Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, it obviously is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, it obviously is.

How so?

Ever heard of the Establishment Clause?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A vague religion is still a religion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A vague religion is still a religion.

     A religion would refer to a specific church, which is what the relevant clause is referring to. In no way does the Constitution prohibit promulgation of religion in the abstract.

Why would "religion" refer to a specific denomination?

The Clauses reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which is the broadest and most sweeping language that could have possibly been used. If it was intended specifically at banning the establishment of a specific religion, it would have used a more precise formula, like "Congress shall make no law establishing one religion above the others" or "establishing one religion as the official religion of the United States". The only plausible interpretation is that it prohibits Congress from espousing any kind of religion. Whether vague or specific, it makes no difference.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's "an establishment of religion" not "the establishment of religion".  The clause is using establishment in the sense of a particular organisation. In 18th century English the reference to a particular established church would've been more obvious.

Fair enough, I don't know enough about 18th century English to be able to object.