No, the S.Ct has not directly addressed the "in God We Trust Issue."
However the Court -- and this includes the most liberal justices -- has repeatedly made clear in dicta (non-binding statements, that if the question were presented, it would almost certainly hold that the inscription does not violate the Establishment Clause or any other constitutional provision.
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance, reversing the Ninth Circuit on this point.
The rational is explained in this quote from Lynch v. Donnelly (a creche case) (the history is given in my earlier post):
C
There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789. . . . .
This history may help explain why the Court consistently has declined to take a rigid, absolutist view of the Establishment Clause. We have refused “to construe the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history. In our modern, complex society, whose traditions and constitutional underpinnings rest on and encourage diversity and pluralism in all areas, an absolutist approach in applying the Establishment Clause is simplistic and has been uniformly rejected by the Court. Rather than mechanically invalidating all governmental conduct or statutes that confer benefits or give special recognition to religion in general or to one faith-as an absolutist approach would dictate-the Court has scrutinized challenged legislation or official conduct to determine whether, in reality, it establishes a religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.
Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668, 674-678 (1984)
So the Court has found that "one nation under God" in the pledge does not tend to establish a religion or religious faith, and you could bebethe bank it would so find in the case of "In God We Trust."
--- Michael Hoover <hooverm at scc-fl.edu> wrote:
> >>> sethackerman1 at verizon.net 06/04/06 11:52 AM >>>
> Does anybody know whether the In God We Trust
> inscription has ever been
>
> challenged in the Supreme Court and, if so, what
> rationale was used to
>
> uphold it?
> When you talk about religion with French people,
> they always seem
> unable
> to believe that we actually have separation of
> church and state. Every
>
> Frenchman you talk to will immediately bring up the
> fact that the
> president says God Bless America and that Congress
> starts its sessions
>
> with a prayer. When you point out that nobody can
> forbid the president
>
> or Congress to talk about God, they will then cite
> In God We Trust. (I
>
> swear, it's like they're reading from a catechism.)
> At that point, I'm
>
> forced to concede that they have a point. But
> they're always genuinely
>
> surprised to hear that that courts regularly strike
> down laws that
> improperly give money to churches or permit
> organized prayer.
> Seth
> <<<<<>>>>>
>
> There have been several lower federal court
> decisions regarding above
> with decisions in each instances holding the motto
> is ceremonial and
> symbolic rather than religous. I don't recall the
> Supreme Court agreeing
> to hear appeals from any of these cases.
>
> The framers did not mention God in the 1787
> constitution and they
> included word *religion* only to prohibit religious
> tests to qualify for
> elective office. Most delegates to the Philadelphia
> convention were not
> irreligious, in fact, some were from states with
> established religions.
> Given the degree of dviersity among them, however,
> they appear to have
> been in general agreement that religion should
> neither drive national
> government nor should it come under the domain of
> national government.
> As for Amendment I, neither of the religious clauses
> - *establishment*
> and *exercise* - define religion.
>
> Predominant nineteenth century First Amendment
> interpretation held the
> included freedoms to be proscriptions against the
> national government.
> Even the generally irreligious Jefferson's early
> 1800s letter to
> Danbury, Connecticut Baptist ministers indicated as
> much.
>
> Not until the 1950s/1960s Warren Court did the
> Supreme Court raise the
> wall of separation between church and state. In
> fact, I don't recall a
> Supreme Cout justice using Jefferson's phrase
> about a 'wall of separation between church and
> state' until Associate
> Justice Robert Jackson did in a concurring late
> 1940s opinion. In any
> event, the Warren Court *wall* has been lowered in
> the last couple of
> decades. The majority opinion in _Lynch v Donnelly_
> (1984) asserted that
> the diistinction between the two realms is blurred
> and variable.
> Michael Hoover
>
>
> Please Note:
> Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most
> written
> communications to or from College employees
> regarding College business
> are public records, available to the public and
> media upon request.
> Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject
> to public
> disclosure.
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com