Isn't in God we trust unconstitunal?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Teddy's concern wasn't that the phrase was unconstitutional, but that using it on money was sacrilegious.

The Wikipedia article on the phrase pretty well describes the Constitutional controversy and it's treatment by the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Surely it doesn't break the establishment clause; because it just refers to a generic 'God' which could be interpreted through many theologal or spiritual lenses rather than the Christian God?

So what? "God" is an inherently religious concept. Asserting that the nation as a whole "trusts in God" means endorsing this concept, and therefore establishing, if only in a vague sense, a form of religion.

But not a specific religion, let alone a denomination, which was the entire point of the Establishment Clause.  Talking about God is in no way specific to a religion and isn't much different from using the word "fate."  It might have connotations, and I have no doubt it makes some uncomfortable, but it's simply not unConstitutional.

That's nonsensical. So all it takes not to violate the Establishment Clause is to use religious vocabulary that can be applied to more than one religion? Vagueness shouldn't be an excuse to impose blatantly religious beliefs on the entire country.

The Bill of Rights never was intended to impose the religion of Secularism on the entire country.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Antonio, I hear what you're saying, but this is America we're talking about, not France. 

Thank God!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The national motto has long been void of any religious meaning or significance, so to say that it amounts to a state endorsement of religion is quite laughable IMO.   

Its the same reason that I'm perfectly okay with prayer at public events (such as high school football games) because, in contexts like that, there's nothing even remotely religious about what's going on. 

I'm not comfortable about such prayers, but because I consider them irreverent nonsense rather than because they are unconstitutional.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's "an establishment of religion" not "the establishment of religion".  The clause is using establishment in the sense of a particular organisation. In 18th century English the reference to a particular established church would've been more obvious.