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

Just so that you know, I am also an atheist. Moreover I believe there is no God. The rights of the government do not include directly contradicting my religious opinions. When I say "There is no God" it is not within the rights of the government to say that my religious opinion is wrong, there is a God, and a trustworthy God at that! Everson v. Board of Education is certainly a good place to start when talking about how far the government can go with respect to religion or religious influences. You say that the inclusion of "In God We Trust" doesn't qualify as a law? It was first included on the two cent coin after the passage of The Coinage Act (1864) on April 22, 1864, describing what should be on the coin including "In God We Trust". Moreover, even if it weren't a law it wouldn't matter one jot. Everson widens up the definition used. State laws aren't passed by congress but due to the due process clause of the 14th amendment and the establishment clause of the 1st amendment the entire activity of government are covered. The Department of the Interior can't suddenly start forcing all of their employees into daily Bible readings on the grounds that the 1st amendment requires a congressional law to be overturned. Whatever rules or edicts given to the government by congress or by the states does not include the ability to violate these rights. The Act establishing the Department of Interior is so limited as to not allow violations of rights. This is why such departments as the Interior or the Treasury (as we are talking of here) can't do such things. Your argument that there needs to be a law, based on an overwhelmingly strict interpretation of the first amendment, ignores large tracts of established legal theory. And the placement of "In God We Trust" was prescribed by a law, so even this bizarrely strict interpretation fails. Note the line in the Everson decision "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa." -- The addition of "In God We Trust" was clearly done to support religion against non-religion. According to the United States' Treasury homepage on the history of "In God We Trust" the instigating factor was a Minister writing to the Secretary of the Treasury and asking that he show favor to "Almighty God" and help show via engraved coinage that they were not a "heathen nation" to future generations and that because the secretary was also a "Christian" he should agree to this. Clearly, this is over the line. This is the federal government participating in the affairs of religious organizations. It is not the federal government's job to tell me that my religious beliefs are wrong. Let the churches do that, those are their affairs. They cannot use the machinery of government to tell me that I am wrong. You say that the phrase "In God We Trust" doesn't aid churches? What do you suppose would be the reaction if it were removed? The churches would clearly rise up in revolt. I have been personally, on several occasions, been directly told that my religious beliefs are wrong because the government says that "In God We Trust" is on our money. It is a common argument that this is a Christian nation, that this is a Godly nation, that this is a nation founded on Jesus... and exhibit A is always "In God We Trust". Moreover, beyond aiding the claims of Christian churches that they are correct and I am wrong. It hinders me. I am personally affected by every bit of money I have telling me that my religious beliefs are wrong. I am injured by notes of legal tender announcing that I am wrong. One could perhaps argue that this is not enough injury to have standing in court (Aronow was tossed out for that reason), however there is a church called FACTS which is a strong atheistic church and directly objects to even passively endorsing contradictory religious beliefs and, as such, cannot, for religious reasons, spend money endorsing a monotheistic God (the case was heard in the 9th circuit several days ago). It does not need to help a church. It simply needs to be the government putting out an unneeded religious message in violation of the first amendment establishment clause. We can easily show it violates by applying 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. Ask yourself. Does putting "In God We Trust" violate any one of those prongs? You bet it does! It has no legitimate secular purpose (unless you'd like to argue that showing how we aren't atheists is a secular purpose). It has the primary effect of showing how we aren't atheists... except some of us *ARE* atheists. As for excessive government entanglement, try to take it off our money. You'll see churches across the nation go apoplectic. Remember what happened when "Under God" was struck down in the 9th circuit? Can you honestly tell me that there wouldn't be a massive outcry? Can you say that nobody would care? Can you say that this government action doesn't tie in with religion to an amazing degree? I doubt it, and even if you could, it still fails the other two prongs. Government action need not convert people to Christianity to be wrong. That is not a test for constitutionality. I would like to agree fully with the Supreme Courts' opinions on these issues. Clearly they have laid out a very clear ground by which one can see violations of the establishment clause as it stands under Emerson. "In God We Trust" is a religious statement on a government coin! Aronow did, in part, include a number of the arguments I used. It was however, a 9th circuit court case without standing. Furthermore, the arguments did not point out the history of the phrase. Looking at the motivation and reasons it was placed on the coin it is not possible to believe the conclusion reached in Aronow. "In God We Trust" was not done for history it was done for the future. It was not done as ceremony. It was done to show how we aren't heathens. Were coins prior to 1864 unpatriotic? Declaring the existence of God isn't a religious exercise? Aronow was poorly argued, in only the 9th circuit, without standing.