In God We Trust - Oh, Yeah?

By Rick Marschall

Special to ASSIST News Service

SWARTZ CREEK, MI (ANS) -- The Pledge of Allegiance added the phrase "under God" in 1954, on Flag Day. So Happy Birthday... not to God, but to the phrase. Its inclusion has been a matter of some discussion since it was appended.

Theodore Roosevelt was criticized during his presidency for wanting to take "In God We Trust" off American currency. This seems counterintuitive about the man I have elsewhere called possibly the most observant if not the most intensely Christian of our presidents. One of his missions was to reform and beautify American coinage, and his friend Augustus St-Gaudens in fact designed the most impressive coins in our history, the $20 "Double Eagle" gold piece, and the $10 "Indian Head" gold eagle.

Why did TR want "In God We Trust" off our coinage? In fact, he considered it irreverent, making a cheap slogan of a sacred matter. He said he was witness, in his rancher days in the Bad Lands, to cowboys in saloons citing it coarsely; "In God we trust -- all others pay cash," and so forth. "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege," he wrote.

"It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in buildings such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

His view did not prevail; an aroused public and Congress overcame his objection. A similar groundswell of popular support added "under God" to the Pledge 60 years ago. Anent both matters, debates have not merely continued but intensified of late.

I am generally of the Theodore Roosevelt school regarding the nation's confirmation of belief on public buildings, monuments, courtrooms, and legislative halls. It is a matter as much of tradition as of faith. Commonly, societies tend to codify their basic te nets by such means -- dispositive acts like public prayer s, and displays of the Decalogue in public squares. I understand TR's disinclination to have a sacred concept coarsened -- but I would take that chance, trusting to peoples' eventual conviction. And simply asserting universal, foundational, shared beliefs. After all, dumb jokes are occasionally made about "e pluribus unum."

Further, myself, I would proceed on such matters to avow in every pertinent manner that the United States were settled as Christian communities; that Founders and Framers alike cited biblical principles and reliance on God; that the Supreme Court formally declared the United States of America a "Christian country." This is no knock on Jews or Muslims or atheists, who are guaranteed every legal right the majority enjoys. But if I moved to Israel, I would never think of agitating, say, to have the Star of David removed the nation's flag because I would be "offended" as a minority. If I moved to an Islamic society I would be embarrassed to attempt to eliminate Muslim symbols, traditions, and observances, simply because I as a newcomer had a pulse and "feelings."

But... genii are out of the bottles in America. So debates rage, Christians are on the defensive, and traditions are upended. I believe this is due as much to the moral lassitude of Christians as to the aggressive pursuits of rampaging lawyers. Shame on us.

It has become easier to insist on the retention of slogans on currency, phrases in pledges, and crosses in cemeteries, than to be bloodied in the dusty arena of ideas. Ultimately, the real, burning question for Christians in 2014 is this: what exactly are we defending in these debates? What in hell -- I choose my words carefully -- are we really supporting in contemporary America?

"In God We Trust." Oh, yeah? Then why have we allowed a runaway government to be our primary source of security in life? Why not God? Why not each other? Why not ourselves?

"In God We Trust." Oh, yeah? Then why have we, as a culture, turned from biblical ways of finding comfort in God, and bowed to drugs, drink, decadent entertainment, and false gods of pleasure?

"In God We Trust." Oh, yeah? Then how has America suddenly transformed itself from a traditionalist society of manners and morals to a country awash in abortions, addictions, physical abuse, divorce, illegitimate births, and myriad sexually transmitted diseases?

"In God We Trust." Oh, yeah? Then why have traditional expressions of faith been banished in favor of secular concepts and moral relativism? Legislators and judges sit in halls with "In God We Trust" on their walls, and open their sessions with prayer -- yet day by day, now, they mock that very pledge. In hypocrisy we trust.

"In God We Trust." Oh, yeah? As a people? Then why do our movies, TV shows, pop-music lyrics, literature, graphic novels, political discourse, judicial decisions, and bureaucratic rules dedicate themselves to be, not "neutral," but hostile, toward God and His Revealed Word?

"In God We Trust." Oh, yeah? America is America -- the essence of the misunderstood term "Exceptionalism" -- because a diverse group of peoples came here through the centuries, disparate in uncountable ways, but spiritually unified, somehow: United, before the fact, in trusting God, being suspicious of authority, loving liberty, embracing tradition, reliant on selves, and therefore -- yes, part of American Exceptionalism too -- loving their neighbors.

Is the next chapter of the American story to be entitled, "In God We Once Trusted"?