Is having "In God We Trust" on money, buildings, etc. constitutional?

[Bo]

No (D).

[MasterJedi]

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

[Bono]

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?

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

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

[Guderian]

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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?

[Guderian]

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

[Хahar 🤔]

What does that mean?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

[Franzl]

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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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."

[WillK]

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 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.

[WillK]

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?

No.  This is idiotic logic. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

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.

[WillK]

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.

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".

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Free Palestine]

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."

[Guderian]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

Yes, but that's a big problem

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

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

[Mos Definite]

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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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

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

[The Mikado]

"Oh, man, what a bummer."

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