Reading the pros and cons proffered in
Lancaster Newspapers’ article on a bill that would require Pennsylvania public schools to display
the national motto “In God We Trust,” I’m struck by how disingenuous some of the arguments are on both sides.
According to state Rep. Ryan Aument,
House Bill 1728 is primarily
pedagogical:
“We should use the national motto and the controversy behind
this issue as a teaching point to engage students in debate,” he said. “By
displaying the motto, it opens the door for educators to have that talk with
students."
Aument said the debate is less about religion and more about
our history as a people.
"Our history is what it is, our founding documents say
what they say and I think we should have an open and candid conversation with
students about that fact," he said.
This is pretty much the standard line taken on public
displays of religious symbols and texts, and with good reason: it’s the one justification
that federal courts have countenanced, albeit narrowly and, some would argue, inconsistently. You
can’t proselytize or endorse, but you can teach history and commemorate heritage.
But does anyone really believe legislators want to
post four bare words on school walls, stripped of context, merely to improve
historical understanding? If that were the motive, wouldn't there be better ways to proceed - say, by improving history standards or increasing class time?
The bill’s opponents, on the other hand, have an equally implausible
reason for fighting it. Scott Rhoades, founder of the Lancaster Freethought
Society, and Hempfield School District Brenda Becker both argue, in part, that
the measure should be opposed because of its cost:
"I certainly have no aversion to the national motto,
but this is another situation where it will cost us precious resources to have these
signs created and posted,” [Becker] said.
It’s good to be thrifty with the public purse, but let’s
keep things in perspective. The bill calls for one plaque per school building – you can get a
decent metal plaque online for about $100. (You can get
this one for $9.99 if you’re
OK with the addendum, “All others pay cash.”) Add in another $50 for labor,
double the total to be on the safe side, and you’re talking maybe $300 per
school. Out of a multi-million dollar school district budget, that’s a rounding
error. No school is going to fail in its mission because of $300, or even $1,000.
True, the bill might put school districts at risk of being
sued by church-state separation activists. Those costs could quickly become big
enough to matter. But the plaques themselves, not so much.
Here’s my theory: If you support placing the motto “In God
We Trust” in public schools, it’s because you trust in God and think society would be better if everyone did. If you
oppose displaying the motto, it’s because you’re deeply suspicious of the coercive
power of the state, and you think schools have better things to focus on than a religious dogma, even an attenuated, ecumenical one. The other arguments are just cover stories.
Just for fun, let’s take a look at the history of “In God We
Trust,” which the bill’s supporters say they are so anxious to inculcate.
As HB 1728
strenuously emphasizes in its preamble, Pennsylvanian James Pollock
was director of the U.S. Mint when the idea of putting God on our currency
originated. Here’s
the U.S. Treasury’s account:
Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many
appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United
States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department
records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November
13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister
of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, [Why does Watkinson not get
a shout-out in HB 1728? – ts] and read:
Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the
Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously
overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our
coins.
You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not
shattered beyond reconstruction? 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 the ring the
allseeing 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.
So, Chase was influenced by people who thought it was important to let future historians know we were a Christian country. Hmm.
Anyway, Chase sent Pollock a letter telling him to develop a motto "expressing in the fewest and tersest words" the nation's trust in the Almighty. Pollock proposed the mottoes “Our Country; Our God” and “God,
Our Trust.” Chase amended those to “Our God and Our Country” and “In God We
Trust.” Incidentally, that means Chase, not Pollock gave the motto its final
form. That's a
detail HB 1728
gets wrong. It says, "Pollock suggested the motto 'In God We Trust' be featured on all United States currency." He didn't; his version was "God, Our Trust."
Here’s a fun fact about Pollock. He was a member of the
National Reform Association, or NRA, a group formed during the Civil War and
devoted to founding U.S. governance on explicitly Christian principles. Here’s
how the NRA
proposed rewriting the preamble to the Constitution:
"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, and His revealed will as the supreme law of the land
..."
Take that, heathens! The NRA’s proposal did not succeed, but
its purpose lives on today among the Christian dominionists.
If I put an NPR or a Fox bumper
sticker on my car, you can assume I generally endorse NPR or Fox. I'm not just reminding you that NPR or Fox exist or that they have a particular history. The same is all the more true when public entities display symbols and slogans. Their display is never just pedagogy, absent some indication that makes the pedagogical function explicit.
At root, the “we're just teaching history” move is the same one resorted
to by creationists – the “teach the controversy” gambit. Creationism is
Christian literalism gussied up as science … but if schools teach the controversy, partisans will argue, they’re not “endorsing” religion per se. That notion
doesn’t pass the smell test,
and it doesn’t pass it in this case, either.
No, the controversy really does comes down to whether you think public schools should be in the business of promoting (a trust in) God or not. The notion that this is about teaching history and tradition is a Trojan Horse.