“In God We Trust” in Florida Schools

 

Back in March, Rep. Kimberly Daniels, a Democrat in the Florida State house and a Christian, proposed legislation to display Florida’s motto in the schools. Gov. Scott signed a bill in March which requires all schools to display the state motto in a “conspicuous place,” beginning this week. The motto, “In God We Trust” became part of the Florida state seal in 1868 and on the Florida flag in 1900 and only became the state motto in 2006. Rep. Daniels from Jacksonville stated:

‘This motto is inscribed on the halls of this great capitol and inked on our currency, and it should be displayed so that our children will be exposed and educated on this great motto, which is a part of this country’s foundation,’ she said when a House committee took up her bill (HB 839). ‘Something so great should not be hidden.’

Some are protesting the law, saying that Florida needs much more than signs to protect the students. (The legislation was passed following the Parkland Florida shooting.) One writer in particular says that more gun control is needed instead. He also makes the point that students are exposed to the motto in other ways.

I just hope the teachers spend time explaining why this motto is so important to Florida and the United States of America.

What do you think?

Published in Education
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 32 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    What do I think? I think I like federalism. I also think that, while five years ago this might have drawn a federal legal challenge, it seems less likely to do so today.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    What do I think? I think I like federalism. I also think that, while five years ago this might have drawn a federal legal challenge, it seems less likely to do so today.

    Why do you think it would have drawn a legal challenge, Hank?

    • #2
  3. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    What do I think? I think I like federalism. I also think that, while five years ago this might have drawn a federal legal challenge, it seems less likely to do so today.

    Why do you think it would have drawn a legal challenge, Hank?

    Because a plausible separation charge could be leveled against it (given the hyper-aggressive stance that’s been adopted in recent years) and it’s the kind of thing the Obama administration might have weighed in on, in its ceaseless intrusions upon the states and undermining of the social order.

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    What do I think? I think I like federalism. I also think that, while five years ago this might have drawn a federal legal challenge, it seems less likely to do so today.

    Why do you think it would have drawn a legal challenge, Hank?

    Because a plausible separation charge could be leveled against it (given the hyper-aggressive stance that’s been adopted in recent years) and it’s the kind of thing the Obama administration might have weighed in on, in its ceaseless intrusions upon the states and undermining of the social order.

    Of course! We don’t want to corrupt those poor kids any more than we have or expose the atheist kids to G-d. What was I thinking. . .

    • #4
  5. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    I think it would be far better for Christian families to actually live out their faith, making disciples who do in fact trust in God, than to paste the motto all over thinking that somehow it’s going to make a difference.  

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Spin (View Comment):

    I think it would be far better for Christian families to actually live out their faith, making disciples who do in fact trust in God, than to paste the motto all over thinking that somehow it’s going to make a difference.

    I can appreciate that viewpoint, @spin, but I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think we can do both; the more exposure these beliefs and ideas get, the more they invite thought and practice. Besides, it’s not just about faith, it’s about this country, too.

    • #6
  7. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    it’s not just about faith

    Disagree.  It is only about faith.  The degree to which Americans embrace the Lord, is the degree to which this country will flourish.  

    • #7
  8. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    I think it would be far better for Christian families to actually live out their faith, making disciples who do in fact trust in God, than to paste the motto all over thinking that somehow it’s going to make a difference.

    I can appreciate that viewpoint, @spin, but I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think we can do both; the more exposure these beliefs and ideas get, the more they invite thought and practice. Besides, it’s not just about faith, it’s about this country, too.

    I think the good people of Florida will judge for themselves whether this law is the right thing to do, or the wrong thing.  And certainly, I don’t think any harm comes from putting “In God We Trust” on the wall.  

    Where my disagreement comes is whether it does any good.  I think if we were doing what we ought, as a society, there’d be no need to legislate it.  

    • #8
  9. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    I agree with Rep. Daniels; and I see it as a gentle push-back against the militant atheism that is so pervasive.

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    I agree with Rep. Daniels; and I see it as a gentle push-back against the militant atheism that is so pervasive.

    Yes! I’m with you, @jimmcconnell. We keep complaining about so much secularism around us. This is a visual and powerful way to say we think otherwise!

    • #10
  11. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Because a plausible separation charge could be leveled against it

    And that’s too bad.  “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, and allowing students to exercise their religious rites during school hours is not a government endorsement of religion.

    OTOH, I have heard of schools allowing Muslim prayers (and following Muslim dietary laws), but not any others.  Could it be they fear the physical violence associated with angry Islam?

    • #11
  12. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Having lived 18 years in New York State, where effectively God is not allowed to be mentioned anywhere near anything associated with government (and it being New York government is involved in a lot), we were pleased to notice in our current move to Texas (west of Fort Worth) the words “In God We Trust” on the tailgates of the county sheriff SUV’s.

    • #12
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Stad (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Because a plausible separation charge could be leveled against it

    And that’s too bad. “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, and allowing students to exercise their religious rites during school hours is not a government endorsement of religion.

    OTOH, I have heard of schools allowing Muslim prayers (and following Muslim dietary laws), but not any others. Could it be they fear the physical violence associated with angry Islam?

    Nope. It’s not that complicated. No religion. Period.

    • #13
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Having lived 18 years in New York State, where effectively God is not allowed to be mentioned anywhere near anything associated with government (and it being New York government is involved in a lot), we were pleased to notice in our current move to Texas (west of Fort Worth) the words “In God We Trust” on the tailgates of the county sheriff SUV’s.

    Love it!

    • #14
  15. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Good for Florida.  The atmosphere matter.  Knowing that the motto of Florida is ok and that it is a good things help people think about issues and consider what they feel is truly important to them.  Reminders of truths we hold true help to remember those true things.

    Further is goes to help in own way to re-teach one of our most fundamental freedoms in the First Amendment the Freedom of Religion and the lack of Religion too.  Especially in schools with a secular curriculum, which is fine thing!, it gives some balance and perspective to students. 

    In the end it is not a big deal but a lot of little things can have a big impact and this one little good thing.

    • #15
  16. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Because a plausible separation charge could be leveled against it

    And that’s too bad. “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, and allowing students to exercise their religious rites during school hours is not a government endorsement of religion.

    OTOH, I have heard of schools allowing Muslim prayers (and following Muslim dietary laws), but not any others. Could it be they fear the physical violence associated with angry Islam?

    Nope. It’s not that complicated. No religion. Period.

    “In God We Trust” is a statement of religious belief, is it not? 

    • #16
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Brian Wolf (View Comment):
    In the end it is not a big deal but a lot of little things can have a big impact and this one little good thing.

    My feelings exactly, @brianwolf. Thanks.

    • #17
  18. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):
    “In God We Trust” is a statement of religious belief, is it not? 

    I wasn’t clear. I was saying that the Left isn’t protecting Muslims, @basilfawlty, but they don’t want any kind of religion in the schools, unless they teach about Islam, of course.

    • #18
  19. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma

    Susan Quinn: Some are protesting the law, saying that Florida needs much more than signs to protect the students.

    I dunno ’bout that.  I’ll bet this one would work pretty well:

    • #19
  20. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    What do I think? I think I like federalism. I also think that, while five years ago this might have drawn a federal legal challenge, it seems less likely to do so today.

    Why do you think it would have drawn a legal challenge, Hank?

    Because a plausible separation charge could be leveled against it (given the hyper-aggressive stance that’s been adopted in recent years) and it’s the kind of thing the Obama administration might have weighed in on, in its ceaseless intrusions upon the states and undermining of the social order.

    I don’t think anyone would bother.  There were a couple of cases in the ’70s ( O’Hair v. Blumenthal and Aronow v. US) that challenged the legality of the phrase as the national motto, and a 2013 lawsuit to remove the motto from our currency.  Each time it’s been upheld. 

    If the Obama administration were going to challenge it, they had eight years.  No administration would bother, it’s a guaranteed loser, both with the public and in the courts.

     

    • #20
  21. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    What do I think? I think I like federalism. I also think that, while five years ago this might have drawn a federal legal challenge, it seems less likely to do so today.

    Why do you think it would have drawn a legal challenge, Hank?

    Because a plausible separation charge could be leveled against it (given the hyper-aggressive stance that’s been adopted in recent years) and it’s the kind of thing the Obama administration might have weighed in on, in its ceaseless intrusions upon the states and undermining of the social order.

    I don’t think anyone would bother. There were a couple of cases in the ’70s ( O’Hair v. Blumenthal and Aronow v. US) that challenged the legality of the phrase as the national motto, and a 2013 lawsuit to remove the motto from our currency. Each time it’s been upheld.

    If the Obama administration were going to challenge it, they had eight years. No administration would bother, it’s a guaranteed loser, both with the public and in the courts.

     

    Sure. Like same-sex marriage.

    • #21
  22. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Sure. Like same-sex marriage.

    Unrelated.

    Obama didn’t come out in favor of marriage equality until it had passed the 50% mark on Gallup polling. 

    Meanwhile, America is still overwhelmingly Christian and nobody except for a tiny minority is clamoring against “In God We Trust” in schools. 

    • #22
  23. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Sure. Like same-sex marriage.

    Unrelated.

    Obama didn’t come out in favor of marriage equality until it had passed the 50% mark on Gallup polling.

    Meanwhile, America is still overwhelmingly Christian and nobody except for a tiny minority is clamoring against “In God We Trust” in schools.

    No, it’s not “unrelated.” In each case, the left engages in a steady war of attrition, largely through the courts.

    Whatever Gallup showed, the reality is that same-sex marriage conspicuously lost when the public voted on it. Even Californians defeated it; it was only the relentless application of judicial overrides that prevented states from prohibiting the legal redefinition of marriage, and the ultimate judicial override (a la Obergefell) that imposed it on the nation.

    The left is politically opportunistic, favoring judicial activism when the popular will is against them. They work to change the popular will as well, though relentless proselytizing via the shaping of mass culture, but the courts are their end-run around the popular will.

    • #23
  24. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    The left is politically opportunistic, favoring judicial activism when the popular will is against them. They work to change the popular will as well, though relentless proselytizing via the shaping of mass culture, but the courts are their end-run around the popular will.

    Yep.  

    People on the right engage in relentless proselytizing too.  Some bozo down in Florida proposed posting “In God We Trust” in all the schools down there.

    • #24
  25. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    The left is politically opportunistic, favoring judicial activism when the popular will is against them. They work to change the popular will as well, though relentless proselytizing via the shaping of mass culture, but the courts are their end-run around the popular will.

    Yep.

    People on the right engage in relentless proselytizing too. Some bozo down in Florida proposed posting “In God We Trust” in all the schools down there.

    Probably not. I mean, the linguistic root of “proselytizing” implies conversion, as to a new faith. And your argument appears to be that most Americans are already Christian and so not opposed to public expressions of faith. So it’s not proselytizing, merely reflecting the prevailing public will.

     

    • #25
  26. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Whatever Gallup showed, the reality is that same-sex marriage conspicuously lost when the public voted on it.

    Sometimes.  But this particular talking point became outdated long before the Obergefell decision.

    • #26
  27. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Whatever Gallup showed, the reality is that same-sex marriage conspicuously lost when the public voted on it.

    Sometimes. But this particular talking point became outdated long before the Obergefell decision.

    There’s a kind of static analysis to that, Fred, that I don’t think is supportable. Yes, a majority of states had adopted a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples by the time of Obergefell. However, judicial challenges to electoral expressions of opposition to same-sex marriage began in the early 1990s, and continued — largely successfully — since then. That is, the courts were consistently overturning the will of  the electorate on this issue for decades before it was finally adopted into law.

    Judicial activism should be seen as a part of the left’s proselytizing, not as something separate from it.

    • #27
  28. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    That is, the courts were consistently overturning the will of the electorate on this issue for decades before it was finally adopted into law.

    Judicial activism should be seen as a part of the left’s proselytizing, not as something separate from it.

    Right.  The cynic in me likes to say it’s only “judicial activism” when you disagree with the outcome.  

    • #28
  29. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    That is, the courts were consistently overturning the will of the electorate on this issue for decades before it was finally adopted into law.

    Judicial activism should be seen as a part of the left’s proselytizing, not as something separate from it.

    Right. The cynic in me likes to say it’s only “judicial activism” when you disagree with the outcome.

    Sure. I think the cynic in you probably leads you astray quite often. But I’m opposed to judicial activism — to rulings that are intended not to uphold the Constitution but to extend it and/or modify the culture — regardless of whose ox is gored.

    • #29
  30. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    There will be complaints and I hope they stand their ground.  By the way, Gov. Rick Scott implemented after the shooting, that all schools and school functions be hardened.  In our community, the usual summer programs were suspended while the time and effort and funds went to training armed officers to man the schools.  I heard on the radio that outdoor school events will also have armed personnel present. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.