The first amendment Forbids "in god we trust", for good reason

You are clear on the positions. I will be arguing, basically, to have the phrase removed and you will, in essence, be arguing against that. As for whether the topic is limited to the phrase itself or if it should be expanded, I suppose is up in the air. Perhaps something like: "at what point is the separation of church and state being violated, and at what cost?" Let me start us off. The United States constitution says, explicitly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and yet we have it on our money. In fact it is our nation's official motto, as decided by Eisenhower and congress in 1956, usurping the previous motto "E Pluribus Unum", or "From many, one." An objection Foreseen: "But," you exclaim, "my dear opponent, you have done a hack job on the 1st amendment and left out the next part which reads 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,' Does this not grant the government officials the right to express their religion?" No, sir or madam, it does not. Congress does not get to pass legislation (which deciding what goes on our dollars certainly is) 'respecting an establishment of religion.' A Further Foreseen Objection: "It does not specify which god, in particular and therefore is not respecting a particular establishment." First off I believe this is patently untrue. the capital "G" certainly indicates it is one of the monotheisms and considering this nation is a majority Christian nation, I struggle to believe they meant anything but a Christian God. Furthermore, it clearly establishes the US as a theistically inclined nation. Not only does it, of course, claim there is a God, and thus ignoring its agnostic and atheistic population (Side note: Thomas Jefferson was almost definitely an atheist as was Ben Franklin, and Jefferson was the author of the Establishment Clause), but it is also claiming that God is interested in human affairs and that he prefers one nation over another. Final Foreseen Objection (This will be my last attempt at divination, I hope): You may site cases such as Aronow v. United States, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, or Zorach v. Clauson to try and show that the Supreme Court has ruled it is not unconstitutional (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, is actually about the pledge of allegiance [one nation, under god...]) to make reference to Deism as the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and most poisonously of all, in Aronow v. United States, the US court of Appeals had this to say "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." justifying it on the grounds that these ceremonies are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." The argument here boils down to two points. 1) The cermony, through use and overuse, has lost all religious value and is merely an act of patriotism. One, here is reminded of George Orwell's fabulous essay Politics and the English Language, and the infamous 'Newspeak' from 1984. When words lose their meaning, then perhaps it is time to scrap the motto altogether. However, according to a survey done by The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an overwhelming majority find the phrase to be overtly religious. So its either a meaningless statement, or an unconstitutional one.... 2) "A sponsorship of Deism is not a sponsor ship of religion." First off, if you are a skimmer of texts please read my fourth paragraph which also deals with this issue. This argument is clearly an embarrassment. The idea that our nation 'presupposes a supreme being' is offensive to the legacy of atheistic and agnostics in this country, including, as stated above in parenthesis, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. We do not need divine authority to know what is moral, and what is lawful. And I believe the opening of our First amendment is a gleaming demonstration that our founding fathers thought the same thing.