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

Sorry for the belated response. I will concede one point, as it is irrefutable: All of IN GOD WE TRUST on our currency is capitalized. This is a gross oversight on my part, and I do hope my credibility on further issues will not be tarnished irreparably because of it. You ever get one of those things where you're sure you know, and don;t have to look up? Well..there you go. That's what happens. However, I do not think that was anywhere near the crux of my argument. I think the key point is actually nicely summarized in my opponents post. "While one might intuitively read this to mean that the clause was meant to preclude endorsement or support of some particular religion, it is important to note that the clause also prohibits the endorsement of religion generally over non-religion." So whether or not the GOD in "IN GOD WE TRUST" was meant to be the monotheistic god is irrelevant. The question then becomes which of these criteria are we offending? -setting up a state church -passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally -forcing or otherwise influencing individuals to attend or not attend church -punishing people for ascribing to certain beliefs or disbeliefs or for attending or not attending church -taxes levied to support religious institutions or activities -governmental participation in religious organizations or participation by religious organizations in governmental activities" I think I could make an argument that all of these are being breached in one way or another, by congress, (And I will later) but IN GOD WE TRUST definitely doesn't violate ALL of them. However I believe it is in clear violation of "passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally." By changing our nations motto to IN GOD WE TRUST we are, every day, making people remember they live in a nation that considers its self to be deistic. More probably, as I asserted in my earlier argument, theistic (believing god partakes in human affairs). This is a piece of our culture that reinforces deism and theism over atheism or agnosticism and thus aids 'religions generally'. However IN GOD WE TRUST is a common strawman for the religious to laugh at the secular. "Why," they snide, "do the secularist care what is on our money? Even if it is illegal (which they don't care if it is) Why bother with such a benign thing?" Well, I believe that the the overtly religious motto is just the tip of the iceberg. So how is congress violating... Passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally? I argued above that the motto violates this but also tax breaks for churches, which the US freely hands out, are also in clear violation. Taxes levied to support religious institutions or activities? The choice of the word 'levied' may make this a hard point to argue, but the tax breaks for churches is certainly against the spirit of this particular stipulation. Forcing or otherwise influencing individuals to attend or not attend church? Pete Stark is the first openly atheist member of the US states congress and admitted he was an atheist in 2007. Imagine that. 300 years of history and only recently do we get an atheist congress member? Talk about your cultural influence. There are 525 of members of the House of Representatives at any one time and just one has been openly atheist. That is a percentage, if I must spell it out for you, much lower than the rate of disbelief in the general population. Pete, whenever congress meets, must sit through the congressional Service. Yes. These United states have a congressional chaplain. So poor old Peter (I am really laying on the sympathy, is it working?) must attend a church service if he wants to serve his country... If the non-religious had adequate representation this would be considered a bigger problem than just Pete. To me this is the saddest type of irony. If the minority had more representation, then we would care about separation of church and state...but since they do not, we don't. governmental participation in religious organizations or participation by religious organizations in governmental activities ...see above...clearly punishing people for ascribing to certain beliefs or disbeliefs or for attending or not attending church really? 1/535 of our current representatives is a non-believer. In my humble opinion, not being able to serve your country, or not being given a chance, is punishment enough. Setting up a state church I saved this one for last, and for good reason, for it is the most abstract argument I will make. Public schools have the children stand up and pledge allegiance under God, our currency has overtly religious mottos inscribes upon it, our congress members have group religious services, on the tax payer dollar, and we are giving tax breaks to churches. This is government funded and just shy of mandated deism. Give the more pious of our representatives a chance and they will use this deistic foundation to mandate Day's of prayer... oh wait... the first Thursday of May. I do not attend to get 'all up in arms about' our national motto, but I will not participate in the rest of it. I am beginning to regret how narrow the topic is and clearly I have branched out quite a bit. I apologize to my opponent who now has a bit more to chew than he originally bit.