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

[minionofmidas]

Yes (D)

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.

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

[minionofmidas]

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.

[minionofmidas]

The term "God" (capital 'G') refers to a divine, immensely-powerful Creator, but has little in the way of more specific content.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.)

[minionofmidas]

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.

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

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[minionofmidas]

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. 

Yes. That is what it means.

[minionofmidas]

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.

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.