# What's the argument that the Pledge and "In God We Trust" are Constitutionally okay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253 "2010-03-12T16:47:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/141 "2010-03-20T03:00:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So if the language means that the founding fathers didn’t want there to be a state religion, like the Church of England, _why_ didn’t they want that? Because they wanted people to be able to practice the religion of their choice, and not combine the power of the state with one particular religion. Surely you know this, so what are you getting at? ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/142 "2010-03-20T17:19:54Z")
It is also the desire to not only prevent there being an official state religion, but also to prevent have a state sponsored one. One of the big issues at the time was having taxes being used to support the official church. This is one of the main things that Madison’s letters feature. When there were complaints of having taxes support the Anglican Church in Virginia, there was an offer made to the Baptist Churches that they too could receive state funding. The Baptist Churches declined the payoff, and declared that they were more interested in having no churches receive any money from the state. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/143 "2010-03-20T18:16:29Z")
> [@WreckingCrew](#): > > It is also the desire to not only prevent there being an official state religion, but also to prevent have a state sponsored one. One of the big issues at the time was having taxes being used to support the official church. This is one of the main things that Madison’s letters feature. > > When there were complaints of having taxes support the Anglican Church in Virginia, there was an offer made to the Baptist Churches that they too could receive state funding. The Baptist Churches declined the payoff, and declared that they were more interested in having no churches receive any money from the state. Got a cite for that? Not that I doubt what you’re saying; I’d like to have it as ammo in future debates on other boards! Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/144 "2010-03-20T18:28:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you’re making it much too complicated. It’s not a religion because someone can hold that philosophical position and you know nothing more about them. They’re are know additional “beliefs” that would dictate that they behave in a way that would be different than if they were a polytheist or an atheist. Does that help? If I didn’t know personally one of the very few people who accept the existence of a god but do not ‘believe in’ him in the sense of worshipping and trusting him. I’d consider this a specious argument. But you do need to concede that the normal usage is not that of a philosophical stance on the existence and census enumeration of god(s), but rather as an umbrella term for actual religions that espouse belief in a single god, and belief here means some or all of “love, trust, worship, fear, be in awe of…”, not “assent to the philosophical proposition that there exists only a single deity.” In short, a Lubavitcher, a Wahhabi, a Sufi, Reconstructionist, a hardshell Baptist, a Mormon, a Russian Orthodox, and a UCC member are going to have significantly different concepts of who God is and what he expects of man, but they will be in agreement not only that there is only one of Him, accept no substitutes, but that the appropriate response to Him is to bow down in love and worship, _ceteris paribus_ – in short, a religious response.. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/145 "2010-03-20T18:42:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you’re making it much too complicated. It’s not a religion because someone can hold that philosophical position and you know nothing more about them. They’re are know additional “beliefs” that would dictate that they behave in a way that would be different than if they were a polytheist or an atheist. Does that help? Cool, so we should tell the folks upset about removing God from the pledge not to worry, because we were never specifically referring to the Abrahamic god in the first place. Maybe we should have the coins say “In the philosophical sense of their being a god, not one god in particular, but the concept of a god, except for those of you who think there may be more than one, or those of you who think there isn’t one, and with apologies to those of you offended by spelling out the name of God instead of writing G-d, and with the understanding that God may also refer to Allah or other names of God, we trust”. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/146 "2010-03-20T19:15:23Z")
I have some questions for those of you defending God in the pledge and on money. Which of the following are permissible under the US Constitution? Congress passing a bill that changes the motto on currency to: “We Do Not Trust In God”. Changing the motto on currency to: “We Trust In The Gods”. Changing the motto on currency to: “We Trust In Allah”. Same questions above if done by states. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/147 "2010-03-20T20:05:02Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Maybe we should have the coins say “In the philosophical sense of their being a god, not one god in particular, but the concept of a god, except for those of you who think there may be more than one, or those of you who think there isn’t one, and with apologies to those of you offended by spelling out the name of God instead of writing G-d, and with the understanding that God may also refer to Allah or other names of God, we trust”. A capital idea. Now how big is that coin going to be again? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/148 "2010-03-21T00:44:55Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I have some questions for those of you defending God in the pledge and on money. Which of the following are permissible under the US Constitution? > > Congress passing a bill that changes the motto on currency to: “We Do Not Trust In God”. > > Changing the motto on currency to: “We Trust In The Gods”. > > Changing the motto on currency to: “We Trust In Allah”. > > Same questions above if done by states. The first two would IMHO be permissible but unlikely for historical and cultural reasons, the third would be impermissible because calling God Allah is a feature of a particular religion, and thus this would run afoul of the establishment clause. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/149 "2010-03-21T01:00:50Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So if the language means that the founding fathers didn’t want there to be a state religion, like the Church of England, _why_ didn’t they want that? During Colonial times, there were some colonies where the CoE was “established” as the state religion, and colonists were obliged to support it, financially. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The first two would IMHO be permissible but unlikely for historical and cultural reasons, the third would be impermissible because calling God Allah is a feature of a particular religion, and thus this would run afoul of the establishment clause. True, but with a bit of an explanation. “Allah”, when written in English clearly implies we are talking about Islam, but “Allah” is simply the Arabic word for “God”, and is used by Christian Arabs when the refer to God. It would be an odd turn of phrase, but technically it wouldn’t be any different from saying “God”. Or, as an example, if we said “In Dios we trust”, that would be a very odd thing to say, on US currency, but it might imply a reference to Catholicism (the historic religion of Spain). ---
**Author:** ![WreckingCrew](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wreckingcrew/32/4080_2.png) [@WreckingCrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WreckingCrew)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/150 "2010-03-21T02:52:04Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Got a cite for that? Not that I doubt what you’re saying; I’d like to have it as ammo in future debates on other boards! Thanks in advance. Had to go dig something up, as I actually heard it during a conference on Freedom of Conscience a few years back. Here is a little something from the Library of Congress: > **[Religion and the State Governments - Religion and the Founding of the...](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html)** > > Many states were explicit about the need for a thriving religion. The states were in a stronger position to act upon this conviction because they were considered to possess "Proponents of a general religious tax, principally Anglicans, urged that it should be supported on “Principles of Public Utility” because Christianity offered the “best means of promoting Virtue, Peace, and Prosperity.” Opponents were led by Baptists, supported by Presbyterians (some of whom vacillated on the issue), and theological liberals. . . . they argued that government support of religion corrupted it. Virginians also made a strong libertarian case that government involvement in religion violated a people’s civil and natural rights. " John Leland was the leader of the Baptist movement, and he specifically campaigned to get Madison into the Virginia Convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution in turn for Madison’s promise to campaign for a religious liberty amendment. Some great quotes from Leland can be found here: [http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mbn/Patriots.htm](http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mbn/Patriots.htm) ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/151 "2010-03-21T03:57:26Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Cool, so we should tell the folks upset about removing God from the pledge not to worry, because we were never specifically referring to the Abrahamic god in the first place. > > Maybe we should have the coins say “In the philosophical sense of their being a god, not one god in particular, but the concept of a god, except for those of you who think there may be more than one, or those of you who think there isn’t one, and with apologies to those of you offended by spelling out the name of God instead of writing G-d, and with the understanding that God may also refer to Allah or other names of God, we trust”. Well, J. Scalia and others certainly have this perception regarding the use of “God” as an expression of monotheism. However, I do not think the mere belief in a higher power, who is the cause for everything we see, is a religion. Is it a religious belief? Sure, but a religion? I doubt. If so, then there is a thing known as Aristotlean religion on the mere basis he believed in a higher power, a first cause, an unmoved mover who is the cause for all which we see. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/152 "2010-03-21T09:12:35Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > The first two would IMHO be permissible but unlikely for historical and cultural reasons, the third would be impermissible because calling God Allah is a feature of a particular religion, and thus this would run afoul of the establishment clause. FTR: Christian Arabs call their deity Allah when speaking about said deity in Arabic. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/153 "2010-03-21T16:05:08Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > FTR: Christian Arabs call their deity Allah when speaking about said deity in Arabic. Second this point. There were Arabic-speaking Christians using “Allah” to mean, roughly, “the one true God whom we know as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” before English began using “God” to refer to Him, and TTBOMK before Muhammed’s putative revelation that led to the Hegira and Islam. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253/154 "2010-03-22T04:39:00Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > …Changing the motto on currency to: “We Trust In Allah”. … > [@Mr.Moto](#): > > … the third would be impermissible because calling God Allah is a feature of a particular religion, and thus this would run afoul of the establishment clause. Calling God/god Allah is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god YHWH is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Ahura Mazda is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Bahá is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Brahman is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Waheguru is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Shangdi is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Odin is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Amun-Ra is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Olódùmarè is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Quetzalcoatl is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Inti is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Marduk is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Izanagi is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Altjira is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god MakeMake is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Cernunnos is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Väinämöinen is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Zeus is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god Jupiter is a feature of which religion? Calling God/god God is a feature of which religion? ([Here’s](http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm) a whole lot more you can do this with.) Thank you for showing us that the motto on US currency “In God We Trust” is a violation of the establishment clause. CMC fnord! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-argument-that-the-pledge-and-in-god-we-trust-are-constitutionally-okay/532253.md?page=7)