Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Antonio, I hear what you're saying, but this is America we're talking about, not France. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Antonio, I hear what you're saying, but this is America we're talking about, not France. 

Thank God!

[Del Tachi]

The national motto has long been void of any religious meaning or significance, so to say that it amounts to a state endorsement of religion is quite laughable IMO.   

Its the same reason that I'm perfectly okay with prayer at public events (such as high school football games) because, in contexts like that, there's nothing even remotely religious about what's going on. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The national motto has long been void of any religious meaning or significance, so to say that it amounts to a state endorsement of religion is quite laughable IMO.   

Its the same reason that I'm perfectly okay with prayer at public events (such as high school football games) because, in contexts like that, there's nothing even remotely religious about what's going on. 

I'm not comfortable about such prayers, but because I consider them irreverent nonsense rather than because they are unconstitutional.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

Honest question: how specific need this get? Dumb example: If our money said "In Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni we trust," would we be able to say that this is just talking about a generic Joseph Smith and doesn't indicate whether we're talking about the main LDS church, the Community of Christ, or any of dozens of fLDS offshoots?

[Antonio the Sixth]

A vague religion is still a religion.

     A religion would refer to a specific church, which is what the relevant clause is referring to. In no way does the Constitution prohibit promulgation of religion in the abstract.

Why would "religion" refer to a specific denomination?

The Clauses reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which is the broadest and most sweeping language that could have possibly been used. If it was intended specifically at banning the establishment of a specific religion, it would have used a more precise formula, like "Congress shall make no law establishing one religion above the others" or "establishing one religion as the official religion of the United States". The only plausible interpretation is that it prohibits Congress from espousing any kind of religion. Whether vague or specific, it makes no difference.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's "an establishment of religion" not "the establishment of religion".  The clause is using establishment in the sense of a particular organisation. In 18th century English the reference to a particular established church would've been more obvious.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

Honest question: how specific need this get? Dumb example: If our money said "In Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni we trust," would we be able to say that this is just talking about a generic Joseph Smith and doesn't indicate whether we're talking about the main LDS church, the Community of Christ, or any of dozens of fLDS offshoots?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's "an establishment of religion" not "the establishment of religion".  The clause is using establishment in the sense of a particular organisation. In 18th century English the reference to a particular established church would've been more obvious.

Fair enough, I don't know enough about 18th century English to be able to object.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

Honest question: how specific need this get? Dumb example: If our money said "In Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni we trust," would we be able to say that this is just talking about a generic Joseph Smith and doesn't indicate whether we're talking about the main LDS church, the Community of Christ, or any of dozens of fLDS offshoots?

Not specific at all, which is the point; no other religions mention such a name, it'd clearly be endorsing a specific faith.  Saying "God" is not only invoking an entity that's acknowledged by the vast majority of people, it's not even religious when you think about it.  People can be non-religious and still not be religious (i.e., believe in a higher power or God).  There are two possibilities describing our existence - one that the Universe created itself or one that something created it.  Religion is several more steps down the road from that.

[Slander and/or Libel]

But "God" isn't so nonspecific as you say. Muslims call God Allah. Some Jews say G-d. Hindus and several other religions acknowledge many gods. Etc.

It seems like a stretch to claim that "In God We Trust" is just meant to refer to an entity so nebulous that it can stand for whatever non-religious people believe.

[Simfan34]

But "God" isn't so nonspecific as you say. Muslims call God Allah. Some Jews say G-d. Hindus and several other religions acknowledge many gods. Etc.

It seems like a stretch to claim that "In God We Trust" is just meant to refer to an entity so nebulous that it can stand for whatever non-religious people believe.

Yes, but they all mean the same thing.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Do they, though? Would they all attest to such?

[DemPGH]

No, its history indicates that it is a clear reference to the Christian God, and it is a violation of the establishment clause as such, but like I said earlier, this is small potatoes to me as a secularist.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Don't worry.  Our money really doesn't say that anymore unless you use cash.  You can't put God's trust on a line of code. 

Besides...we printed the notes but they are not ours.  They belong to the federal reserve bank.  The private corporation who can trust whichever god they want. 

Putting 'in God we trust' on the real money would be unconstitutional.  But that all resides in our stuff and junk.

[Oak Hills]

It's blatantly unconstitutional, and an intentional insult to everyone who isn't a monotheist, but it is only of symbolic importance.

[AutumnLeaf]

waw..USA doesn`t trust in God..what a surprise

[twistory123]

mmm religion and politics, two extremes, I think if it is unconstitutional because they are different ... but I think as the differences make more force, I think you may need ...