Talk Elections

Yes (D)

If it's not it ought to be.

I dunno, I'd lean no.

Personally, I think it violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment...but the Supreme Court has ruled differently.

Don't care. Biggest non-issue ever.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

No religion is being established and no one is stopped from exercising their religion. It's constitutional.

It's legal. And if it wasn't it should've been.

It's still a claim that a God exists....whatever God that might be. I think the establishment of any such being violates that clause.

But it doesn't say what specific God, so it's not preferencing one religion over the other. It's kind of a generic thing. But then again, I'm no constitutional scholar.

I'm no constituoinal scholar either, of course ;)

My problem there is that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, in my opinion. The notion that a higher being (= God) exists seems to me to mean that the state recognizes that religion (whichever religion that may be) must be true in some form.

I see it very much the same way. For a non-issue, this is one I find interesting after all these years.

Potentially sacrilegious to be profaning God by implying that God can be wielded as a talisman to back up our money.  What our money needs is a copy editor, so that it reads: "In Gold We Trust". ;D

Exactly.  Who cares?  As long as the money spends I don't care if it says "In Big Foot We Trust".

Obviously as the court now stands it is 'constitutional', but with a different balance it might be 'unconstitutional'.  Certainly I would vote to 'interpret' this as unconstitutional.

Absolutely.

This would still be your answer if the motto was "In Allah We Trust"... right? Because otherwise, you'd be a hypocrite.

No, because Allah is a specific Deity, while "God" is a far more general term.

Even as an agnostic, I don't see why this matters.  I care more about whether teaching creationism in biology classes is constitutional or not.

I don't like these "Who cares?" responses. It may not be extremely important whether it's declared unconstitutional or not....but this question should be seriously debated on its merits, and not simply pushed to the side because of a lack of relevance.

Really?

While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to "God".

However, because Allah is associated with just one faith, then it would be seen differently.

... by people who don't know what they're talking about (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97618.msg2039669#msg2039669)

anyway, this line of discussion is pointless, because you're seemingly unaware of the existence of atheists, agnostics, polytheists, and so on who don't subscribe to the existence of a Supreme Being.

I'm sure you don't care, anyway, but that just highlights your hypocrisy. Majority rule does not "constitutional" make.

In the English-speaking United States, the term "Allah" is undeniably entangled with Islam. (Of course, you could always put the entire phrase in Arabic.)

Not sure what you mean by "hypocrisy." Did he claim to be categorically against government sloganeering that's inconsistent with any person's beliefs?

To answer the poll question, yes, it's constitutional. It's a bad idea, though.

No (D)

As an agnostic I say, who cares?

Anyway, they're not suppressing a religion or keeping somebody from exercising their religion with this.

Lol Dumbsh!t. It's the specific name of the same specific deity, just in different languages.

Yes (R)

Could you at least attempt to present an argument?

Or is something constitutional just because you agree with it?

Perhaps one should read the first two paragraphs of the  Declaration of Independence.  In the second paragraph, one reads:  “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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Now, let’s look at the words used by the writer of this document.  “These truths” means that it is not a lie.  It is fact or correct.  “To be Self-evident” means that it is obvious.  Also note that the writer lists those truths.  One of these items is that man is endowed (given) unalienable (not transferable) Rights.  Who gave man these rights?  God gave man these rights.  These rights are protected by the Constitution.  They are NOT rights given to us by the Constitution, but rather rights that are given to us by God and PROTECTED by the Constitution. 

The Founding Fathers created a government based on God’s Laws which goes back to what may be referred to as foundational law.  This foundational law is known as God’s law.  For example, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, etc.  These are GOOD laws and government should be in place to punish the evil doer.  If there was no foundation for law, then how chaotic would the world be?  Laws must be founded upon something that determines what is right (good) and what is not right (evil).  Man must learn the difference by knowing God’s law (the word).  So who should we trust to give us the correct information on being good?  God of course.  So having “In God We Trust” on currency should not be an issue to anyone.  Whether or not an individual believes in God the Creator is one thing they must decide for themselves.  Just know that our land’s laws are established on a principle set in place by the Creator. 

By the way, “allah” and God are not the same.  Studying such matter will prove this fact.  The Bible never uses this word as a name for God.  Moses asked God for his name, and God answered “I AM WHO I AM”… that should be sufficient for all of us. 

I hope this has been helpful.
Check out www.TeamLaw.org

Since the dollar will soon plummet due to inflation, I wouldn't be surprised.

Vindex, in Arabic, ﷲ has the same meaning as God, so open up any Arabic Bible and where an English Bible uses God, it will will typically have ﷲ as the chosen translation.  So much for your Bible explanation.

Of course, you are correct that in the original, Allah is never used, but neither is God, instead you'll find, יהוה , אֲדֹנָי. or the like.  and instead of I AM WHO I AM, you'll find אהיה אשר אהיה .

I'm agnostic. I've been to a sermon a grand total of once in my life. I said yes. Let me offer up my reasoning.

The first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By printing "In God we trust" on the dollar, they are not prohibiting one from exercising their religion, nor are they legally favoring a religion or  creating a state religion. Clearly, "In God we trust", while yes Christian in nature, is not endorsing a specific religious establishment. Legally, "In God we trust" has no affect on any religion or the exercise of religion. Just because you mention a specific religion, does not mean you violate the first amendment. Otherwise, whenever the government printed anything referring to religion, they would have to make sure they would cover every religion, or none at all.

It's Constitutional because it's not unconstitutional.  It doesn't create a national church, and therefore doesn't violate the separation of church and state rule.

The important thing is the term's meaning in English.

Which meaning Allah has in English depends on the speaker and context just as God does.  Some take God to mean the supreme deity of any religion, while others take it to mean God specifically in the Christian sense of God the Father.  Similarly, Allah can be viewed as the supreme deity of any religion, while others take it to mean Allah specifically in the Muslim sense of Allah, whose last prophet is Muhammad.

Dictionaries provide, at most, extremely guarded and ambiguous support for that definition. Popular usage, meanwhile, is flatly inconsistent with it.

If English speakers were actually prone to use the terms "Allah" and "God" synonymously, then "In Allah We Trust" and "In God We Trust" would indeed be constitutionally indistinguishable under any sensible standard. Problem is, they would also be semantically indistinguishable. The reductio ad absurdum, in order to make any sense, must positively presuppose that "Allah" is associated with Islam. Why else would it frighten anyone?

Arab Christians refer to God as "Allah" as well. Even Christians in some non-Arab Muslim countries do (like Indonesia.)

While speaking English? Even if that's true, the peculiarities of foreign dialects are beside the point. What matters is that Americans are not accustomed to using the term in this generic sense. Consider, e.g., Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed. 2007) (defining "Allah" exclusively as "[t]he name of God among Arabs and Muslims").

Note that usage includes Arab Christians.

It's not exactly a model of clarity, but the entry seems to suggest that the broader usage is peculiar to Arabs. In any case, this more "generic" definition certainly isn't commonplace, which is why the "In Allah We Trust" hypothetical is viewed as a reductio ad absurdum to begin with.

For what it's worth, Wiktionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Allah) agrees with me: "While the Arabic الله is used generically to refer to God in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic contexts, current English usage almost always restricts the corresponding term Allah to Islamic contexts only. Various newspaper style manuals recommend translating the Arabic word as God, as this better reflects Arabic usage, but the term is often left untranslated in Islamic contexts. Thus either 'Allah is great' or 'God is great' may be seen."

Admittedly, though, it cites no source. I'll check my AP Style Manual later.

You're rather missing the point of the original objection, which is that both terms refer - and quuite unambiguously, too - to the same divinity, not that the two sentences were exactly equivalent in their semantical connotations etc (I'm looking for an english translation of the nice word "wirkungsäquivalent" here. Doesn't seem to be listed in any internet dictionary) - that they are of course not - no more than, say "I eat potatoes" and "I eat solanum tuberosum tubers".

As to the constitutionality of the phrase, I have no real opinion. It's certainly odd - not really in keeping with the spirit of the contemporary US definition of the "establishment of religion" clause, though whether that definition is what the framers intended is a separate matter - and it's also pretty dumb, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

The term "God" (capital 'G') refers to a divine, immensely-powerful Creator, but has little in the way of more specific content. "Allah," in popular usage, is more precise: it refers to God as understood by Islam. English-speaking Christians and Jews deny believing in Allah, precisely because the term has this more specific content. (Whether you want to call it definitional or connotational is beside the point; so long as there's a meaningful difference, it's not incoherent to distinguish between "In God We Trust" and "In Allah We Trust.")

To a specific divine, immensely-powerful Creator recognized (despite sizable differences of opinion regarding his exact character) by Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

No - they deny believing that he is correctly understood by Islam (or they just have no clue what they're talking about, and therefore arguably cannot be considered Christians at all - not in a theological sense, that is). Not that it matters at all for a constitutional argument - there is no reasonable distinction between discriminating against all but Muslims and discriminating against all but Muslims, Christians and Jews. (Whether putting a sentence on money represents such discrimination is a separate matter.)

Well, Deists also use the term God. But have it your way; it doesn't really matter.

There is certainly common ground between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam with respect to the Creator, known generically as "God." It does not follow, however, that there cannot be a more specific term describing God as understood by one of these traditions. As it turns out, "Allah" (in popular English usage) is such a term.


And why not? Perhaps the Establishment Clause recognizes a trade-off between the rights of conscience and the desire to praise God as a people. Certainly, it might strike the balance at precisely that point. (I agree that history undermines this reading, though.)

Or is your argument that the text of the Establishment Clause doesn't allow for that distinction? I'm not so sure—law is full of terms of art, and "establishment of religion" might be one of them. (Even setting that aside, "religion" is vague enough that monotheistic pronouncements could conceivably be excluded from the term's reach. Admittedly, though, "In God We Trust" would still be in trouble, as it's clearly incompatible with Deism.)

Anyway, my point isn't to defend the constitutionality of placing "In God We Trust" on dollar bills. I just don't think the "In Allah We Trust" hypothetical can be treated as functionally identical to "In God We Trust." It may be that they're constitutionally equivalent on other grounds—but they aren't semantically equivalent.

(Sorry for the "choppy," long-winded post—I have to leave for church, so I can't edit it.)

I'd lean no based on the Constitution and Church/State Separations, but I don't really care. I'm not personally offended by it and anyone who is thinks far too highly of themselves.

Yeah, that's quite right. :) (You're right about deism, o/c)

Huh? And where does that leave the poor atheists and Hindus and Buddhists and Hopi Traditionalists? Not part of the people?
That's where I was coming from.

Which is good, because my point isn't to defend its unconstitutionality... simply because I don't think that a silly, somewhat discriminatory, phrase on money is an "establishment of religion".

No, just close enough semantically to make the comparison valid (apart from the hilarity of actually thinking of putting that language-mixing phrase on money, of course) - equivalent in the aspect under discussion here, but not generally equivalent.

I've never seen "Allah is great". Either "God is great" or "Allah akhbar", aka a translation or the actual phrase. Worth noting that the Iranian protestors are shouting "Allah akhbar" and Iran is not an Arabic seaking country.

Actually the wording of the Constitution is "an establishment" not "the establishment", a subtle but i think very significant distinction.

Something of a paradox, isn't it?  The motto first appears on the two-cent coin in 1863 as a means to curry support behind the Union's failing effort to maintain itself.  Had the Union collapsed, then the constitution underwriting it would become irrelevant.  So in a sense, originally, it would have been rather like saying, "I like the US Constitution, but support actions that may lead to its failure."  Or kinda like pointing out, as StatesRights often and rightly does, that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and such was unconstitutional and tyrannical.  Yet without the tyranny, the union may well have decayed, then the question of what is and isn't constitutional becomes irrelevant. 

To more relevant points:  Note that Article I Section 8 delineates the Power of Congress, and reads, in part, that congress has the authority "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

So you can reasonably assume that the framers wanted the congress to be in control of the printing of the money, deciding what denominations would be available, etc.  You could perhaps even argue that they intended for the congress to oversee the design of the money.  And the designs they settled on have various mottoes including "Liberty" and "In God we Trust."  Thus it seems expressly constitutional.

That said, I never liked it on the money.  For various reasons.  Some will view "god" as a particular god, favored by congress, and may feel alienated by its inclusion.  As an immigrant nation we should avoid alienating new arrivals.  Some observant, monotheistic types may find it profane and offensive to call upon the god to bless the money.  It also seems a bit dated in this day and age of reason and enlightenment, to encourage at taxpayer expense the intervention, or invention, of gods.  At any rate, if you really believe in fiat money, then why would need any god's blessing on the money?  But whether or not I like the motto, I'd have to say that since it doesn't actually prohibit religious freedom, nor establish a state religion, it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.  Combine that with the specific authority of congress to make money, then you have a hard time eradicating it based on some notion of its dubious constitutionality.  So I voted Yes(I/O).

Bear in mind that simply taking a pen and crossing out the offending motto on your bill does not render it "unfit to be reissued," so there's no violation of United States Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 17 if you want to ease your conscience by obliterating the motto.  Similarly, writing "Allahu Akbar" or "I'm saved, how 'bout you?" or "Om Mani Padme Hum" on a bill doesn't violate the law either.  Just have fun with it.  After all, the government is considering much more wasteful projects at the moment than using more ink than is necessary on bills, so the umbrage might be better channeled elsewhere.  Just a thought.

Yes. That is what it means.

Probably not, but I honestly don't feel that passionate about that particular issue. I think the "God" referenced is quite clearly meant to be the Christian one - it's not like there has ever been a time in the US where Christians weren't the supermajority. Though again, there are more important issues to worry about.

archconservative Wall Street Journal editorial columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz, in response to this very question, said, "It probably crosses the line, but who cares?  Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's important." 

(emphasizing with important in Brooklynspeak.  Impoah Tent.) 

Then she goes on to discuss how best to bomb all enemies into submission, and about how George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld shouldn't get distracted by all the negative press coverage.

I don't know why that sticks out in my memory.  It was on one of those Fox News Channel editorial report shows, with Paul Gigot.  They were discussing some constitutional issues and the motto on the money came up.  So I think she shares your view.  I'm not sure that I agree that it's illegal, but anyway your post reminded me of her analysis.

The First Amendment addresses the issue of religion, not of non-religion, specifically it addresses the issue of the establishment of a national religion, or of a law establishing preference of one religion over another religion.

I disagree that a preference to Christianity is clear in the phrase, I can't think of one religion that doesn't have a central god figure.

The question of finding the phrase unconstitutional via the argument that it appears to denote a preference of religion over non-religion, is interesting. However, to have the phrase removed from the money would then show a definite preference of non-religion over religion, in order to appease a segment of the population to whom the phrase is meaningless, and may simply find it offensive.

There is no constitutional protection from being offended by the idea that other people practice religion.

No...it is not unconstitutional since it doesn't establish a religion, it doesn't denote preference for one religion over another, and since a lack of religion is not a religion (now, there's a real debate...is atheism a religion?), it does not cross that border either.

For those appalled by it being on money, please give me all your money so I can rid  you of your pain and anguish.  ;)

Luis Gonzalez and the old man are right.

Not this again... it's pissed off, in your face atheist time.

The original intent of the First Amendment was to ensure that there would be no arrangement in the United States similar to that of the Church of England.  It was not intended to entirely remove religion from the public sphere.

The mention of a God on money is not an implicit statement of belief in any one faith or another.  It could be referring to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American beliefs, Hinduism, or what have you.

Yeah, Teddy Roosevelt opposed having it there, but for completely different reasons.

It could, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's intended to be any one other than the Christian one, shall we?

Buddhism.

The very question is formed incorrectly. It places value on the constitution that it does not have. The constitution can be changed and is therefore not absolute. More correct question would be whether the text serves any real purpose in modern american society, or if it is actually a hinderance to national unity.

My personal oppinion ofcourse is that the text should be removed without hesitation. Religion has no place in politics as modern society consists of hundreds of religions. If one is prioritized and placed above, it is discriminatory towards others. No matter what or who your god is, I am sure he/she/it would wish all humans happy regardless their religion. If not, I'd seriously consider what kind of god I were worshipping.

On a broader view I'd like to point out that the political question of religion holds more important topics than what is scribbled on american currency.

You're my new favorite poster for the rest of the day.

Don't you just love it when two freedom haters come together?

I believe in a coherent, over-arching belief system. You believe in a piece of paper.

Your political beliefs are the equivalent of having Scientology as a religion.

It's a separate question. Several separate questions, actually.

The thread's question: Is having such a stupid sentence on money, buildings, etc. constitutional? Probably. Though an  argument to the contrary can be made.
Your question: Is it wise? Clearly not.
My question: Is it particularly relevant - could I get my panties into a twist over the issue if I were an American? Clearly not.

You believe in a paternalistic socialist state, much along the lines of a tyranny of the minority.

Then you must believe in a tyranny of the minority.

given your enthusiastic support for banning clove cigarettes, and numerous other anti-freedom actions, I don't think you're in a position to criticise me.

^^^, minus the agnostic part :)

As an athiest, I would say it's never really been offensive to me, given the overwhelming religious population in this country.

However, you're all missing what's right in front of your face. When they put "In God We Trust" on the money, that's what they meant by "god" :P.

Really, I don't trust in any god. That's just something of a supremely foolish idea to me. But, I think we should be able to get along with each other within reason. Leave it on the money, keep it out of school.

Sounds good to me.

Er... I don't support banning clove cigarettes? And as you're someone who would allow the destitute to starve in the streets, you're in no position to criticize me yourself.

Also, if you hold the "freedom to smoke clove cigarettes" as some sacrosanct liberty, then there's something very wrong with you.

No - it's an government endorsement of religion over non-religion.

No. (Normal)

Nope. It's also hilarious. You might as well have 'In The Flying Pink Unicorn We Trust' on your money.

No (D).

Yes (R). Doesn't say which God, it's not saying "believe in this God" and it's not putting church over state.

In regards to money only, can't you make the argument that the Federal Reserve, which is a private organization, issues the notes, not the government, and as such it's not covered by the first amendment?

     I don't think atheists or polytheists would be humored by "not saying which god", though.

Yes.

Constitution framers had no intent of banning the word "God" from public use when they drafted Establishment Clause. If you don't like it, write your Congressman.

How are the thoughts of people 225 years ago relevant today?

If you think they are so irrelevant, Constitution can be amended.

What does that mean?

Presumably that he feels that it is better that changes to the Constitution and its interpretation occur via amendment that by judicial rulings.

I'm not quite sure how that is relevant to my point.

Why amend the Constitution to ban something that is already unconstitutional?

I'm not quite sure how that is relevant to my point. ;)

---

Let's look at the actual text of the establishment clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

No particular church is receiving these dollars marked with a bland trite statement, so it is not an "establishment of religion" as the term would have been understood in 1787, nor is anyone required to use physical U.S. currency if they feel that having that phrase on their money violates their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) so the free exercise of religion is unimpaired.

But in what way is the way that that term would have been understood in 1787 relevant?

Because the meaning of language can only be understood properly in context and time is part of context.  This isn't a case like the Eighth Amendment where the class of cruel and unusual punishments can reasonable be argued to change over time.  The Eighth is concerned with preventing arbitrary and capricious punishments being handed out, not prohibiting a specific set of punishments. The establishment clause is specific and has no aspects that are mutable as society changes.

However, even assuming one were to interpret the clause as a total prohibition on any form of religious statement by the government, would that not in effect be establishing agnosticism as the national religious creed, thereby rendering such an interpretation self-contradictory?

I don't like the motto, but that's because I find it insipid, not because of any constitutional flaw it possesses.  Constitutionally, it has the same standing as annuit cœptis which has been one of three mottoes on the Great Seal of the United States since it was created in 1782 and which also has a non-doctrinal religious character.  The usual translation of the Latin into English is "He (God) has favored our undertakings."

But did Congress pass a law "respecting"  a religion?   If they passed a law specifying that a certain religious phrase be put on government documents, then I think a case can be made that they did respect a religion.

No.  This is idiotic logic. 

You're misinterpreting the literal meaning of the phrase.  It's "respecting an establishment of religion", not "respecting a religion".  No particular "establishment of religion" (i.e., religious organization) is involved with the phrase "In God We Trust".

Also you're misconstruing the term "respecting" as it is clear from the context that the word is being used in its older sense equivalent to "concerning".  If one were to rewrite the establishment clause using terms that would be unambiguous in 21st century English, it would go: "Congress shall make no law concerning support of a particular religious organization, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."  Having "In God We Trust" as the national motto violates neither restriction.

Ok.  The phrase seems to me to be Christian in orgin and I tend to think of Christianity as an organized religion, but I suppose it is so fractured that only the sects of Christianity are religious organizations.


No, I think I understood respecting correctly, since i understood it similarly to you.  I did make some edits to your rewrite. 

It's acceptable at the state level, but the federal government is barred from endorsing any religious beliefs.  Besides, "E Pluribus Unum" is a much better motto.  In God We Trust was made the official motto only to distance ourselves from the "godless communists."

Since the First Amedment has long been incorporated against states, if it's unconstitutional on the federal level, it's unconstitutional on the state level.

FWIW, federal case that dealt with this issue is Aronow v. United States. It's a good explanation of why this is constitutional even if you don't subscribe to originalist legal theory.

Unfortunatelly yes, as constitution is guarranting freedom of relligion, but is not talking about separation of state and church.


Yes, but that's a big problem :(

This is why the establishment clause needs to be reworded like in the Minnesota constitution:

Sec. 16. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE; NO PREFERENCE TO BE GIVEN TO ANY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT OR MODE OF WORSHIP. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.

Then there'd be no question

It's unconstitutional, but it's such a minor issue that it doesn't really matter; and I'm atheist.

Muslims have their prophet memorialized on a very special government building:
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/11107 (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/11107)

I'm not offended, but I guess a few Muslims are.

"Oh, man, what a bummer."

-Michael Newdow, after hearing that the 9th Circuit upheld "In God We Trust."