U.S. Rep. Forbes' 'In God We Trust' bill sent to full House

U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes' bill to reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the national motto and encourage its display in all public schools was approved by a House committee Thursday after a sharp partisan debate.

Opponents argued it goes too far in pushing one religious belief, while supporters said it acknowledges what they consider God's role in the success of the United States.

The legislation, approved in a voice vote by the Judiciary Committee, is similar to a bill that Forbes, a Chesapeake Republican, unsuccessfully proposed in the previous session when the House had a Democratic majority. The current measure was sent to the full House, now controlled by Republicans. It has 64 co-sponsors - 60 Republicans and four Democrats.

Forbes said the legislation is needed to combat a concerted effort by some to drive all references to God out of public institutions.

"There has been a chilling effect where schoolchildren, school districts, where individuals in federal buildings didn't know if they could post 'In God We Trust' on their walls," Forbes said.

He reminded the committee that he and other legislators had to intervene two years ago when planners of the new Capitol Visitor Center didn't include "In God We Trust" as the national motto, using instead "E Pluribus Unum," Latin for "out of many, one." Within a year, "In God We Trust" was chiseled into the center's ceiling beam.

Several Republicans on the committee backed Forbes, saying God had a hand in founding the United States and is responsible for the nation's success.

"I believe the Founding Fathers were moved around like men on a chessboard put in place at that time so the world could have America," said U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a bill co-sponsor.

If references to God are discouraged in public buildings, King said, "in the end, it wouldn't be an agnostic nation, it would be an atheistic nation imposed by the minds of people who revert to the hard-core left."

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said the "hand of providence" has guided America.

"I think God is, and he rewards those, including nations, who earnestly seek him," he said.

The most strident of the Democratic legislators who spoke out against Forbes' bill was another Hampton Roads lawmaker: U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott.

The Newport News Democrat, whose district is next to Forbes', said the bill violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

"First, it prefers religion over non-religion, which is a violation," Scott said. "Furthermore, it endorses a specific type of religion, monotheism, over other religions, which is a violation.

"Families entrust public schools with the public education of their children but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposefully be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family," Scott said.

Forbes countered that the motto has been used for generations on coins and currency and public buildings and was first approved as the national motto by Congress and President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.

"To suggest that we should not encourage that 'In God We Trust' be on our buildings, perhaps our classrooms, at the same time we mandate that every one of those students use this dollar bill with "In God We Trust" to buy their lunches... is an argument that is just a bridge too far," Forbes said.

Scott said court cases have found that the earlier uses of the motto have proved over time to be 'de minimis' - meaning they have little impact in promoting religion. But the legislation, which forcefully promotes the use of the motto, highlighting its religious significance, will weaken that defense, he said.

"While the language of the national motto in and of itself may be de minimis, this resolution certainly is not," Scott said.

Congress and the country face major economic and social problems that need attention, in addition to the catastrophe in Japan, Scott said, "yet instead of facing these realities or dealing with any of these difficult issues... we are debating whether or not to affirm and proliferate a motto that was adopted in 1956 and is under no direct threat of attack."

Forbes told the committee that he listened to Scott's arguments but disagrees and "didn't see that in the court decisions." Both men have law degrees and have practiced law.

If the measure passes the House, it still is subject to approval by the Senate, which has a Democratic majority.

Bill Bartel, (757) 446-2398, bill.bartel@pilotonline.com