+19

Continuing from post +17 and the issue of Congress making a law for printing "In God We Trust" on the money, as the main focus, I want to say that I cant see holding that as not in violation of the First Amendment except as clear denial and for a whole nation to agree on that, especially through out all this time, except as huge shame.

HERE is a link to the case of 1970.  Of course more can be said about that opinion but my focus here is on the two quotes from the final court at the end starting from "The course of constitutional neutrality...". One could easily point out here that the establishment clause could have been written as "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" and one could still argue that it prohibits the action mentioned above. But it was not even written like that. Instead, the expression "respecting an establishment of religion" gives more weight to the lack of none religious interpretation for the "In God We Trust" statement than to its harmlessness. That expression is impressive with how much it seems to hit things from far. Although expressing the effectiveness of this expression in the establishment clause in terms of distance might not be that fitting because it is more like that the word "respecting" changed the dimension of the conformity measure with the clause from effect to meaning.    

Unless you show me a behaviour contradicting this interpretation that was very wide spread and very close to the making of the Amendment, I really do not care much how far this "motto" goes back in history. The signs I saw in relation to the focus and the careful way this constitution was written make me feel even more confidence in that it was written to be sufficient through merely its own content without any additional help.

I thought that this was printed on only paper currency but it turned out to be even on coins.