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

[A18]

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.

[A18]

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.

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

[A18]

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?

[A18]

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").

[A18]

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 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.

[A18]

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.")

[A18]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.)