Do the Words “In God, We Trust” Violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause?

 The phrases “In God, we agree with” no longer violate the primary modification’s status quo clause.

The clause reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an established order of religion, or prohibiting the loose exercise thereof; or abridging the liberty of speech, or of the clicking, or the proper of the people peaceably to collect, and to petition the Authorities for a redress of grievances.” The phrases “In God, we consider” does now not pertain to any individual faith or another, the word God is ambiguous relating to a supernatural being, applicable to a myriad of monotheist and polytheist religions alike. The not unusual announcement that the phrase “In God we consider” is at once analogous to a Judeo-Christian God is unsuitable.

Similarly, it is blind to the universality held throughout major cultures, beliefs, and values spanning almost all nations and time intervals. The important central idea of believing in a novel or important supernatural pressure or deity is found in almost every essential global faith, through polytheism and monotheism. For example, in the Hindu faith, they consider that they trust Allah in Brahman in Islam. The historical Egyptians trusted inside the solar god as an important deity that breathed life onto this earth. The phrases “In God, we accept as true with” signify America’s adherence to the establishment clause with the aid of promoting a non-precise, widely wide-spread notion that encourages the unfastened exercise of faith, not the absence of it.

The status quo clause shows that the united states can show no bias towards any person’s religion; it’s far to consequently promote freedom of faith, no longer freedom of religion. Most competition comes from atheists who declare that the phrases “In God, we believe” found on U.S. foreign money violate their proper freedom of faith located inside the status quo clause.

However, atheism is not a faith; it is the lack thereof; Webster’s dictionary defines religion as a non-public set or institutionalized device of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. The antonym of religion in which atheism falls under is religionless that’s described by way of the 1913 version of Webster’s dictionary as “Destitute of faith.” This appropriately describes atheism because of the centric middle of this philosophy. Atheism is a philosophy, deserves safety underneath freedom of speech but merits no protection as an established order of religion. Can you photo the chaos if we allowed people’s personal philosophy to keep the equal criminal advantage as faith? If this became law or courtroom precedent, the effects could be catastrophic.