Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 11:28:06 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal?  (Read 6256 times)
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

« on: April 15, 2015, 06:49:32 AM »

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?
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2015, 02:48:08 PM »

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?
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2015, 07:55:48 PM »

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.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2015, 11:36:00 AM »

Do they, though? Would they all attest to such?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 11 queries.