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

"In God We Trust" is certainly a religious statement. It exists as an establishment of religion. Clearly pushing a religious idea via the machinery of the state. There were certainly some Christians who were founding fathers, as were there deists and non-believers. The argument that this nation was founded by Christians, is, at the very least, partially true. However the country was not founded as a Christian nation, it was founded as an expressly secular nation. The wall between church and state was deeply important to the founders. That is what is used to determine the Constitutionality of government action, that division between the state interfering in religious matters or religions interfering with state matters needs to be given protection. I do not and would not say that religion isn't of a historical importance. However one needs to take a look at the reasons why "In God We Trust" was put on to the money. Was it actually done as a historical honor? According to the US Treasury website the origin of the phrase is as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read: 'Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances. One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins. You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW. This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters. To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.' As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861: 'Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.' It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated: 'I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.' " ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is relevant for a number of reasons. First you want to know more about the subject, and certainly that is important and this information helps in that way. Secondly, by showing what the religious motivations for the motto of "In God We Trust" we quickly dispose of your argument. The phrase wasn't added to the coins on the grounds that there was a need to honor heritage. Rather Rev. Watkinson and Secretary Chase were looking forward and asking that they show themselves to be Godly, and not seem "a heathen nation" in the future by requesting that the government pass a law, as required to add a motto, which respected and establishment of religion, notably "recognition of the Almighty God" written by a Christian Minister. There is little doubt that the exact purpose of adding "In God We Trust" was to state through government machinery that God is real and that we trust God. This is clearly unconstitutional. I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. I have a right not to have my religious beliefs contradicted by the government. Putting "In God We Trust" on our money is exactly as unconstitutional as putting "There Is No God" on our money. The government cannot, as a rule, promote religion. The Establishment cause says nothing about establishing a religion it says "respecting and establishment of religion" -- God is certainly an establishment or religion in the sense of the first amendment. The establishment clause is far more broad than you oddly seem to believe. It prohibits bible readings and prayers. It establishes that the government will never play favorites when it comes to religion. This is how it has been viewed by the Supreme Court. If you take a quick look at any of the tests for constitutional appropriateness under the establishment clause, for example 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" fails on all three prongs, and only needs to fail on any one of the three. Adding "In God We Trust" was done specifically to show deference to Almighty God, and prove to the future that they were not a heathen nation. The government's actions in this regard advances monotheistic religion and inhibits my own religious beliefs as well as the religious beliefs of polytheists. If you haven't seen anybody citing "In God We Trust" as proof and evidence that this is a Christian nation and that Christians should be treated better than other people, you haven't been around very long. Finally you brought up Aronow, and rightly so. The decision in Aronow was wrong for a number of reasons. Since Aronow, the Supreme Court has established a number of very good tests for religious entanglement. Arownow did not have standing. He had no right to bring his case as he wasn't sufficiently harmed by "In God We Trust", this is a requirement for bringing a test case not for constitutionality. Aronow is a ninth circuit case and not a Supreme Court case. The argument of heritage in the Aronow case was not challenged. Rather than point out the clearly problematic origins of Christian ministers asking for religious statements on coins, no argument was forwarded on this ground. Aronow was simply poorly argued, without standing, in the ninth district. This is easily established by looking at the quote you proffered, and my above arguments. It is simply wrong. It is not historical to say that my current religious beliefs are wrong. It is not constitutional to say so with the full force of government backing.