Atheist, Michael Newdow has bid to remove phrase rejected
A legal dispute to remove the inscription of “In God We Trust” on US currency has been declined by The Supreme Court on Monday, according to reports.
Atheist, Michael Newdow, who filed the case argued Congress’s mandate to inscribe the nation’s motto on U.S. money, argued it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, prohibiting Congress from establishing a national religion.
The phrase “In God We Trust” appeared on coins in 1864 before Congress passed legislation in 1955 requiring all paper and coin currency to bear the words.
Newdow argued that “by mandating the inscription of facially religious text on every coin and currency bill,” the federal government has turned atheists into “political outsiders’ on the basis of their fundamental religious tenant.”
Newdow suffered a slew of defeats in lower courts, with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing to dismiss the case in 2018.
According to The Washington Examiner: Newdow has mounted several challenges to what he claims is the government’s unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
In 2004, he brought a case arguing the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment, though was unsuccessful before the Supreme Court.
He also sought to block Chief Justice John Roberts from saying the phrase “So help me God” while administering the presidential oath of office to President Barack Obama during his inauguration in 2009. Newdow also sought to stop the phrase from being recited in the 2013 and 2017 inaugurations.
A federal court threw out that lawsuit, and the Supreme Court in 2011 declined to take up the case.
Last week, the Democrats removed “so help me God” from the U.S. House of Representatives’ oath.
Witnesses must take the oath when testifying before several of the congressional committees, which are under Democratic control.
Neon Nettle reported in January the changes were being slowly implemented as part of a new rules package.
According to the Draft earlier his year, the House Committee on Natural Resources would require witnesses to recite only:
“Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”