In God We Trust: Perbedaan antara revisi

Sifat konstitusional frasa "In God We Trust" telah berulang kali ditegakkan menurut penafsiran hukum dari akomodasionisme yang penganutnya menyatakan bahwa praktik yang mengakar ini secara historis tidak menghadirkan kesulitan konstitusional, tidak memaksa, dan tidak lebih memilih satu denominasi agama daripada lainnya.<ref name="Views22">{{cite book|author=Richard H. Fallon|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vonnZcMHs8kC&pg=PA60|title=The Dynamic Constitution: an Introduction to Americans Constitutional Law|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|year=2004|isbn=978-0-521-60078-1|page=60|quote="Strict separationists" believe that the government has no business supporting religious beliefs or institutions in any way – for example, by providing tax breaks to churches, assisting parochial schools, including prayers or benedictions in public ceremonies, or inscribing "In God We Trust" on the currency. Religious accommodationists can well explain why certain entrenched social practices (such as the inscription of "In God We Trust" on the currency) were not historically perceived as presenting constitutional difficulties: The relevant practices are not coercive and do not prefer one narrow sect over another.|access-date=2016-09-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161118232121/https://books.google.com/books?id=vonnZcMHs8kC&pg=PA60|archive-date=2016-11-18|url-status=live}}</ref> Dalam ''[[Zorach v. Clauson]]'' (1952), [[Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat|Mahkamah Agung]] juga menulis bahwa lembaga-lembaga negara mengandaikan adanya Yang Maha Kuasa dan bahwa pengakuan pemerintah terhadap [[Tuhan]] bukanlah menegakkan pendirian gereja negara seperti yang dimaksudkan oleh para penulis Konstitusi untuk dilarang.<ref name="ABA22">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gymQ6vWfA3QC&q=Zorach+v.+Clauson+++In+God+We+Trust&pg=PA817|title=ABA Journal Sep 1962|date=September 1962|quote=Much more recently, in 1952, speaking through Mr. Justice Douglas in ''Zorach v. Clauson'', 343 U.S. 306, 313, the Supreme Court repeated the same sentiments, saying: We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. Mr. Justice Brewer in the ''Holy Trinity'' case, ''supra'', mentioned many of these evidences of religion, and Mr. Justice Douglas in the ''Zorach'' case referred to&nbsp;... [P]rayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "So help me God" in our courtroom oaths – these and&nbsp;... other references to the Almighty&nbsp;... run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies&nbsp;... the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" (312–313). To this list may be added tax exemption of churches, chaplaincies in the armed forces, the "Pray for Peace" postmark, the widespread observance of Christmas holidays, and, in classrooms, singing the fourth stanza of ''America'' which is prayer invoking the protection of God, and the words "in God is our trust" as found in the National Anthem, and the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, modified by an Act of Congress of June 14, 1954, to include the words "under God.|access-date=2016-09-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161119065015/https://books.google.com/books?id=gymQ6vWfA3QC&pg=PA817&dq=Zorach+v.+Clauson+++In+God+We+Trust#v=onepage&q=Zorach%20v.%20Clauson%20%20%20In%20God%20We%20Trust&f=false|archive-date=November 19, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> Pengadilan juga mengandalkan gagasan "[[deisme seremonial]]" (sebagaimana ditakrifkan dalam perbedaan pendapat [[William J. Brennan Jr.]] di ''[[Lynch v. Donnelly]]''),<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Merriam|first1=Jesse|last2=Lupu|first2=Ira|last3=Elwood|first3=F.|last4=Davis|first4=Eleanor|last5=Tuttle|first5=Robert|last6=R.|first6=David|last7=Kirschner|first7=Sherry|date=2008-08-28|title=On Ceremonial Occasions, May the Government Invoke a Deity?|url=https://www.pewforum.org/2008/08/28/on-ceremonial-occasions-may-the-government-invoke-a-deity/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-05-31|website=Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project|language=en-US}}</ref> yaitu bahwa ada rujukan agama yang telah menjadi sekuler dan dengan demikian konstitusional melalui penggunaan berulang dan kebiasaan.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Thorne|first=M.|date=Sep 2003|title=The Tangled Web of Ceremonial Deism|url=https://www.libertymagazine.org/article/the-tangled-web-of-ceremonial-deism|url-status=live|access-date=2021-05-31|website=[[Liberty Magazine]]}}</ref> Sementara penentang putusan itu berpendapat bahwa gagasan [[Thomas Jefferson]] tentang tembok pemisah antara agama dan negara melarang bantuan apa pun baik langsung maupun tidak langsung kepada lembaga agama mana pun, dan oleh karena itu putusan apa pun yang bertentangan bertentangan dengan maksud Pendiri Negara, pandangan pemisahan ini telah tidak mendapatkan tempat yang signifikan dalam pengaturan peradilan.<ref name="Views22" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=JONES|first=RICHARD H.|date=1989|title="In God We Trust" and the Establishment Clause|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23916922|journal=Journal of Church and State|volume=31|issue=3|pages=381–417|doi=10.1093/jcs/31.3.381|jstor=23916922|issn=0021-969X|via=[[JSTOR]]}}</ref>

 

 

 

 

A series of lawsuits attempting to outlaw "In God We Trust" was filed, with support of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]], by [[Michael Newdow]], who was known for his previous case ''[[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow]]'', in which the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling removing "under God" from the [[Pledge of Allegiance]] (the ruling was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court). A federal judge in [[California]] rejected his reasoning in a June 2006 ruling, and the same conclusion was reached by the Ninth Circuit. Because the Supreme Court denied [[certiorari]], the appelate court's decision, which said that "the national motto is of a "patriotic or ceremonial character," has no "theological or ritualistic impact," and does not constitute "governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise,"" remained unchanged and in force.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Egelko|first=Bob|date=2011-03-08|title='In God We Trust' suit rejected by Supreme Court|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|url=http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/In-God-We-Trust-suit-rejected-by-Supreme-Court-2471527.php|access-date=2021-08-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180213222045/https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/In-God-We-Trust-suit-rejected-by-Supreme-Court-2471527.php|archive-date=2018-02-13}}</ref> A lawsuit filed by Newdow and Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2013 in New York also failed, both on trial<ref>{{cite web|title=Lawsuit to remove 'In God We Trust' from money gets dismissed - KSL.com|url=http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=1016&sid=26823999&fm=most_popular|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180224232917/https://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=1016&sid=26823999&fm=most_popular|archive-date=2018-02-24|access-date=2018-02-24|work=ksl.com}}</ref> and on appeal to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]];<ref>{{Cite news|last=Volokh|first=Eugene|date=2014-05-28|title="In God We Trust" on currency doesn't violate the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act|work=[[Washington Post]]|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/28/in-god-we-trust-on-currency-doesnt-violate-the-first-amendment-or-the-religious-freedom-restoration-act/|access-date=2021-06-01}}</ref> yet another one, filed in Ohio in 2016, was dismissed by the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio]] and the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=New Doe Child #1 v. Congress of the United States, No. 16-4345 (6th Cir. 2018)|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/16-4345/16-4345-2018-05-29.html|access-date=2021-06-01|website=Justia Law|language=en}}</ref> The same happened with the lawsuit in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|Eighth Circuit]], which was unrelated to Newdow's efforts.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Jr|first=David L. Hudson|title=8th Circuit: "In God We Trust" on money is constitutional|url=https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/177/8th-circuit-in-god-we-trust-on-money-is-constitutional|url-status=live|access-date=2021-06-01|website=[[Middle Tennessee State University]]|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Stempel|first=Jonathan|date=2018-08-28|title=U.S. court rejects atheists' appeal over 'In God We Trust' on money|language=en|work=[[Reuters]]|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-religion-motto-idUSKCN1LD24K|access-date=2021-06-01}}</ref>