Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal?

[Rockefeller GOP]

It doesn't establish a religion, so no.  Civic religion is not unConstitutional.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Yes, it obviously is.

How so?

[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.

[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.

That's nonsensical. So all it takes not to violate the Establishment Clause is to use religious vocabulary that can be applied to more than one religion? Vagueness shouldn't be an excuse to impose blatantly religious beliefs on the entire country.

You can howl about what "should" or "shouldn't" be done or what is or isn't fair, but the fact is that YES, it it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause because it doesn't ESTABLISH a state religion.  It also doesn't infringe upon anyone's freedom of religion or expression.

[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.