When did the U.S. start printing In God We Trust on money? Who proposed this? Was it some politician just looking for publicity? Was anyone against it? What is the whole story behind this?
Well, I can answer one of the questions. The first piece of money with “In God We Trust” on it was the 2 cent piece (1864, I think). Don’t know about the other questions.
I got this from the US Mint fact page .
“Penises don’t belong in the mouth, girls and boys. You’ve got the wrong hole there. Just like you wouldn’t shove pizza up your nose.”
-From the Brother Jed flyer-
That “in god we trust” business would be ruled unconstitutional if we had the right Supreme Court.
galen wrote:
Well somebody has to challenge it with a lawsuit first. The Supreme Court can’t make a ruling until a dispute has been brought before them (via one of the lower courts). Does anyone know whether “In God We Trust” has ever faced a legal challenge?
I couldn’t find a USSC case, although I seem to recall the Freedom From Religion Foundation filing such a suit a few years back (couldn’t find anything about it on their website). In Lynch v Donnelly 465 US 668 (1984) The existence of "In God We Trust as the national motto and “under God” in the P of A were cited as evidence of “our religious heritage” in upholding the constitutionality of a creche display in Pawtucket RI.
This would lead me to believe that a legal challenge to the motto would fail.
This discussion’s been around the block a few times. IIRC, it get’s challenged every so often, and the Supreme Court routinely declines to review it, meaning unless they decide to review it in the future, the lower ruling will stand (that it’s constitutional).
My gues is that if SCOTUS actually ruled on it, they know they’d pretty much have to say that it’s unconstitutional, since it asserts all Americans who use money trust a God (singular), and that amounts to an endorsement of religion, which Congress isn’t allowed to do. But if they ruled that, they’d have massive unhappiness with the Supreme Court including quite likely a constitutional amendment which would in effect ammend the First Amendment to allow Congress to endorse religion in some cases, like on currency and mottos and such. That’s a can of worms they just don’t want to open, especially since no one reads their currency anyway. But that’s just my opinion.
Your Quadell
Well, actualy, remember Madeline O’Hare (i believe that was her name)? She was the famous athiest who turned up missing/is believed to be murdered and buried in TX. Anyways, i believe she tried to combat that, but met with little success. She used to go so far as to scratch out “in god we trust” on coins that she aquired. Just thought i’d throw that in… 
“In god we trust, all others pay cash…”
God WAS my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and i had to eat him.
Oh my! Look, I’ve got a Quadrell again!
Welcome back!
Your Official Cat Goddess since 10/20/99.
Now, Mr. President, the key issue we face today…is that an ice cream truck I hear?
The controlling test in matters of establishment of religion is the Lemon test which the USSC postulated in Lemon v Kurtzman 403 US 602 (1971). Under the three part test, for a statute not to violate the Establishment Clause, 1) it must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion and 3) it must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. “In God We Trust” on money seems a clear-cut violation because it fails 1 and 2. However, since the Court in binding precedent has used the existence of “In God We Trust” as an example of the benign influence of religion on American history and culture, it is doubtful it would now rule the statute unconstitutional. Doing so would call into question too many aspects of settled law, and in the grander scheme of things IGWT on money is not seen by too many people as all that pressing of an issue, which is probably why the USSC would never review a challenge to it. No lawmaker in his or her right mind would ever propose repealing the authorizing statute, so we’re stuck with it.