1776 to 1478: How the Evangelical Right has taken Women back to the Inquisition

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Women's Rights / Religion
________________________________

The alternative right and conservative media proclaim a return to the ideals of 1776, but that group has hidden their extreme views to get their candidate elected. Articles and radio shows from the right have characterized their point of view as the Renaissance for all. Comparisons of their religion versus other religions has been used to highlight the right's commitment to freedom and rights for all.

It has all been a lie. 

When the alternative right and conservatives' control of the United States Congress and Presidency happened, their behavior changed. Now shows are full of making fun of and demeaning women as well as using their religious ideology to pass laws condemning women and eliminating their health choices.

In reality, the Religious Right is no better than the other patriarchal religions on Earth. Man made deities and dogma seek to undermine society through manipulation of girls, young women, and adult women. That leaves the quality of women's lives below being subpar. 

That was more apparent when President Donald Trump signed an executive order gagging healthcare providers across the world from mentioning the word: abortion. In extreme poverty, there is extreme sexual violence. Unintended pregnancies are forced upon women and their only recourse is to terminate the pregnancy. Now with the burden of reality even heavier than before, women will have to resort to other means, which will end up killing women and children alike. 

Children will be abandoned at orphanages. Some children will be left to die because their mother cannot take care of them. Others will be neglected and abused. 

Instead of ending suffering, the Religious Rights' interference in basic reproductive medical needs will now lead to a growing humanitarian crisis. To the pro-birth agenda, a child born is a success no matter the pain that will afflict that life. Hunger, war, and rape are acceptable to the patriarchy since that experience is a woman's concern. 

This negative attitude toward other people's belief systems is reminiscent of a bygone era, though not of the Renaissance, but of a darker time ruled by the unfeeling, uncaring vision of the patriarchy.

It was 1478. The year the Spanish Inquisition began. This religious witch hunt led to even more egregious historical events.

Who can forget the religious purity movement of the Reconquista in the 15th Century? With the alternative right and conservative agenda to purify America of women's rights, liberation, and equity, has the American electorate ushered in another age of submission by torture? 

At first, the Spanish Inquisition sought to convert or expel Spanish Jews. Then the state set its sights on ridding their land of Muslims.

At Torquemada’s urging, Ferdinand and Isabella issued an edict on March 31, 1492, giving Spanish Jews the choice of exile or baptism; as a result, more than 160,000 Jews were expelled from Spain. Francisco, Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros, promoted the suppression of Muslims with the same zeal that Torquemada had directed at Jews. In 1502 he ordered the proscription of Islam in Granada, the last of the Muslim kingdoms in Spain to fall to the Reconquista. The persecution of Muslims accelerated in 1507 when Jiménez was named grand inquisitor. Muslims in Valencia and Aragon were subjected to forced conversion in 1526, and Islam was subsequently banned in Spain. The Inquisition then devoted its attention to the Moriscos, Spanish Muslims who had previously accepted baptism. Expressions of Morisco culture were forbidden by Philip II in 1566, and within three years, persecution by the Inquisition gave way to open warfare between the Moriscos and the Spanish crown. The Moriscos were driven from Granada in 1571, and by 1614 some 300,000 had been expelled from Spain entirely.

As the state's uncontrollable hunger for religious justice continued more and more ideologies were attacked:

When the Reformation began to penetrate into Spain, the relatively few Spanish Protestants were eliminated by the Inquisition. Foreigners suspected of promoting Protestant faiths within Spain met similarly violent ends. Having largely purged the country of Jews and Muslims—as well as many former members of those faiths who had converted to Christianity—the Spanish Inquisition turned its attention to prominent Roman Catholics. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was twice arrested on suspicion of heresy, and the archbishop of Toledo, the Dominican Bartolomé de Carranza, was imprisoned for almost 17 years. Nominally Christian groups that diverged from the Inquisition’s orthodoxy, such as the followers of the mystical Alumbrado movement and adherents of Erasmianism (a spiritualized Christian belief system influenced by the teachings of humanistDesiderius Erasmus), were subjected to intense persecution throughout the 16th and into the 17th century.

This religious intolerance spread across into Christian nations like a wave of fear and hatred. This fervor led to the infamous Salem Witch Trials, that arrested 200 and killed 20. The religious justice happened all in the name of religion. It happened all in the name of GOD. 

Except in the United States of America, our founding principles are not Christian based. Nowhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights claim any Christian values, morality, or ethics. Yet year after year, Christians have demanded the Ten Commandments be placed in the People's court houses, their religion be given national holidays, and the Nativity scene honored on public lands.

If you question the religious favoritism, then the Religious Right screams: the War on Christmas!!!

All the while, the Evangelist preachers and celebrities try more manipulations to make America a One God, One Religion nation, but those individuals lie for profit and power.

So how can the Religious Right claim superiority over other Abrahamic practices with their dubious track record of deceit and tantrums? America is not for one ideology. What cannot be argued is what our founders outlined for this nation: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 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.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is clear: there can be no establishment of religion, but the Evangelicals try and try. The Religious Right elect their selected politicians in hopes of changing our Constitution to establish their very own theocracy.

However the Religious Right's Era of Evangelical Inquisition has met with the ire of the People. Namely, women have risen to meet history to derail the plan to overthrow our government. Protests commenced around the world. The largest was the Women's March on Washington.

The seed of equity was planted, no matter by whom, and women are taking responsibility for their government in ways the Religious Right has never taken responsibility for destroying our economy, finances, soldier's lives, or welfare of its citizens.

But women face an uphill battle as alternative media celebrities dismiss women and their concerns as that time of the month or just needing a daddy. When verbal tirades from talk show hosts and article writers depict real life issues as the old-standby hysteria (a woman's uterus problem: hysterectomy) excuse, that disingenuous mockery shows the true nature of the patriarchy: contempt.

As one alternative radio show host ended his broadcast yesterday to the effect that Soros brainwashes women who do not have a man. Most women have never met George Soros. The marches are not about George Soros but a failing patriarchy that yells about women needing a daddy like the state to live off but then the same men jump in exuberance that "Daddy's Home" when President Trump was elected.

Smell the transference? It's the extreme far right who needs a male role model to lead as an alpha male because the rest are incapable of being mature. The rest of us expect honor, honesty, and equity out of our government as any adult should. We don't need a daddy. We certainly do not need the patriarchal inquisition.

As women in America brace for the next wave of religious extremism to wash over the halls of political power, only time will tell how far and how unethical the Religious Right will be in condemning women into sexual slavery like that of the 1940's. Whatever the religious zealots have planned, women will bide their time to reclaim their rights.

Religion like other communitarianist regimes always place privileges on others for social control. That leads to groups to form against such hypocrisy. The Woman's March will be the next Tea Party, except to strip power away from the religious elite and back into the hands of the meek, the women... the People. 

Religion was never supposed to rule in America.

As Thomas Paine wrote: 

“All religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or immoral. Like everything else they had their beginning; and they proceeded by persuasion, exhortation, and example. How is it then that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant? . By engendering the Church with the State, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called The Church established by Law.”( Rights of Man, pg. 16

Source: Britannica, FindLaw, Thomas Paine,

God is Misrepresented by the Patriarchy

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Religion / Politics 

________________________________

A good phrase for what we have been observing in the right, alternative right, and conservative media is: the lack of godliness. Talk show hosts jump up and down screaming about god. These men pray on air and act arrogant that their pick for President of the United States ascended into office.  

Should we say prey on air instead?

The last few weeks has shifted the plane of existence into a gambler’s dream. Our timeline is now filled with new possibilities of reality. Some good results are ridding the world of the New World Order slave system. The bad outcome manifests as threats to social equity by antiquated superstition disguised as patriotism.

With the promise of jobs and a better economy, President Donald Trump swept into office like a tsunami. Yet, he and other conservatives believe their divine right of kings promises them the power to revoke any women’s right or health initiative. The rapture of ego has grown to the point that the patriarchy cannot relate to the People they were entrusted to serve.

“Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn’t these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly,” Trump tweeted early Sunday morning.

This statement supports the out of touch religious mindset of the administration. The protests were to inform the government that women will not be sitting this administration out. Women know their rights and will be exercising those rights to the fullest extent that their creator has deemed.

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”
~Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

On the other side, the alternative right media has poked fun, made horrible comments, and relished in derogatory statements about women and men who protest against the alt rights’ adopted religious edicts. These holier than thou egotists are not Christians but hiding behind that identity to force their agenda onto others. These imposters revel in the putting down of people as a form of social control, especially of non-followers and women.

Christian comportment should subtract the judgment and misinformation coming from this segment of the media. If one can call right, alt right, and conservative religious sources in any way shape or form news media at this point, it would be difficult to support factually. Alternative media for the most part worships the cult called religion in order to garner fandom and support.

Journalism is not about exalting religion but pointing out the faults and corruption of government. Mainstream media has faltered under corporate rule as does everything monopolies and privatization touch. News for new’s sake is a dying institution.

Where does this disparity leave the American People when objectivity is sacrificed for illusion? The Fourth Estate is not only For Sale, but in disrepair with a cemetery plot being dug in the driveway. Is the new media as corrupt and subjective as the old establishment media?

The American states have gone far in assisting the progress of truth; but they have stopped short of perfection. They ought to have given every honest citizen an equal right to enjoy his religion and an equal title to all civil emoluments, without obliging him to tell his religion. Every interference of the civil power in regulating opinion, is an impious attempt to take the business of the Deity out of his own hands; and every preference given to any religious denomination, is so far slavery and bigotry.”
~Founding Father Noah Webster, calling for no religious tests to serve in public office, Sketches of American Policy, 1785

If the majority of alternative media purports to be media than it will have to do so at the altar of facts, freedom, and reason or the Republic is lost before it even restarts. Empirical reporting cannot happen when colored with the filter of propaganda be it political or religious. Alternative media has to be one or the other: factual media or a church. Media for the People cannot be both.

“The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.”
~Founding Father Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787

Yet that direction is where states like Texas demand America’s course to drift from our promise and the current federal administration intends to tread with the exuberant climax of the right, alt right, and conservative media.

This blind adherence to cult tenets has left alternative media to push causes not outlined specifically in their own religious doctrines. The alt right media has grabbed onto women’s issues like their view is god’s view, except it’s not. How’s this list for a reality check:

·  Drinking alcohol

·  Smoking cigarettes or cigars

·  Gambling

·  Dancing

·  Watching R-rated movies

·  Listening to secular music

·  Watching MMA (Mixed Martial Arts)

·  Using birth control

·  Sporting tattoos or piercings

·  Sending your kids to public school

·  Owning a luxury car or other extravagant possessions

·  Working on Sunday

·  Observing Halloween

These items denote all the topics NOT discussed in the Bible. Why? Because men wrote the Bible, not god. If an all-knowing god had written the text then the future would be represented, but no word about women’s issues like birth control, equity, equality, or even abortion exist. Still the People are convinced that their religion represents these political juggernauts.  

Men are representing their interpretation of what god wants as the patriarchy has for thousands of years. There is no basis for religion in women’s issues, modern, progressive, or otherwise. So in reality god is being misrepresented by the hubris of certain media outlets, religious leaders, and politicians to their own ends. Hint, hint, Mr. President.

“I never liked the Hierarchy of the Church — an equality in the teacher of Religion, and a dependence on the people, are republican sentiments — but if the Clergy combine, they will have their influence on Government”
~Founding Father Rufus King, Rufus King: American Federalist, pp. 56-57

The shame is on those media outlets who believe that their platform is to preach instead of maintain the checks and balances of this Republic. Religion should never take place of reason. Religion should never dictate law or policy. Yet here we stand on the crossroads of history and we have a patriarchy too in love with itself to see a defining moment of freewill is at hand but instead to hand out reprisals based on mythical parables.

“Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.”
~Founding Father Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788

We are faced with such oppression twice over. Americans are faced with the choice of economic and spiritual tyranny. So many have taken to the streets to secure their freedoms from both.

Since Roe v Wade was established in law by the Supreme Court in 1973, women have been protested, attacked, and their physician’s murdered for the ideals of Christianity. The Clinton years were rife with violent conservative misconduct against women. Women have seen the ugly side of religious doctrines masquerading as moral authority.  

In many respects, Christians have a very selective memory when it comes to history and facts. Even conservative, alt right media cherry pick their version of reality to feed their followers a false sense of self and entitlement. If the topic is not about homosexuals or gay marriage then the ire is raised about women having the ability to make decisions about their lives and health.

“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties.”
~Founding Father James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817

Have the People fallen into the abyss of communitariansim so far that they believe their religious ideology is worthy of lawful acknowledgement?

As a people will Americans rise above the confines of ego, hubris, misrepresentation, and selective inclinations to recover our Republic from the hands of tyrants?

Or shall we slip from one political nightmare and surrender to a theocracy of dunces?

If the new media does not avail itself to reason, then spiritual tyranny is the future. There is no one god. There is no god. Men have written and defined society at the determent of all others.

This uneven course is sure to implode America into a new battleground for elites to feast. As reason dictates, we must refuse the temptations of ego-driven ideologies and do the work of the People. Without reason, America has no chance at all in defeating the tyrants of this world.

No matter how we feel about theology.

Source: Addicting Info, National Post, Bible, 

Conservative Whine: The Original Social Justice Warriors

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Patriarchy / Theocracy 
______________________________

In the age of your rights end where my feelings begin Social Justice crapola, we get another example of the hypocrisy from the patriarchy. The message is clear that freedom is when conservatives do not have to take responsibility for living in a Republic but demand all of the protections created by it.

The Religious Right is the birth parents of Social Justice tantrums and look what it has gotten us. Women are sacrificed on the alter of whaaa! Conservatives defund birth control and abortions citing religious exemptions and morality.

Except birth control reduces the number of abortions, so what is immoral, unethical, or impractical about making sure birth control is available to all young women? The problem is not having control of women. Control of anyone is slavery. Isn't the Religious Right against that too? 

In an article on LiveScience called Free Birth Control Cuts Abortion Rate by 62 Percent, anyone can see that proper medical care counters the number of unintended pregnancies.

Among women in the free contraceptive program, the teen birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 women, a huge difference from the national teen birth rate of 34.3 per 1,000 women.

Likewise, the abortion rate among women in the program was 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 between 2008 and 2010. Nationally, there are 19.6 abortions per every thousand women, a 62 percent to 78 percent difference. In the St. Louis area, the overall abortion rate in that time frame was between 13.4 and 17 abortions per 1,000 women.

So shouldn't that study be lauded by conservatives of the Religious Right to protect women's' health initiatives? That would be a resounding: no. One quote garnered from a conservative, alt right radio host is: "I don't want to have to pay for it!"

But in reality, no legislation has ever had to be passed to force employers or insurance companies to cover erectile dysfunction treatments, most types of male reproductive prescriptions are covered by insurance. In 52% of the human population that is female, why are women paying for that cost when women's protection from unwanted pregnancies are refuted, if conservatives want to be petty about it?

Conservative men have no problem having sex with women and creating babies. Yet, these same men who help create the problem of abortion refuse women the opportunity of not having one.

Problem Reaction Solution.

Sounds like conservative men do not understand that women are not pleasure bots. We are feeling human beings who want to find a balance between family and self-fulfillment. Without birth control or abortions, especially for the life of the mother, genetic abnormalities, or worse, women become nothing but sexual toys burdened by antiquated theology. 

In the light of fairness, freedom, and equity, the conservative argument against preserving women's reproductive health services including birth control loses all credibility. 

To take the reality further, many neglected and abused children live as prisoners in foster care.

Over 400,000 American children are in foster care, taken away when their families are in crisis and can’t take care of them.

How many of these children were unintended pregnancies?  We have to wonder. We are also left to wonder where all the conservatives are to adopt these children? 

These children and their families are directly effected by the "let someone else care" philosophy of the Religious Right. The Right has no problem dictating economic, political, and religious policies to the rest of America. The question remains: can America afford to keep entertaining these religious tantrums? Anyone with a moral or ethical conscience would be remiss to do so.  

Still the cry for religion to be exalted in society is prevalent as preachers interfere with politics, push their religion in public schools, and never pay a dime in  property taxes. 

On the website called Christianity an interesting point was made:

I find it fascinating that certain groups on the Right want pastors to "speak up." What they mean by this, of course, is to more overtly endorse their preferred candidates and/or moral issues. But what they don't understand is that pastors are speaking up, it's just that what pastors are speaking up about may not be the taking points of the current season.And, the Bible cuts against both parties, against all political persuasions....So some would say the Bible is very conservative. And yet that would be incomplete, because you will also find in Scripture many texts on justice, the plight of the poor, treatment of the immigrant. And who Jesus' chief antagonists were in the gospels? The Pharisees, the Religious Right of their day.  

Should pastors speak about in the pulpit about contemporary issues? Yes, but only when the texts of Scripture clearly articulate it. They shouldn't bow to any party's talking points. They shouldn't slant their sermons to fit a political profile. They shouldn't become wannabee pundits in the pulpit. They should preach the Word and let it do it's work in the hearts of the people, who will then go influence their communities. 

And, the argument from the Founding Fathers of the United States would say: No. Religion should not be apart of our political or justice systems. The simple fact of swearing on the Bible is hypocrisy. 

 

In the article, 10 Founding Fathers Quotes That Will Make Conservatives’ Heads Explode, we can read of list of statements made by Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and others that contradict the political, social, and religious edicts demanded by the Religious Right in our country. Statements such as

“The power of all corporations ought to be limited, […] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
— James Madison

Corporations were never intended to become megaconglomerates or transnationals. The fact that corporations bribe our politicians and write their own laws supports Madison's assertion. America needs to break up monopolies as well as make corporations less influential.

Another concern: a conservative radio show host has also expressed his intolerance for worker's protections under the law. 

“He who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.”
— Thomas Paine: The Crisis No. V, 1797

Conservatives under the banner of Globalism have murdered millions of people and destroyed the environment for the sake of controlling other people's natural resources.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

Religion was not the foundation of the American Dream. The subtraction of religion was the impetus. Freedom and rights cannot be weighed in the fantasy of a god.

Just ask women.

“As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine.” –= Alexander Hamilton: Address to the Electors of the State of New York, March, 1801

A certain level of taxation is necessary for the sake of our society, yet taxes are cut for the wealthiest time and time again with the promise of jobs and prosperity that never come. 

Conservatives cry: taxation is theft, but when everyone else not making a living wage is forced onto social services because the taxes for that segment of society are too high and the good paying jobs were outsourced to the Third World to make Share Holders rich, conservatives scream: "laziness!," "you waste your money on junk food!," and, of course: that women are sluts for having children or feminists for divorcing their abusive husbands.

Conservatism has been a bane to freedom and rights since the beginning of history. Our forefathers wrote of such concerns and repudiated religious exercise in politics. Today, conservative radio shows, celebrities, and writers want to rewrite history and revert back to a stifling theocracy for anyone who is not white, male, and Christian.

Those days are over. The patriarchy needs to understand that the rest of us live here too. Time to grow up, stop flailing your tantrums on television and radio, and finally realize that you cherry pick ideals to stand behind all the while negating your duties to this Republic.

Source: Foster Club, Christianity, Democratic Underground,  

How Religion is Pushed on Americans through Their Money

Staff Writer, DB Holmes

Separation of Church & State /Government
______________________________________

Another example of how religion, Jude-Christian values, are forced on every American regardless of the Constitution.

GOD ON OUR COINS

Written Statement of Jon G. Murray,
President, American Atheists, Inc.
7215 Cameron Road Austin, TX 78752-2973
submitted to

U.S. House of Representatives

One Hundredth Congress

Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

Rep. Frank Annunzio, Illinois, Chairman

Supplemental to oral remarks to be given Wednesday, September 14, 1988, at 10:00 A.M. in Room 2128 Rayburn House Office Building at a hearing of the Subcommittee on H.R. 3314, legislation "To modernize United States circulating coin designs of which one reverse will have a theme of the Bicentennial of the Constitution."

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, American Atheists is a nonprofit, nonpolitical, educational organization dedicated "to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways, the complete and absolute separation of state and church." [FOOTNOTE: From the "Aims and Purposes" of American Atheists as recorded in documents of incorporation.] It is with this purpose in mind that our interest has been drawn to H.R. 3314, a bill "to modernize United States circulating coin designs for which one reverse will have a theme of the Bicentennial of the Constitution" now under consideration by the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage. American Atheists are staunch supporters and defenders of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution was a pioneer document among the founding documents of nations in that it nowhere contained a single reference to a deity or divine inspiration. Instead it began by rooting its authority in "We the People," a direct and poignant departure from the divine right of kings from which so many of our forefathers fled to these shores. The importance of the doctrine of separation of state and church for all Americans cannot then be overestimated. It was the marriage of state and church that compelled many of the settlers and immigrants to this country to flee their native lands and seek a country where religion was not an integral part of the government.

American Atheists, therefore, applauds the introduction of H.R. 3314 in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Lindy Boggs (D-LA), Rep. Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. (R-SC), and Rep. Thomas E. Petri (R-WI). We feel that it is high time that the Constitution of the United States be honored, particularly in its bicentennial year of 1989, by the government of the United States. We have no objection to the coins of the United States being used as a vehicle to commemorate that two-hundredth anniversary. Such a commemoration is secular in nature and is in keeping with the laws of the United States, in particular the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

We do, however, object to the fact that pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Section 324 ("Inscriptions on Coins," May 18, 1908) and 31 U.S.C. Section 324a ("Inscriptions on Currency and Coins," July 11, 1955) the coins proposed by H.R. 3314 would bear upon them the motto "In God We Trust." It is our position that the inclusion of that motto on coins and currency violates the Free Speech, Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that it is a religious phrase showing that the government has selected and established a particular monotheistic type of religion. Atheists, as other citizens, must carry with them at all times and "present" this religious slogan, presumably as their own, every time they purchase with cash. It, therefore, violates the Free Exercise clause.

In addition, Atheists cannot remove this religious slogan because there is a criminal law (18 U.S.C. Sections 331 and 333) prohibiting same, and thus they are denied the right of free speech and equal protection under the laws, being forced to speak the religious words of Congress by repeatedly presenting the religious motto and slogan adopted by the United States Congress. We also find it particularly inappropriate, in conjunction with the thrust of H.R. 3314, to slander the founding document that this bill purports to commemorate by including such religious graffiti as the motto "In God We Trust" along with the designs suggested by the bill. It would be far more in keeping with the nature of the document that H.R. 3314 seeks to commemorate to have the coins on which such commemoration appears remain as secular as the Constitution itself. We would like to propose the substitution of the phrase "E Pluribus Unum" for the motto "In God We Trust." The historical importance of that phrase and its origin was presented succinctly in a paper read at the Annual Convention of the American Numismatic Association, Buffalo, N.Y., August 23 to 28, 1930, by C. W. Foster, entitled "Origin and History of the Two Mottoes Used on Modern United States Coins."

The following is the pertinent excerpt.
E PLURIBUS UNUM
The phrase E Pluribus Unum is found in "In Moretum," a poem dwelling on habits and customs ascribed to Virgil:
It manus in gyrum; Paullatin singula vires
Dependunt proplas; color est E pluribus unum.

Meaning that "the species of pottage which forms at once the title and subject is described as being made of various materials which the peasant grinds up in a pestle."
English newspapers, for more than half a century before the union of the colonies, carried E Pluribus Unum as part of their motto to imply that their product was the work of many hands. . . .

On July 4, 1776, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were appointed by the Congress to draft a design for the Great Seal of the United States. Thomas Jefferson submitted the first design to Congress on August 10, 1776. The motto used on the seal was E Pluribus Unum, meaning "One Unity Composed of Many Parts." This design, however, was rejected by Congress and after failing to agree on half a dozen different designs in as many years, Congress finally turned the drafts over to Mr. Thomson, Secretary of Congress, early in 1782, and instructed him to complete the project.

Thomson asked many of his friends to help him, among them a young man by the name of Barton. Barton worked rapidly and produced a design which Thomson presented to Congress, which accepted it on the tenth of June, 1782. It was used for the first time on September 16, 1782. The design was the spread eagle with the heart-shaped shield in front of it, and holding a few arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other, with a scroll held in its beak bearing the motto E Pluribus Unum.

The first coin struck in this country that bore this motto was the New Jersey cent of 1786,
. . .
The motto was first used on the coins struck at the United States Mint in 1795.

It can be clearly seen that the motto "E Pluribus Unum" meaning "One Unity composed of Many Parts" is a fitting motto to describe the Constitution of the United States as a document that was indeed the product of a unity of many parts from many minds. The fact that the Constitution contains no reference even to a deistic deity, unlike the prior Declaration of Independence, is profoundly and historically significant and should be taken into account in any symbolic recognition of the bicentennial of its ratification.

American Atheists understands that the omission of "In God We Trust" from the half dollar, quarter dollar, dime coin, five-cent coin and one-cent coin as proposed by H.R. 3314, and or the substitution of an alternate motto, would require an amendment to modify 31 U.S.C. Section 324 and 31 U.S.C. Section 324a for the purposes of a special coinage issue commemorating the bicentennial of the Constitution. We respectfully submit that such an amendment be recommended by the Committee to the full House. The coinage can be distributed and used very efficiently without a religious motto as, in fact, it was for many years prior to the laws cited herein.

It is important for the Committee to know that American Atheists and others have mounted legal challenges to the constitutionality of the motto "In God We Trust" on the currency and coins in the past. Those attempts were unsuccessful but they have served as a learning experience for new legal actions which American Atheists intends to file in 1989, the Constitutional bicentennial year, in the federal courts. The prior cases were "Aronow v. United States," 432 F.2d 242 (1970) in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, and "Madalyn Murray O'Hair, et al. v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury, et al" 588 F.2d 1144 (1979) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In the former case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise" 432 F.2d 242, at 243. In the latter case, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, speaking with a reference to the wording of the Ninth Circuit above, ruled in the "O'Hair v. Blumenthal" challenge that "From this it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the primary purpose of the slogan was secular; it served a secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously secular function of providing a medium of exchange. As such it is equally clear that the use of the motto on the currency or otherwise does not have a *primary* effect of advancing religion," 462 F. Supp. 19 (W.D. Tex 1978), a ruling sustained by the Fifth Circuit.

It is the continued position of American Atheists, despite these rulings, that the laws providing for the national motto and placement of the slogan on the currency of the United States clearly fails all three tests of constitutionality under the First Amendment as stated in "Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist," 413 U.S. 756 (1973), "Taken together these decisions dictate that to pass muster under the Establishment Clause the law in question, first, must reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, e.g., "Epperson v. Arkansas," 393 U.S. 97 (1968); second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, e.g., "McGowen v. Maryland," 366 U.S. 420 (1961): "School District of Abington Township v. Schempp ," 374 U.S. 203 (1963); and, third, must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion, e.g., "Walz v. Tax Comm'n," 397 U.S. 664 (1970), "Lemon v. Kurtzman," 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971), and " Tilton v. Richardson," 403 U.S. 672, 678 (1971)."

Law 36 U.S.C. 186, titled "National Motto," states in its entirety: "The national motto of the United States is declared to be `In God We Trust.' " This law, (1) has no clear secular purpose, (2) advances religion, and (3) entangles government with religion excessively, thereby failing all three tests for constitutionality under the Establishment Clause. Also, 31 U.S.C. Section 324, titled "Inscriptions on coins," states in its entirety: Upon one side of all coins of the United States there shall be an impression emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word "Liberty," and upon the reverse side shall be the figure or representation of an eagle, with the inscriptions, "United States of America" and "E Pluribus Unum" and a designation of the value of the coin; but on the dime, 5-, and 1-cent piece, the figure of the eagle shall be omitted. The motto "In God We Trust" shall be inscribed on all coins. Any coins minted after July 23, 1965, from 900 fine coin silver shall be inscribed with the year 1964. All other coins shall be inscribed with the year of the coinage or issuance unless the Secretary of the Treasury, in order to prevent or alleviate a shortage of coins of any denomination, directs that coins of that denomination continue to be inscribed with the last preceding year inscribed on coins of the denomination.

This law purports to have the secular purpose of fixing "inscriptions on coins" and some of those inscriptions and representations are secular, such as the word "Liberty" and the representation of the eagle. However, as in "Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist," the court notes, "Our cases simply do not support the notion that a law found to have a `primary' effect to promote some legitimate end under the state's police power is immune from further examination to ascertain whether it also has the direct and immediate effect of advancing religion." The Slogan "In God We Trust" placed on coinage has the direct and immediate effect of advancing religion. Law 31 U.S.C. Section 324 fails by the first test to be constitutional.

Law 31 U.S.C. Section 324a, titled "Inscription on currency and coins," states in its entirety, At such time as new dies for the printing of currency are adopted, the dies shall bear, at such place or places thereon as the Secretary of the Treasury may determine to be appropriate, the inscription "In God We Trust" and thereafter this inscription shall appear on all United States currency and coins. This law (1) has no clear secular purpose, (2) advances religion, and (3) entangles government with religion excessively, thereby failing all three tests for constitutionality under the Establishment Clause.

Neither "Aronow v. United States" nor " O'Hair v. Blumenthal" was accepted on petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It is the intention of American Atheists to pursue the causes of action set forth in those cases in circuits other than the Ninth or Fifth Circuits with the goal of placing the issues in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is our position that the Supreme Court will declare the mandatory inclusion of "In God We Trust" on coins and currency to be unconstitutional.

It is important, in view of the stated purpose of H.R. 3314, to turn at this point to a historical review of how the phrase "In God We Trust" came to be included on United States coins and currency. The first directions as to mottoes on currency were given in Statute II, Chap. III, January 18, 1837, "An Act supplementary to the act entitled `An Act establishing a mint, and regulating the coins of the United States.' " In it (a) Section 2m Sixth reads: "The engraver shall prepare and engrave with the legal devices and inscriptions, all the dies used in the coinage of the mint and its branches." And Section 13 reads: "And be it further enacted, that upon the coins struck at the mint there shall be the following devices and legends; upon one side of each of said coins there shall be an impression emblematic of liberty, with an inscription of the word LIBERTY, and the year of the coinage; and upon the reverse of each of the gold and silver coins, there shall be the figure or representation of an eagle, with the inscription United States of America, and a designation of the value of the coin; but on the reverse of the dime and half dime, cent and half cent, the figure of the eagle shall be omitted." The coinage, at that point in history, was totally secular; as clean from a mention of a god as was the Constitution.

Then came the post-Civil War insurgence of religious fanaticism onto the national scene. On February 3, 1863, eleven Protestant denominations (including United Presbyterians and the Methodist Episcopalian General Conference) organized the National Reform Association. Their aim was to "reform" the Constitution and one of its principle purposes was to amend that document to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." The association formally petitioned Congress to amend the preamble of the Constitution so as to read:

We, the people of the United States, HUMBLY ACKNOWLEDGING ALMIGHTY GOD AS THE SOURCE OF ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER IN CIVIL GOVERNMENT, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AS THE RULER AMONG THE NATIONS, HIS REVEALED WILL AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE A CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT, AND in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS and the blessings of LIFE, liberty, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS to ourselves, our posterity, AND ALL THE PEOPLE, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [Proposed amendments have been capitalized.]

The Christian amendment never succeeded in obtaining either the approval of Congress of any of the states. The National Reform Association attracted many eminent men into its ranks. These were men such as Supreme Court Justice William Strong, Prof. J. H. McIlvaine of Princeton, former governors J. W. Geary and James Pollock of Pennsylvania, J. M. Harvey of Kansas, and J. W. Stewart of Vermont. The most important of these to the history of coinage was James Pollock. President Lincoln picked him as the mint's tenth director in 1861, and he remained in that job until he resigned in 1867. The nation thus had a Director of the Mint during that period who was among those who wanted to make the United States an official theocracy.

During the tenure of Director Pollock the Rev. Mark Richards Watkinson (1824-1877), pastor of "The Old Ridley Baptist Meeting House" which came to be known as "The First Particular Baptist Church of Ridleyville," (which in turn changed its name to "The Prospect Hill Baptist Church" in 1887) founded in 1832 in what was Ridleyville and is now Prospect Park, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, sat down on November 13, 1861, and wrote then Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. The letter read as follows:
Dear Sir:
You are about to submit your annual report to Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the ecognition of the Almighty God in some form in our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were now shattered beyond recognition? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the Goddess of Liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words `perpetual union'; within this ring the all-seeing eye crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words `God, liberty, law.'

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the divine protection we have personally claimed. From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

Within a week after receipt of Rev. Watkinson's letter, Secretary Chase sent a letter to the new Director of the Mint, James Pollock.

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

[FOOTNOTE: According to a Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures Report to accompany H.R. 17296 titled "To Restore The Motto `In God We Trust' to The Coins of the United States," reported on February 27, 1908, as a "History of the Motto `In God We Trust.' "]

In response to this directive Director Pollock came up with various wordings such as "Our Trust Is In God," "Our Trust in God," "Our God and Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust," which was most preferred by Pollock. In December 1863, designs were submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. On December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase wrote a reply to Director Pollock containing the following remarks:

I approve of your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word, "Our," so as to read, "Our God And Our Country." And on that with the shield it should be changed so as to read, "In God We Trust."

The coin motto had been born. Congress was approached and "An Act in Amendment of an Act entitled, `An Act Relating to Foreign Coins and the Coinage of Cents at the Mint of the United States,' approved February twenty-one, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven," was passed by Congress on April 22, 1864. That Act contained the phrase "...and the shape, mottoes, and devices of said coins shall be fixed by the director of the mint, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury;. . ." Mint Director Pollock had carte blanche and could, at his discretion, Christianize our coins.

WHAT COULD NOT BE DONE THROUGH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WAS DONE THROUGH THE SCHEMING OF SEVERAL MEN. The first public issue coin to employ the new motto was the bronze two-cent piece which was issued from 1864 to 1873.

The next person to influence the coinage design was Theodore Roosevelt. On August 3, 1903, Roosevelt saw an equestrian statue of General Sherman which the sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens had prepared for the Fifth Avenue entrance to Central Park in New York City. Roosevelt wrote Saint-Gaudens that day about how he admired his work. Then, in July of 1905, Roosevelt wrote Saint-Gaudens again and asked the artist to prepare his inauguration medal. After seeing the quality of that medal he decided that the same artistic skill should be applied to money. He consulted with Secretary of the Treasury Shaw and found that there was nothing to legally stop him from asking the sculptor to submit to him new coin designs. Roosevelt wrote to Saint-Gaudens on November 6, 1905, asking him to do so.

When considering his designs, Saint-Gaudens came across the problem of inscriptions. In that regard, he considered the motto "In God We Trust" and in the words of his son Homer Saint-Gaudens in the book, The Reminiscences of Augustus Saint-Gaudens , which he edited, said: "The motto `In God We Trust' as an inartistic intrusion not required by law, he wholly discarded and thereby drew down upon himself the lightning of public comment."

Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto "In God We Trust," but not for artistic reasons. He felt essentially that it was blasphemous for such a motto to appear on mere coins. He expressed those sentiments in a letter to William Boldly on November 11, 1907, which said in part:

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. . . . 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. [FOOTNOTE: Ted Schwarz, The Golden Art of St. Gaudens, "Coins," September 1976, p. 76.]

Again the religious community fell upon the Congress and the President with letters of protest and with numerous petitions demanding the restoration of the motto "In God We Trust" that had appeared on *some* coins since 1864. Roosevelt realized that he could not buck public opinion on the issue. A bill was introduced into Congress in 1908. When it became obvious that the House was going to vote in favor of the bill, Roosevelt talked to Senator Thomas Carter, a Republican from Montana, about the bill, referring to a statement by a member of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, saying:

The Congressman says the House Committee wants to pass a bill restoring the motto to the coin. I tell him it is not necessary; it is rot; but the Congressman says there is a misapprehension as to the religious purport of it -- it is so easy to stir up a sensation and misconstrue the President's motive -- and that the Committee is agitated as to the effect of a veto. I repeat, it is rot, pure rot; but I am telling the Congressman if Congress wants to pass a bill reestablishing the motto, I shall not veto it. You may as well know it in the Senate also.

The bill was passed in the House on March 8, 1908, and in the Senate on May 13, 1908, becoming Public Law No. 120. The law said in part "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the motto `In God We Trust,' heretofore inscribed on certain denominations of the gold and silver coins of the United States of America, shall hereafter be inscribed upon all such gold and silver coins of said denominations as heretofore." Theodore Roosevelt signed it, as approved, on May 18, 1908.

Later, the Cold War was to come to the United States and with it the hysteria of McCarthyism. In this climate, the religious community again moved to capture the symbols of the nation. At that time a man by the name of Matthew R. Rothert from Camden, Arkansas, was the president of the Arkansas Numismatic Society. He had joined the American Numismatic Association in 1946, and was eventually elected president of that association for the 1965-1967 term. In a speech to the Arkansas group on November 11, 1953, he discussed the idea of including "In God We Trust" on paper money. The response to his speech was enthusiastic and that prompted him to send a written proposal to Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey, and also to President Eisenhower and Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks. [FOOTNOTE: Dudley L. McClure, "The Motto on our Money -- In God We Trust," "Coins," December 1972, p. 47.]

Just as in the case of the Rev. Watkinson in 1861, one letter prompted the wheels of the executive branch into motion and on June 7, 1955, H.R. 619 "Providing for the inscription of `In God We Trust' on all United States Currency and Coins," was introduced in the House. In the Congressional Record , June 7, 1955, page 7796, the intent of the bill was made clear by Mr. Bennett of Florida.

I sincerely hope that the Senate will give its prompt approval to this proposal. In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continuously look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom. At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail. To serve as a constant reminder of this truth, it is highly desirable that our currency and coins should bear these inspiring words "In God We Trust."

On June 29, 1955, Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-TX) introduced Calendar No. 642, H.R. 619 "A bill to provide that all United States currency shall bear the inscription `In God We Trust.' " The bill was passed that date without any serious debate. The Cold War, however, was not over, nor were the residuals of McCarthyism. On March 22, 1956, H.R. Res. 396 was introduced to establish "In God We Trust" as a national motto. The bill became law on July 30, 1956 (36 U.S.C. Section 186). That law regarding the establishment of a non-secular national motto, has been relied upon by the defendants in both "Aronow v. United States" and "O'Hair v. Blumenthal" to give "patriotic" meaning to several laws, one passed forty-eight years prior, in 1908, and one passed one year prior in 1955.

This use is to invoke the discredited theory of the efficacy of an ex post facto law in an attempt to gain authority for a prior law by referral back to a later or subsequent law. If Congress had truly been expressing the collective will of the people, the act providing for the adoption of "In God We Trust" as a national motto should have preceded the coinage motto bill of 1908.

We can see from the foregoing brief history that two fanatically religious individuals separated by some ninety-two years of history were principally responsible for the events that culminated in the placing of an unconstitutional religious motto on United States coins and currency. The issue of coin and currency mottoes was never submitted to the electorate for any type of vote. It was not by the overwhelming voice of the people that a religious motto was interjected into our coins, currency, national motto, and pledge. The events of 1954, 1955, and 1956 in regard to the establishment of religious mottoes slipped through Congress almost unnoticed in the midst of the McCarthy reign of terror. It is also evident that Theodore Roosevelt was only desirous of making a good faith effort to modernize and beautify the coinage. A similar effort is being instituted here today in the form of H.R. 3314.

Yet, that seemingly innocent desire of Theodore Roosevelt plunged him into the midst of controversy and brought the wrath of the religious community down upon his administration. American Atheists does not desire to see the deliberations concerning H.R. 3314 turn into a forum for modern day religious zealots to arouse the level of controversy that was generated by Theodore Roosevelt's attempt to improve the coinage.

In that regard we are somewhat apprehensive that our input into the hearings on H.R. 3314 will generate an avalanche of letters to the members of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, from the more religious of their constituencies. On the other hand, American Atheists feels that it is important to honor the Constitution during its bicentennial year in a way that will not obfuscate the contribution of the document's secular nature, a trait which makes it unique among founding documents.

American Atheists wants to leave the Committee with the point that Atheists are patriotic Americans who desire only to exhibit their patriotism in secular ways. When the government of the United States sees fit to place the value of patriotism or adherence to constitutional principles predominantly in a religious context, whether on coins or in the form of a pledge, an oath, or an invocation, it serves to weaken the bonds that hold all citizens of this country in common.

We ask that the symbolism on our coins and currency not serve to divide Americans into religionists and secularists, but tend to unite all citizens in an equal appreciation of our constitutional democracy.

Copyright American Atheists, Inc. All rights reserved Printed copies of this essay can be obtained from: American Atheists, Inc., P. O. Box 140195, Austin, Texas 78714-0195, Voice: 512-458-1244, FAX: 512-467-9525. Stock #8402. 50 copies of this item for $2.50. Texas residents please add sales tax.

Text prepared and distributed by American Atheist Online Services, P O Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195. Voice: (512) 458-1244. BBS: (512) 302-0223.


This text may be freely downloaded, reprinted, and/other otherwise redistributed, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to American Atheist Online Services <aainc aaos

Source: The Secular Web