Category Archives: Constitution

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, budget, Congress, Constitution, donald trump, immigration

THE WALL IS INSIGNIFICANT

originally published 1/16/2019

Benjamin Franklin supposedly described our new form of government to a citizen as “a republic, if you can keep it”.  A republic is a sovereign nation where power resides in elected individuals representing citizens, and where government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.  The debate over whether to build a wall along our border with Mexico is no longer about the wall.  It is about whether we are still a republic. Continue reading THE WALL IS INSIGNIFICANT →

All Posts, civil rights, Congress, Constitution, justice

LET’S CONTINUE ARGUING

It was on July 4, 1776 that representatives of the people of every colony unanimously announced themselves as member states that would form a new nation.   Before there was a constitution or a president, there was our Declaration of Independence.

In just one eloquent sentence that declaration laid the philosophical foundation for the United States of America, its Constitution, laws and traditions.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  That sentence provides glimpses of the shining city on the hill that Americans aspire to build.  As each generation adds to the city, there are debates and battles over laws, the role of government and our vision for the future. Continue reading LET’S CONTINUE ARGUING →

All Posts, Congress, Constitution, justice

REREADING THE CONSTITUTION

4 Comments

When I’m confused and disappointed by the actions of our elected leaders, I sometimes get the urge to reread our Constitution.  Here are thoughts from a recent rereading.

From Article 1 Section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”  Our Congress has the authority to standardize how and when we elect its members.  It seems reasonable to conclude that Congress could prohibit partisan gerrymandering.

From Amendment 14 Section 1:  “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”  Legislative districts are created by state law.  Here in North Carolina, the Legislature’s stated purpose in gerrymandering the districts was to elect Republicans to 10 of the 13 seats even though nearly half of voters actually vote for Democrats.  They achieved that goal.  The law that created gerrymandered districts seems to deny equal protection to citizens who disagree with Republicans.

From Article 2 Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Bribery would apply if a President accepted a bribe. Would it also be bribery if a Presidential candidate or his team agreed to not implement sanctions on Russia in exchange for information useful to their campaign?

The US Supreme Court has received gerrymandering cases from Wisconsin, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.  The lower courts are so politicized that news reports generally include whether the judges were appointed by Democrats or Republicans.  The implication is that a judge is likely to rule in favor of the party that appointed her or him.  That is an awful but sadly credible assumption to make about our supposedly independent judiciary.

If the court rules against gerrymandering, that is likely to result in Democrats gaining seats in the House of Representatives.  In addition to being the body that originates federal budgets, the House is the body with authority to impeach a President – an action which a Republican led House might be more reluctant to consider.

If the Senate had approved President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, there would be a 5-4 split of Democrat vs Republican judges.  Instead, the Republican controlled Senate refused to even consider the nomination for months – in hopes of winning the presidency and getting a Republican nominee.  They succeeded in that; and with the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch there is a 5-4 split favoring Republicans.  What will it say about our Supreme Court if a Gerrymandering decision is decided by that margin?

The Presidential election of 2000 may well have been swung from Al Gore to George W. Bush by a party-line 5-4 Supreme Court decision that stopped the Florida vote recount.  We’ll never know.  Nor will we know whether the US would have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan after 9-11 under President Gore.  Such decisions change our history in profound ways.

Underlying many of the suspicions, malfunctions and failures of our government is the increasingly bitter partisan divide. Note however, that political parties are not even mentioned in our constitution.  Only individuals, not political parties, have a constitutional right to be on a ballot.  To protect their power (and the President), Republicans are now attacking the credibility of important institutions including our FBI, CIA and Justice Department.  Russian agents have effectively used social media to discredit those same agencies.  How ironic is it to find Republican leadership and Russian espionage agents on the same side?

President Washington warned, in his farewell address, that political parties, “…are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” It’s an apt description of current events.

Nations succeed and become great when most of the people support them and feel fairly treated.  When a large proportion feel mistrust and mistreated, nations fail.  Rather than “becoming great again”, our nation is in jeopardy due to citizen mistrust of elected officials.  My conclusion is that it’s up to voters to save the union. No one else can do it.

All Posts, Congress, Constitution

PERSEVERANCE AND POLITICS CAN BRING SUCCESS

Many Americans seem to believe that our nation is declining and in danger of failure.  I don’t think that facts justify that belief.  For example, did you know that the number of law enforcement officers killed as a result of crimes peaked at 134 in the year 1973?  By 2015 it had declined to 46, about one-third of the peak number.  Any killing is one too many but failure to notice improvement encourages unsubstantiated beliefs that our nation is declining. Why are we losing our self-confidence and self-respect when objectively we are making progress?

I recently read a relevant commentary by Lee Hamilton, a retired congressman that I’ve admired for many years.  He represented my conservative Southern Indiana hometown as a Democrat from 1965 through 1999 then served as co-chair of the 9/11 Commission after his retirement.

During Hamilton’s years in congress the issues faced by voters and elected officials were arguably even more contentious and vexing than the ones we face today: voting rights act, Vietnam War, school desegregation and busing, proliferation of nuclear weapons, cold war, creation of Medicare and Medicaid, impeachment and resignation of President Nixon, Equal Rights Amendment, Roe vs Wade decision, and assassination of civil rights and political leaders.

Why did conservative, predominantly rural and white Southern Indiana continue to send a moderate Democrat to Washington for so many years?  After reading his May, 2017 column, I remember why so many of us, Democrats and Republicans, voted for him.  He believed in the perseverance of his constituents; believed in American institutions; and worked honestly to improve those institutions for citizens.

Hamilton opened his comments this way, “I’ve had a number of conversations recently that convince me our country is divided into two political camps separated by a deep and uncomfortably wide gap. No, I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives, or pro- and anti-Trump voters. I’m talking about people who believe in politics and our political system, and people who don’t.”

He points to distrust of institutions and elected officials; popular belief that they are unable or unwilling to solve national problems or help individuals; the excessive influence of big money on policy making, and belief that elected officials are working for personal gain rather than for the public good as subjective reasons why Americans are losing confidence in the nation.

Hamilton makes the case that politics is a worthy profession and urges us to participate.  Rather than a struggle between good and evil, he points to politics as “…our opportunity to help our neighbors, to give us better schools and hospitals and highways, to make our communities safer and more orderly. It’s a means of resolving our differences through dialogue and compromise, rather than through ideological battle or pitched warfare. If you pay attention, you’ll see a lot of politicians who go about their business intelligently, quietly, and competently — and who get good things done.”

We can find many flaws and failures in American history, but if you look at how we developed from thirteen fragile colonies to the USA of today two things are apparent.  One is the remarkable perseverance of American citizens – our belief and our pride in continuously making our nation better.  We’ve never been satisfied, nor should we be.  Instead we continue insisting on improvement.  The second thing that is apparent is that politics and the institutions of government have been our tools to facilitate the changes that we want.

Perseverance and politics helped create our national success.   Despite the messy and contentious nature of our politics, we should respect how much better it is than anarchy.  Hamilton argues for citizen involvement in politics as a means to improve our own lives, communities and institutions; and in particular he points out the responsibility to “…encourage young people’s engagement with the problems we confront.”  Through personal involvement we can understand the difficulty of reaching agreement and the amount of work required to make progress.  It’s hard.  But the alternative is surrender to the status quo.

Hamilton closes his commentary with this argument, “Those of us who believe in the system must shoulder the burden of persuasion — and I’m worried about what happens if we don’t meet it. If we lose the argument and the next generation turns away, we face dangers and risks — chaos, authoritarianism — that are far worse than what we face now.”

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, Congress, Constitution, donald trump

NOBODY BELIEVES A LIAR

2 Comments

“Nobody believes a liar, even when he’s telling the truth.”  That is the moral of Aesop’s fable about the boy who cried wolf and it has become the story of Donald Trump’s Presidency.  In the fable, the villagers did believe the shepherd boy the first two times that he cried “WOLF!”  They came to rescue him and to save the sheep.  The third time, there really was a wolf but no one came to help.  The villagers had learned that the shepherd boy was a liar so they ignored his cries.

On March 4, 2017, President Trump said this, “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!…Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!…I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!..How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” President Trump has also said that millions of people voted illegally in our last election, citing that as the only reason that he did not win the popular vote.  And he claimed on numerous occasions that our elections are rigged.

Some of candidate Trump’s outrageous statements got people excited, and he won enough electoral votes to make him President of the United States.  Now it seems that a growing majority of Americans – even a large number of his supporters – don’t take his wild accusations seriously.  I recently heard one Trump supporter respond by saying, “That’s not serious.  It’s just Trump being Trump.”

The President’s statements are accusations of criminal activity that would undermine our nation and our freedom – IF they were true.  But he has not produced evidence to support any of them.  Current and former government officials have denied the wire-tapping claims.  Numerous studies of our elections have disproven the claims of massive voter fraud and election rigging.  If a President makes such damning statements about our nation, he should demonstrate to us that they are true.  Otherwise, it is the President himself who is undermining our nation, our faith in our democratic electoral process and our freedom.

What public reaction can we expect when the President needs to speak to us about a real crisis?  Suppose, for example, that President Kennedy had told such lies before he needed to address the nation and lead our military forces during the Cuban missile crisis.  We could easily have bungled our way into a nuclear war.  What if we could not have trusted President Eisenhower’s honesty about Soviet Troops entering Hungary?  After the intelligence assessments about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction turned out to be wrong, most Americans saw it as a mistake, not a lie.

In 1962, President Kennedy needed international support for the naval blockade that prevented the Soviet Union bringing more nuclear weapons to Cuba.  He called the French President, Charles de Gaulle, and explained the situation.  He told de Gaulle that Secretary of State Dean Acheson would fly to Paris with photographs proving the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The French President responded that he did not need to see the pictures saying, “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”  It’s hard to imagine that any of our allies would give such a response today.  They would want proof.  Why would they trust our President?

In a world where a new crisis can arrive at internet speed, citizens need to be able to trust the word of our President.  So do our military and intelligence leaders.  But he’s lied about them too.  How can they trust him?

What would we do if President Trump were to tell us of an urgent problem that requires an immediate and risky response?  I certainly don’t know, but my best guess is that the nation would be divided. Some would believe.  Many would not because trust has been broken.

Our congress and courts have never faced a situation like this.  There are procedures, if needed, for removing a President, either via impeachment or for mental health reasons.  The time for that could soon be on the horizon if our President continues to lie.

All Posts, civil rights, Constitution, justice, religion

WHO MAKES YOUR DECISIONS?

2 Comments

There is a rising chorus of threats against the rights of Americans to make decisions about their own bodies.  Yes, I’m writing about abortion, not because I want to but because we now have a President and a Republican congressional majority who intend to impose their version of morality on every individual.  It’s un-American.  It’s dictatorial.  It’s patriarchal.  And they will absolutely do it unless freedom loving people stand up to them.

As preface, let’s acknowledge that consideration of abortion arises at a very difficult time in a woman’s life.  Our question is, “Who will make the decision, the woman or the government?”  Our judgments about her choice or her conscience are merely opinions.   Who decides?

For historical perspective, abortion is recorded in the earliest human histories.  Plato, for example, noted the ability of midwives to “…cause miscarriages if they think them desirable…”  Herbs, drugs and physical procedures for abortion have been generally known and widely used in every culture.  There is occasional documentation of moral or religious objections but historically, abortion was widely accepted without legal regulation or intervention.  The greatest concern was the risk posed by procedures and toxic herbs used to induce abortions.

In colonial and early America, abortion was common practice.  In the 19th century it was openly advertised and it was estimated that 20-25 percent of pregnancies were terminated by abortion.  Birth control options were limited; and at least half of abortions were among married women who had children and didn’t want or couldn’t afford more.

American religious objections evolved into attempts to ban abortion in the late 19th century, spurred by opposition to the emerging women’s rights and suffrage movements.  One notorious example of that radical religious movement is the Comstock Law of 1873.  It banned publication and teaching (even in medical schools) of any information regarding birth control, abortion or prevention of venereal disease.  Religious extremists had taken charge of the congress but clinics offering abortions continued to operate in many American cities.  Abortion continued to be available (often illegally and often dangerously) across the nation until the 1973 Supreme Court decision that overturned anti-abortion laws.

Since that time, misogynists and religious zealots have been fighting to re-impose their will on pregnant women.  Our Republican President and Congress are among them.  They certainly have the right to believe and teach whatever they choose; but they have no right to limit a woman’s full control of her own body.  That is where the battle line is drawn.

It is the nature of freedom that a person may do things – even make mistakes – which the majority of society disapproves.  For example, we allow parents to feed their children so much junk food that they are grossly obese, diabetic and destined for a life of disability before they start school. We don’t put the parents in jail for it.  Meanwhile religious zealots, obsessed with other people’s pelvic morality, insist on controlling one singular and personal aspect of a woman’s life – her pregnancy.

Among the zealots are those who put a velvet glove on the iron hand of tyranny by saying that they would allow abortion in cases of rape, or when the woman’s life would be endangered by the pregnancy. Their self-righteousness leaves them with no doubt that they know better what is right for her and her body than she does. They reserve to themselves the right to judge her motives and to require that if her sexual encounter was consensual then she will be denied an abortion.  Can you think of any other issue where laws might delve so intensely into personal matters?

Invariably we wish that whatever problem caused a woman to decide for abortion had not occurred.  With that in mind, we should acknowledge and celebrate the fact that the abortion rate in America is now at or near the lowest level in our history.  That success is due in large part to good information about birth control and inexpensive access to it.  But our nation is divided, even on that.

Abortions will continue because the reasons why some women choose them have not changed since Plato’s time.  But if Republicans have their way, abortions won’t be legal and safe.  If religious zealots are allowed to impose their will through force of law, they won’t stop with abortion, and you need not bother ask for whom the bell will toll.  It will toll for freedom.

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, Constitution

RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION

4 Comments

CLICK HERE FOR THE DECLASSIFIED VERSION OF THE CIA-FBI-NSA JOINT REPORT ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Please read it for yourself.  It’s easy reading and remarkably short. Understanding the implications is more difficult.    Form your own thoughts.  Mine will come later.

All Posts, budget, Congress, Constitution, taxes

It’s time to balance budgets

1 Comment

Although our election decided who will hold public offices, the issues that divide Americans remain unsettled.  Our political battlefield is strewn with social, economic, religious and geographic landmines ready to explode.  And it’s too early to know what a Trump-led Republican administration will be like.  Besides, election “winners” achieve mostly temporary victories because the “losing” side returns to fight another day.

In that unfortunate climate, vital responsibilities of government often go unattended.  Perhaps the best example is our decades-long and increasingly urgent need to balance federal budgets.  The last time we balanced our budget for more than two consecutive years was the eleven year period from 1920 through 1930.

If both conservative and liberal voters push for it, this might be a time when we could pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.  With that in mind, here’s my Balanced Budget Amendment idea.  It would force decisions on some issues that divide us, most notably taxes, health care and defense spending – maybe even uniting conservatives and liberals in support of practical ideas.  Here is the concept:

IDEAS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

The President must propose a balanced budget to the congress at least five months before the beginning of each fiscal year.

  1. Congress must pass a balanced budget and send it to the President for signature at least three months prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
  2. If the President vetoes a budget approved by the congress, the president and the congress must confer, agree to and sign a budget at least 30 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
  3. Failure of a President to meet the responsibilities described above on a timely basis constitutes voluntary resignation from the office of the presidency.
  4. Failure of the Congress to meet its responsibilities described above on a timely basis constitutes ninety day notice of resignation from office by all members of the congress. Each state will elect new members of congress within 60 days to take office 30 days later.
  5. A balanced budget must include all projected expenses plus any unplanned deficit from the prior year and retirement of at least one percent of existing national debt.  It must also include projection of sufficient tax revenue to fund the budget.
  6. An unbalanced budget with expenses exceeding revenue is permissible during a  time of war or other national emergency declared by the congress and approved by the President.  An unbalanced budget requires approval by sixty percent of the members of each house of congress.
  7. Trust Fund programs operated by the Federal Government which have their own dedicated revenue streams may accumulate surpluses and loan them to the Federal Budget at the discretion of the Congress and the President.  Timely repayment of such debt is the highest priority claim on federal revenue.  (Social Security is the main program of this kind.)

The specific language and content of constitutional amendments requires extreme care and scrutiny.  I’ve only tried to describe principles for an amendment, not the exacting language that would be needed.

My prediction is that it will be difficult to get legislators from either political party to consider an amendment because few, if any, are willing to make the decisions required to balance budgets. Facing a deficit, legislators from both parties are generally more willing to raise the debt ceiling than to raise taxes or cut spending.

After all the partisan shouting is done, the necessary compromises usually involve increasing our debt.  The burden is borne by voters and taxpayers.  With this amendment, if officeholders fail, they lose their jobs to someone who is willing to actually do the work.  Holding new elections to replace a failing legislature is not a radical idea. Numerous parliamentary democracies do exactly that.

This column lays out an ambitious vision for solving an urgent national problem.  It’s a good first step toward more effective government because it will also force more responsible decisions on all other federal priorities.

Is it unrealistic to think that our congress, president and voters would actually do this?  Maybe…  But if congress is unable to balance a budget, how can they expect to find success on other contentious questions like immigration, health care, war and civil rights that sit atop their agenda?

If we can’t make such decisions, our future as a viable nation is in doubt.  Let’s get started.

All Posts, Constitution, guns, health, lgbtq, north carolina, poverty, public education, taxes, war

What to do on the morning after?

3 Comments

The day after the election will be the first day of the rest of our lives. What should we expect of our elected officials? Will we help or undermine each other and elected leaders?  If individuals, families and communities listen to each other’s ideas and agree on how to move forward together, we can invigorate the idea of “commonwealth”, a society that is organized to benefit all.  Everybody wins.  If, on the other hand, winners kick losers while they’re down in order to maintain dominance and if losers do all they can to stop winners from implementing their ideas then the republic will decline.  Everybody loses.

It’s happened in great societies throughout history and it’s especially clear in the Bible’s Old Testament. When those in power dominate and abuse the powerless, everybody loses and the society fails.  When the principle of commonwealth guides decisions, the society blossoms.

Poverty, income inequality and homelessness are at crisis levels in many places.  Rural America has depended on agriculture and manufacturing to provide family incomes and property tax revenue for local governments.  Both of those economic sectors now produce more goods with fewer people than ever before.  At the same time that rural employment opportunities paying middle class wages have become scarce, the tax revenues of rural communities have stagnated.  Budgets for public education, safety, and human services are under severe stress at a time when they are critical to redevelopment of communities.  The plight of rural America has much in common with high poverty neighborhoods of urban America.  Low incomes and insufficient resources have similar effects in both places.

Will legislatures reconsider how public services are funded and which tax revenues are available at local, state and federal levels?  Will high poverty areas have funding for education, high-speed internet, water, sewer, quality of life, health and other priorities at a level that is proportionate to wealthy areas?  If not, will their future be inter-generational poverty and emigration of successful residents to more desirable areas?  Will legislators work at solving the underlying problems or will they pit urban vs rural and white vs black vs Hispanic for partisan gain?

What about the sanctity of human life?  Will we expect our congress, legislatures and executives to behave as if “all lives matter”?  Does someone who wants a gun have the right to own an assault rifle designed for mass killing?  Does a woman have the right to remove a fetus from her body?  In which decisions should government have a role?

Conflicts between personal and constitutional values will not be fully resolved but can we make progress for the common good?   Could we agree to reduce the demand for abortion by providing free birth control, better access to pre-natal care, simple and inexpensive adoption procedures, and by solving our income inequality problems?   Will we expect legislators to find ways to preserve gun ownership for self-defense and recreation while getting weapons designed for mass killing out of circulation and screening gun purchasers to rule out suspected terrorists and known criminals?  Or will we reward leaders for continuing to insult each other?

The Republican controlled Senate has refused to consider President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.  They hope to win the Presidential election and get a conservative-leaning nominee. Senators Richard Burr and Ted Cruz have made the radical statement that if Hillary Clinton is elected, they will refuse to confirm nominees and let the court shrink.  That abrogation of a senator’s constitutional responsibility would invite similar behavior from Democrats toward a Republican president. Will we insist that senators fulfill their constitutional duties?

Differences of race, wealth, religion and philosophy divide us on a long list of issues: immigration, transpacific partnership, climate change, war, taxes, LBGTQ rights, health care, and more.

We’re not all going to miraculously agree after the election. Continued success for our republic will require two things of us.  First, we must look honestly at facts.  Second, we must engage each other in ongoing conversation (listening more than arguing) about the principle of commonwealth – making decisions and laws that create opportunity and peace for all of us.

Our legislators are capable of that, but they will do it only if they know that we voters expect it, demand it, and that we’re doing it ourselves.

We can start on November 9.

All Posts, Christianity, Congress, Constitution, islam, randolph county north carolina, religion

In which God do we trust?

2 Comments

Before 1954, our pledge of allegiance described America as, “…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…”  Then Congress added “…under God…”    Two years later, they adopted “In God we trust” as our national motto. Now a movement is under way to place that motto on public buildings and patrol cars.  Why?  And why now?

Congress was clearly motivated by a desire to distinguish us from the officially atheist and communist USSR.  Their trust didn’t extend to national defense.  They were simultaneously building an arsenal of nuclear weapons to assure that we could destroy the Soviet Union if they attacked us.  Although congress didn’t specify which god they trusted, it was a conservative Christian initiative.  The reason seemed to be that many Americans took comfort in the idea that God would protect a Christian nation.

Previously, the unofficial motto of the United States was “E pluribus unum” which translates as “One from many”.   It referred to one nation emerging from thirteen colonies which had diverse values, religious traditions and laws.  It has also been used to describe American national unity among people of various races, cultures, beliefs and religions.

Today’s environment seems similar to that of the 1950s.  Fear that Muslim and Latino immigrants will bring terrorism and crime is front and center in our political discussions.  A second, and perhaps more powerful concern is that many Americans see the US as a “Christian nation” and they fear that we are becoming something else. The Christian Action League which lobbies to have the motto placed on patrol cars and public buildings obviously thinks the motto refers to the god of evangelical Christians.  So do many of the local groups who get financial support from the In God We Trust Action Committee.  It has national and state organizations that encourage and pay for the signs and decals.10997332_1007764762586557_3133498777921262665_n

It seems appropriate to ask, “How is trust in god visible?  What does it mean on a public building?”  If the nation trusts a god, what is it that we are trusting that deity to do?  Regardless of belief (or non-belief) I’d bet that most of us will call for help from a skilled law enforcement officer in a crisis rather than waiting for one deity or another to fix the problem.

I went looking for answers in holy books of the world’s two largest religions.  The Christian Bible has a great many admonitions to trust God and live by his rules. Beyond that it is unclear what trust means.  The texts that I found are about living life with trust in God – fearlessly.  None suggested advertising trust on money, buildings or law enforcement chariots.

In the Quran I found similar messages.  Since few Americans are familiar with that book, here are a couple of examples, [3:159-160] “… GOD loves those who trust in Him.  If GOD supports you, none can defeat you.  And if He abandons you, who else can support you?” “[11:123] To GOD belongs the future of the heavens and the earth, and all matters are controlled by Him. You shall worship Him and trust in Him.”  As with the Christian Bible, trust seemed to be about living life with trust in God – fearlessly, not about public displays.

What then, is the motivation for public displays?

Until I hear a more convincing rationale for the signs and decals there are three possibilities that come to mind.

  • Perhaps proponents hope that signs or decals will convince their God to intervene in the world to protect them.
  • Perhaps they want to offend non-believers and those who worship a different version of God.  Maybe they think they can discourage other beliefs by posting their own on law enforcement vehicles and public buildings.  (That kind of thinking is exactly why we have a constitutional amendment prohibiting government preference for any religion.)
  • Another possibility is that the proponents lack sufficient trust in their own God so they seek validation and support in the form of government-approved signs.

Maybe there are other reasons that are best stated by those who have made decisions to put the motto on display.   I prefer “E pluribus unum”.  It describes the confidence of a nation that will be great in the future as it has been in the past rather than the fears of a nation whose faith is weak.