably have rolled over in joy since this is the primary purpose behind the nation. Freedom to contest without fear of retribution from tyrannical leaders. Make the same claims back in the days when the colonies were under the King of England and death would have been either through witch trials, treason or heresy laws. All without due process.

Yes some of these suits seem totally ridiculous but the ridiculous is sometimes necessary to temper the ideals the country was built on. Liberty and freedom from oppression and tyranny. >>

Regarding "the founding fathers" and "the ideals the country was built on," wasn't it the founding fathers who drafted the Declaration of Independence and doesn't the Declaration embody those ideals? This is what the Declaration of Independence states:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Emphasis added.)

It seems to me, the ideals of the founding fathers included a belief in a "Creator" known as "God," and if those ideals were important enough to be included in the formation document of the United States, I think it's fair for such a reference to remain on our coinage and currency. Maybe the next stop for those opposed would be to file a suit to allow them to take some white-out to the Declaration and remove the offending words there too, or, at a minimum, remove that offensive document from public display.

garrynot · March 12, 2010 12:42AM

<< Sounds like an "activist" Judge ruling to me.

>>

In California, that's definitely an activist judge!

BECOKA · March 12, 2010 12:43AM

This is a big can of worms that has been hashed to death here before.

My quick take is I'm not totally against it but I do think it clutters the coins and other than the historical aspect don't think it should currently be there.

Walmann · March 12, 2010 12:53AM

It was far easier for the court to come to decision as the proposed "In Tiger We Trust" motto was no longer in the running.

keets · March 12, 2010 1:26AM

most people(including many forum members and some respondents in this thread) suffer from a grave misunderstanding when it comes to this issue by thinking that it somehow has anything to do with the Government sponsoring religion. the First Amendment, despite its many years of interpretation is very clear and simple. from MyLoftyPerch™ it seems that each time it gets reviewed it's just another attempt to explain it to US so that we can understand it correctly. the original wording often gets lost in its own simplicity.

AMENDMENT I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercize thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

i'd like to know how many reams of paper, how many words and how many hours of oratory chest-thumping have been directed at interpreting those 16 words.

Wolf359 · March 12, 2010 1:29AM

<< 

<< 

<< People tying up the courts with this stuff really need a better life. >>

They have no purpose in life other than creating havoc for everyone else. Every time that nut case goes to court, the founding fathers must roll over in their graves. At least this was a victory for America, although it happens much less every day. >>

Actually, they would probably have rolled over in joy since this is the primary purpose behind the nation. Freedom to contest without fear of retribution from tyrannical leaders. Make the same claims back in the days when the colonies were under the King of England and death would have been either through witch trials, treason or heresy laws. All without due process.

Yes some of these suits seem totally ridiculous but the ridiculous is sometimes necessary to temper the ideals the country was built on. Liberty and freedom from oppression and tyranny. >>

Yes, but the English method of loser pays should be adopted. Why should the taxpayers cover the defense against nuts?

Longacre · March 12, 2010 1:34AM

<< Yes, but the English method of loser pays should be adopted. >>

The poor would be shut out of the court system. They should have just as much access as anyone else.

keets · March 12, 2010 1:45AM

the poor need access so the system is fine in that regard. what needs to change is the unreasonable way that frivolous suits are given free range. not that this one was frivolous in nature, but it just seems that the same issues keep get paraded around in different clothing at a different party.

Silverstate · March 12, 2010 1:47AM

<< Which God would that be we're putting our Trust in?

Zeus?
Venus?
Mars?
Brahman?
Vishnu?
Allah?
Ra?
Isis?

I find nothing wrong with the motto whatsoever and fully understand that it is not directed at any one religion but in the freedon to choose whatever beliefs those that live in this country may feel the need for. >>

JBN · March 12, 2010 1:49AM

While I don't care one way or the other, the debater in me asks:

Would the court consider 'in Allah we Trust' as non-religious?

Doubt it.

Baley · March 12, 2010 1:52AM

Everyone knows the meaning of "IN" "WE" and "TRUST" (they presumably leave the definition of "GOD" up to individual interpretation, or are using the word as a generic.
Note, though, that the use of the singular can be interpreted to mean that "WE" don't "TRUST" "IN" polytheism.)

dcarr · March 12, 2010 2:21AM

<< In Global Warming We Trust might please smoe people. >>

The smoe people strikes again !

dcarr · March 12, 2010 2:23AM

<< Which God would that be we're putting our Trust in?

Zeus?
Venus?
Mars?
Brahman?
Vishnu?
Allah?
Ra?
Isis?
>>

You forgot one:

Lady Luck.

dcarr · March 12, 2010 2:25AM

<< In Debt we Trust is more like it.

>>

You mean "In Debt We Bust":

dcarr · March 12, 2010 2:27AM

<< 

<< The founding fathers would be more disgusted with the designs on today's coinage than anything else. >>

+1.

Washington in particular was noted for his disapproval of turning public political figures into royalty; this was also demonstrated by his virtually unprecedented stepping down from power after two terms when he could have been like a king -- "president for life." I suspect many of the founders would be dismayed to see that we have created royalty on our coins rather than having the allegorical concept of liberty be greater than any individual. >>

Yes, it is actually an insult to Washington to put his likeness on the dollar bill.
He explicitly did not want to be depicted on legal tender.

dsessom · March 12, 2010 2:40AM

I am not religious, but I don't really have a problem with it. I do agree that our coins desperately need a facelift. The Lincoln cent has had a 101 year run! By far the longest series in US coinage. I personally wish the Mint would totally redesign the cent or just do away with it. All other denominations need to be redesigned as well. I do like the new Presidential dollars, and the statehood quarters were nice. But they still all have the basic same obverse. Boring...

If they ever get rid of the "In God We Trust" motto, they should replace it with "America Kicks Ass".

It's short, sweet, and to the point.

droopyd · March 12, 2010 2:56AM

<< We, as a nation of people are free, like Lee says... "to choose". >>

Except, of course, when we are not.

PerryHall · March 12, 2010 2:58AM

<< In Debt we Trust is more like it.

>>

I prefer "In Gold We Trust".

Weiss · March 12, 2010 3:10AM

<< Which God would that be we're putting our Trust in?

Zeus?
Venus?
Mars?
Brahman?
Vishnu?
Allah?
Ra?
Isis?

I find nothing wrong with the motto whatsoever and fully understand that it is not directed at any one religion but in the freedon to choose whatever beliefs those that live in this country may feel the need for. >>

But those of us who aren't superstitious do find something wrong with the motto. And we'll get it removed. Eventually.

atarian · March 12, 2010 3:12AM

I still think we should do away with the motto. if people are gonna have this motto the GOD should be lower case to show its not favoring one god or another. the capitalized GOD refers to the christian GOD, since we are a country of many faiths and different gods we should leave god as a smaller case and not the larger case. But I still think it should be removed and also I have other opinions that are unpopular but I feel would make this country fair to everyone but I wont get into those.

My vote would be to either eliminate the IN god WE TRUST off money or at the very least make GOD lower case.

ebaytrader · March 12, 2010 3:51AM

<< 

<< 

<< It's a good motto, even if some are no longer part of a Christian nation. >>

Huh. Well I'll take my place with the great Americans who lived before its use in the 1860s: Washington. Jefferson. Adams. Madison. Hamilton. They might have been rebels and trouble-makers. But I think they were pretty swell.

>>

You'd have been eaten alive back then.

>>

Some things never change.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upholds "In God We Trust" on coins & curre

Comments

Leave a Comment

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upholds &quot;In God We Trust&quot; on coins &amp; curre

Comments

Leave a Comment

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upholds "In God We Trust" on coins & curre