Legal Question in Constitutional Law in District of Columbia

Re: Pledge of allegiance/money/courts use of ''God''

First, we no longer say "so help me God," but rather "I do solemnly swear or affirm that my testimony will be the truth . . . ." or something similar to that. Secondly, God is a religious concept, not a spiritual concept, and so mention of that particular belief in a supreme being is prohibited when the government of all the people, many of whom do not believe in the concept, takes action. Many believe there is no relation between being a good American and speaking the Pledge of Alligance and the "under God" belief. Third, whatever the Supreme Court rules with respect to the Pledge will doubtless apply to similar expressions wherever they are found supported by government as, for example, our money.

Re: Pledge of allegiance/money/courts use of ''God''

Your confusion as to "this separation of church and state issue" is shared by large numbers of people which may explain in part why this current matter is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This Court, however, is not in the habit of hearing frivolous issues involving cases of little import, to address your second question first. Nevertheless, it's quite possible that the justices will never actually get to the merits of this matter and will decide that the case should be dismissed on a technical jurisdictional issue known in the law as "Standing to Sue Doctrine" which requires that a plaintiff have a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation in order to file a case. Apparently, the atheist father who is the plaintiff and who brought the action in his daughter's behalf does not actually have custody of the child and therefore, may well be without the necessary aforementioned "standing" to have initiated the litigation in the first place.

Regarding your first question, no one is required when taking an oath in court to utter the words

"so help me God" as s/he may simply "affirm to tell the truth". As to the issue of the phrase

"In God We Trust" affixed to our coinage and paper money, no one is required to utter any words regarding this phrase or to affirm it in any way in utilizing and/or possessing this legal tender in his or her personal life which is not the case in the matter currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I would conclude, therefore, that the two examples

which you have offered of church-state separation

conflicts are really, in effect, non-issues.

However, I would not necessarily conclude that in regard to the above matter which is now pending before our highest court.

Re: Pledge of allegiance/money/courts use of ''God''

I heard the pledge argument this morning in the Supreme Court. The difference, as Mr. Newdow emphasized, is that requiring a person, particularly someone young, to put their hand on their heart and affirmatively swear, is more involved and entangling that the use of religious terms or phrases on coins that you mention. Separation of church and state means that the government can not get entangled up in religion.