Is “In God We Trust” Unconstitutional?

Should the U.S. government print “In God We Trust” on our money — or is that a violation of the First Amendment? In this video, we break down the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and explore the three main interpretations of how religion and government should interact. Supporters say the phrase is ceremonial and historic. Critics argue it subtly promotes monotheistic religion and violates the separation of church and state. So… does “In God We Trust” belong on our currency? You decide.

Subscribe to stay connected to our stories

Support us by becoming a member on YouTube

Or Support us on Patreon

Buy Ring of Fire merch

Find us on social media!

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Hi, I'm Brenton Goodman and this is You Decide. Today we will be talking about whether the government should print money with the words in God we trust on it. This discussion begins with the Constitution's first amendment that says Congress cannot create laws that establish religion. Now we have this amendment to stop our government from giving privileges to followers of some religions and not to others, but people disagree about what the establishment clause actually calls for. Now there are three schools of thought. One is that the clause calls for strict separation between the government and religion. People that believe this often believe the union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. Now, this is the belief that government should actively avoid making laws related to religion and do all it can to separate itself from religion. So for instance, people that hold this belief feel that no government money should go to religious organizations and there shouldn't be laws that regulate the practice of any religion.

A second line of reasoning is that the government needs to just be neutral towards religion. So it can create laws that give tax exemptions to religions or regulate where and when people can congregate. Just as long as the reasoning and effect behind the law is one that applies to everyone, whether they are religious or non-religious. The last school of thought is that the government must accommodate religion. The thought behind this belief is that the government should actively seek to include and not exclude religions because while the Constitution forbids establishing one religion over others, it does not call for treating religions differently than secular beliefs. This would be like laws or rules that allow coaches to have prayer circles with players before a football game, or that allow parents to opt out their children from public school classes that teach about ideologies that differ from their truly held beliefs.

Historically, the court has said the cases where the government forces someone to attend a church allows for a religious leader to recite prayer at events where student attendance is compulsory or broadcast. Certain prayers at sporting events are clear violations of the establishment clause. So what you believe about whether the phrase should stay on our currency likely relies on which theory you think should be applied. Now in God. We trust was placed on coins starting in the 18 hundreds and on paper currency beginning in 1957, president Eisenhower who put the phrase on the paper currency was a believer in the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future. Now, people that want to keep in God, we trust on our money, believe that the saying has been on our currency for so long, that it is more ceremonial than religious, and that the

Phrase itself has no theological or ritual impact because it's not like it's used for any specific religious ceremony or to promote any particular doctrine. They also claim that since it's been around for so long and is basically just ceremonial, that removing it would actually prove hostile towards religion by making those religions that believe in one God feel marginalized. Those that feel the phrases placement on currency is a violation of our constitution. Say that on its face, it is hostile to any religion that believes in more than one God. It is a subtle way to coerce people to support the idea of one God, and that a reasonable person will interpret it as an implicit acknowledgement that the country is Judeo-Christian when our country has no official religion. So should we keep the phrase in God, we trust on our money, you decide, let me know what you think in the comments, and don't forget to like and subscribe.