"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

We did not, as you say, learn the fundamental truths about how nature works during the time of Galileo and Newton. I know this because even today we don't know the fundamental truths about how nature works. We did via Galileo and Newton get great insights into the scientific method which did lay the bedrock for the enlightenment which is, in principle, what our nation is founded on. You claim that all of our founders were deists, this is false. A number of them were Christians many were Episcopalians and Congregationalists even a Roman Catholic, probably more than a few atheists and several deists to be sure. It is far more accurate to say this nation was founded by Episcopalians than deists. Though it could be said that deism is nothing more than sexed up atheism. This is probably not a fair assessment but the materialistic view of the world with a nature God kick-start isn't much compared to the all-powerful supernaturalist gods of today. And the lack of dogma and defined belief does smack of atheism. The assessment that "In God We Trust" is simply a an element of ceremonial deism (this is actually the argument you're using even if you don't know it) is completely untested. However, given the origin of the phrase "In God We Trust", this argument isn't called for. "In God We Trust" was added to our coins after a Christian Minister sent a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War asking that God be included on the coin so that in the future when they find these coins they will not think that the United States of America is a "heathen nation". Far from the views of the founding fathers as a historical reference the phrase was added during the civil war as an emblem to the future so that they would know that this is a nation which discounts the rights of religious minorities and uses the machinery of the state to tell atheists and non-believers that their religious beliefs are wrong. http://www.treas.gov... In fact, the Deist god wasn't exactly a God you could trust either. More of a First Mover who kickstarted and ignored the universe. The common phrase "God is Dead" is a reflection of this idea. If you require a deist first mover God to start the universe you don't need one today. So, in theory, such a first mover could exist without being immortal. Thus, "God is dead" allows for the first mover God but rather than ignoring the universe, he simply ends. The topic of the debate is whether or not the phrase "In God We Trust" is constitutional, not if it seems consistent with the Declaration of Independence. Yes, admittedly the DoI does assert the deist God gives them rights and, as such, the Divine Right of the Kings doesn't apply and they can give their reasons for disagreeing and cite the reasons why these rights have been violated. Thus giving them a reason to declare independence against a Godly king. It is taken largely from the ideas of John Locke, who argued that there are unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. Rights however, are not conveyed by deists gods or by Christian gods, they derive from our mutual understanding that they exists, on the grounds that we want them to exist. I won't kill you because I don't want to die. Universally everybody has a right to life, because everybody has given up their right to kill. There has been a lot more work on moral theory and it is no longer needed to delegate the reasons to, as Locke did, divine figments. The Separation of Church and State is established in the Establishment clause of the first Amendment of the US constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The Supreme court held that this was intended, as Jefferson wrote, to create a wall of separation between church and state in Everson v. BoE. This court case has largely been the focal point of our understandings of first amendment law for the last fifty years. The question comes down to whether or not "In God We Trust" is a violation of these cases of established law. Looking at the Everson decision: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" Note the provision against passing a law to "aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another". Later decisions expand this to include no religion at all. We can also test the constitutionality of something with the Lemon Test: 1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. "In God We Trust" violates the first. We know the reasons for the addition and they were anything but secular. Finding a distinction between us and a "heathen nation" in the future seems hard pressed to be "secular" and certainly doesn't look that way to us heathens by any stretch. The second prong (you only need to violate one) is violated as the government's action clearly dictates that atheists are wrong and theists are right. The third prong is clearly violated via every argument that violations of the establishment clause are okay because the next thing you know they'll want to take "In God We Trust" off the money. Giving the religion an odd argument like this actively and defending it so profoundly does a lot to mix the two when they should clearly be on different sides of the wall. We have our rights because the constitution says we have the rights. And to argue that we need to allow respecting of establishments of religion because the government is thusly founded is an odd claim. 'Of course we can violate the constitution, if we couldn't, the constitution would be meaningless!' Hm? 1) A deist statements would still violate the constitution as it would show preference to deists over non-deists. 2) The statement is not a deist statement, the history clearly spells out that it's a Christian statement. 3) Even if what you said was true, the ambiguity of discerning God from God is beyond what citizens should be asked to do. 4) Even if what you said was true, many Christians take it clearly to mean the Christian God. This would be acceptable if it supported all religious beliefs, however the term 'God' cannot be generalized sufficiently to allow for the belief of 'No God'. 5) You based this deist notion on an incorrect notion that all the founding fathers were deists. They were largely Christian although no where near as devout as your average Christian clamoring that this nation was founded as a Christian nation would like to believe. Episcopalians and congregationalist and folks of those sorts. 6) Regardless of the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers went to an effort to exclude God from the constitution. The DoI isn't a binding document.