Religion & American Law

McDowell County in North Carolina recently approved the addition of “In God We Trust” signs to public buildings such as the county courthouse. This was a unanimous decision made by the county’s Board of Commissioners, and chairman David Walker stated, "we did this to reaffirm what our Founding Fathers affirmed and that is our national motto is 'In God We Trust.'" The addition of these signs is to be paid for by private donations rather than taking the money out of taxes.

The issue here is that some find this to be a breach of the Establishment Clause because it signifies government endorsement of religion. Not only this, but also that the government may favor religious persons, or those who worship only one deity, over those who are not religious. Many county residents find this to be a necessary improvement to the area while others see this as a clear breakdown of the separation between church and state.

I believe that putting these signs on public county buildings is completely constitutional. The strongest piece of evidence to support this is the fact that the money is not coming from public tax dollars, but instead private donations will be funding this operation. With this being said, I do not believe that it could be seen as establishment because the public is not providing the payment. In addition, ‘In God We Trust’ is the national motto of this country. It is written on our currency and has historically been a highly very prominent and publicized saying. I do not see any difference between having the motto on our money compared to having it on buildings, especially when the public is not even funding it. This is not establishment and is entirely constitutional.

This case reminded me of Van Orden v. Perry where the court decided that it was constitutional to have a monument with the Ten Commandments on the lawn of the state capitol building. It was stated that the Commandments are historically significant, and that the presence of this monument does not automatically mean that the government is endorsing religion. I fully agree with the court’s decision in this case because our country was largely built with a religious backbone and it is constitutional to highlight this fact through the use of historical monuments. Likewise, ‘In God We Trust’ has been on US currency since 1864 and became our national motto in 1956. The phrase is historically significant and an important aspect of our country; it is constitutional and has a historical purpose to portray it on public buildings.

Issues such as this are important to highlight because some people are uncomfortable with breaching the wall of separation between church and state. However, it is important to realize that a simple saying, in this case our national motto, being shown on a public building does not automatically equal government establishment. Religious sayings are said in public schools and courtrooms every day; this is no different.

Overall, I believe that the posting of ‘In God We Trust’ on public county buildings is entirely constitutional because it has historical significance being our national motto along with the fact that the public is not being asked to fund it. I think if the money for this operation were to be taken out of tax dollars the issue would be a bit more complicated, but that is not a relevant issue for this case.

What do you think? Is the posting of our national motto on public buildings establishment? Could this lead to a slippery slope of other sayings being posted? Does historical significance matter?