As reported here earlier on November 15, Michael Newdow, the California man who once sued to prevent his school district from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in classes, is moving forward with a lawsuit designed to prevent the US Treasury from printing "In God We Trust" on United States coins and paper currency.

There are a number of important threads to follow in this story, the first of which is the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It is often said that the First Amendment forbids government on any level from not only establishing a religion, but involving itself in state-sponsored, taxpayer-funded religious observances of any kind. Historically, this is not the case. In fact, during the hot summer of 1787, when the Founding Fathers were at an impasse while arguing over the wording of the Constitution (which was being designed to replace the Articles fo Confederation, our original set of government rules), it was none other than Benjamin Franklin who suggested that the delegates pause, and pray to God. Many observers said this was the breakthrough moment for the convention.

Indeed, the Founding era grew out of a colonial experience based on religious belief. William Penn established Pennsylvania as a religious colony. Rhode Island was established to allow for religious freedom (the land area was even purchased, rather than seized, from the local Indians). Massachusetts is famous for its Puritans. To say that the Founding fathers did not want religion in general to be promoted by government is simply untrue, (though many of us who follow the Founders principles of freedom would often argue that a truly free nation would not use any seized tax money to promote any religion, or even any art, or culture, or sport, or school policy that could run afoul of the morals or ethics of the person being taxed).

One of the first things Thomas Jefferson did when he established the University of Virginia was to purchase (with his own funds) Bibles for the school. The Supreme Court building has a relief sculpture of the Ten Commandments, and whether one likes it or not, the ten Commandments were not simply rules passed from man to man, making them somehow a-religious. They were given to Moses by God. When contemporary legalists try to parse and fudge this reality into the idea that posting the Ten Commandments is somehow not a religious excercise, they are, simply put, being intellectually dishonest.

Now we come to the reality of coinage. The Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money and fix the value thereof. This being the case, the establishment of the Federal Reserve system, with its monopoly on control of interest rates, is patently unconstitutional. However, regardless of this economic and legal blunder, the granting of the minting power to the US government was one of the few mistakes the Founders made.

Not only has it brought about this current controversy with the phrase "In God We Trust" upsetting some people who do not want their taxes spent to support a state-sanction of religion on their coins, it has led to disastrous economic consequences.

Leaving the power to mint or print money in the hands of the government leaves all of our money at the mercy or political whim. Money does not need to be sacntioned by the state. Money is a means of eschange, it represents work on the part of those engaged in exchange, and it can be ideally handled in the private market. Government manipulation of the money supply leads to inlfation (too much money chasing the goods on the market, causing higher prices), or deflation (an articifially small amount of money chasing goods on the market, causing interest rates to disconnect from the market).

For a deeper explanation of the dangers of even a small bit of Federal Reserve influence on the money supply, please refer to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and this piece:

http://www.mises.org/story/1506

So, should the coinage of the US have "In God We Trust" emblazoned on it for all to see, even those who don't want their government to stress this belief? Is the act an establishment of religion? It is, by its nature, religious, but does it establish a religion? Would the removal of it be construed as the establishment of an atheistic religion, based on the belief that there is not a God, and that the universe was created from nothing. There is no evidence that the universe could have spontaneously arisen from void. There is only evidence that it arose. Thus, religious Americans could be just as disturbed as Michael Newdow by the removal of any recognition of religious belief in US government operations.

If we got government out of printing money, we wouldn't have these problems. But don't count on Mr. Newdow to suggest this in his lawsuit.

The manipulation of the money supply is an issue we will vist often here. So keep your eyes on this site!

-- Number Six