Jtdylktuy

No, it isn't a contradiction under US law. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.

Religion and the government have a lengthy history in the U.S. Thomas Jefferson's position was that no man should be compelled to support religion, but that all men should be free to profess their opinions in matters of religion. In context of today's politics and law, the profession of God in those contexts isn't compelling religion, but fits closer the freedom Jefferson described. In the US today, it is optional.

So, U.S. presidents have never been required to add "So help me God" to their oath, but it became a tradition. Some U.S. state constitutions required it, and that wasn't viewed as a conflict in 1776, but the law evolved, and in 1961 the Supreme Court ruled against a state constitution that compelled the words "So help me God" in a state oath of office. The Supreme Court ruled compelling this unconstitutional and unenforceable but did not make optional words illegal.

Thomas Jefferson avoided the word God in official context, but professed in words of his own ending his first inaugural address:

And may that infinite power, which rules the destinies of the universe, lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

Disclaimer: I'm not that versed in history, so the following might have factual mistakes.

To understand the source of the American separation of church and state, you'll have to take a dive into history.

Between the 16th and 18th century, Europe was in a state of religious turmoil. The ruler decided which religion his subjects would have to follow (Cuius regio, eius religio (thanks @molnarm)), so if you were born under a Catholic ruler and your village was then conquered by a Protestant, you'd have to convert or be persecuted, banished or worse. Just paying lip service to a religion could also have dire consequences. If you then got re-conquered, you'd have to convert again. Due to pretty much constant wars, such a situation wasn't too uncommon.

America became a safe haven for people where they could live without anyone forcing their religion on them, which is why many victims of religious persecution and bloody wars chose to migrate west. The thought of "We don't want anyone to tell us which religion we must have" became ingrained into minds of the American population, but it was still assumed that everyone was a Christian. When the USA achieved independence, the founders decided to formalize it so that a situation like in Europe would never happen on American soil.

The American separation of church and state is not about separating religion from politics, it's about separating the citizens from the religion of the ruler. The USA was still founded as a pretty much Christian nation, but the founders wanted to guarantee that no citizen would be forced into a specific denomination on the whim of a ruler.

In the general case, yes, acknowledging a god as a state means that you discriminate against polytheist churches and atheist belief systems. You connect the state to all monotheistic churches. However, many European and American countries were formed or are based on countries formed during a time when it was assumed that everyone was some sort of Christian and there wasn't enough political pressure for stricter separation and so the connection between many American and European states and Christianity in general still exists.

As a side note, the oath that a president has to swear doesn't have to include the Bible. The president can choose what he swears on. It's just that most are Christians and decide to swear on the Bible.

"Separation of church and state" is not actually required by the US Constitution.

Wikipedia says that the phrase "separation of church and state" was first used by Thomas Jefferson in this letter in 1802, when he was President:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between
Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only,
& not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature should
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between
Church & State.

Jefferson's use of the phrase indicates that it is the effect of the First Amendment restrictions on the government, but it is not the literal language. Justice Hugo Black wrote that the phrase expresses the intent of the literal language of the amendment.

This matters a great deal. A court case concerning the First Amendment should look at whether a particular issue involves an establishment of religion, or a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. But it is actually not relevant whether a particular issue involves, or violates, separation of church and state - because there is no such requirement in the Constitution!

Usually the distinction is minor, but it can be important. One example, that OP mentioned, is the use of "In God We Trust" on US bills and coins. It's pretty obvious that this is not compatible with the idea of separation of church and state. But that doesn't actually matter. It does not establish religion, and therefore it is permissible according to the Supreme Court.

There is considerable legal debate about this point, though, as described in the previously linked paper. The divide along liberal/conservative lines is basically around whether the First Amendment requires the state to be secular, or simply requires that it not give advantage or disadvantage.

Criticism of the modern Court’s separationist approach has existed since the 1940s, but gained momentum as a result of the resurgence of conservatism during the 1980s and the appointment of constitutional conservatives to the Supreme Court. Today, it is not uncommon for religious, legal, and cultural conservatives to criticize the concept of church-state separation. Critics charge that a separationist perspective imposes a regime of secularism, one that is not neutral toward religious matters but that privatizes and marginalizes religion. Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter argued that the separationism promoted “a culture of disbelief,” while Catholic theologian Richard John Neuhaus claimed that it created a religiously “naked public square.

This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.

Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorse any particular group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.

Pragmatically, four out of five Americans are from an Abrahamic religion that share a root concept of god, they feel represented and will defend the use of this symbolism, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it as there would be no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non-christians/jews/mulisms that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism" campaign actively against it, nothing would change.

I will try to explain as I was taught, so please bear with me.

Separation of church and state is just that: The state should hold no powers over any church.

Keep in mind that, while not a new concept back then, it was an unusual one. Many "states" like Spain, England, France, and so on were actually going through quite a bit of religious turmoil.

It was illegal, and sometimes even a capital crime to believe differently than the government. Monarchs in those days could not even take the throne without the "permission" of the pope. In fact, monarchs are "imbued by God with the power to rule". They are literally better then the rest of us because God said so. At least that's how the logic went back then. (Some of that was starting to change, but it was still recent).

The separation of church and state was to prevent that.

The actual line is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Which loosely means that congress can not pass a law "messin' with churches." It does not, in any way, provide for a secular country. Its purpose was exactly the opposite. The founding fathers wanted US citizens to practice whatever religion they wanted to, with no restrictions.

As for acknowledging God, there is no prohibition against it. It is in fact encouraged.

Before addressing this, a couple of points in your premise are flawed -

"...so help me God" is not part of the official swearing in. Someone can say that if they want, but it is not a required part of the official ceremony.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

US Consitution - Article II, Section 1 - 8

The same goes with "God bless America" - that's a personal statement.

Now, on to your statement -

"in God We Trust" - of course it is a very specific religious statement, and intended to be a specifically Christian one. Yes, federal courts have ruled that it's some sort of generic, non-religious statement, but that's simply because SCOTUS decided they did not want to make what would be a spectacularly unpopular ruling to bar it, and basically started at their desired ruling and worked backwards from there. It was never part of the official lexicon of the US government at the time of the founding of the nation, and has only appeared and been added in response to upswings in religious sentiment.

During the Red Scare hysteria of post-WWII, early Cold War era, everyone was eager to demonstrate how non-communist they were, and the thing many fear-mongering conservatives loved to point to was the official atheist stance of the communist governments. That was added to show how non-commie and God-fearing we were, and by God-fearing they did not mean any kind of non-Protestant god. That's when it was officially, by joint Congressional proclamation, added to all currency.

“Nothing can be more certain than that our country was founded in a spiritual atmosphere and with a firm trust in God,” Bennett proclaimed on the House Floor. “While the sentiment of trust in God is universal and timeless, these particular four words ‘In God We Trust’ are indigenous to our country.” Furthermore, Bennett invoked the cold war struggle in arguing for the measure. “In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continually look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom,” he said. Adding “In God We Trust” to currency, Bennett believed, would “serve as a constant reminder” that the nation’s political and economic fortunes were tied to its spiritual faith.

US House of Representatives History Art and Archives Historical Highlights: "In God We Trust"

Charles E Bennett, from Florida, was the member of the House of Representatives that introduced the joint resolution to enshrine "In God We Trust" as the national motto of the USA.

“In God We Trust” was first added to U.S. coins during the beginning of the Civil War, when religious sentiment was on an upswing and concerned Americans wanted the world to know what their country stood for. Many wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase on the matter, and he agreed with their arguments. Congress passed his act requesting the addition of “In God We Trust,” adapted from a lesser-known verse of Francis Scott Key’s “Star-Spangled Banner,” and the first two-cent coin with the phrase was minted in 1864.

By the turn of the century, however, the war’s memory had faded; President Teddy Roosevelt considered the mingling of God and Mammon to be vulgar, and he ordered the phrase removed from newly designed gold coins in 1907. A public outcry forced Congress to backtrack. By the mid-1950s, the concern with piety in Washington had apparently deepened; in 1955 Congress ordered the same phrase to appear on all paper currency.

....But as TIME wrote in that ’91 story, the banality of the phrases may not be worth the fight as a symbol of separating church from state. “Today even ardent separationists seem to agree with retired Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who wrote in 1983 that slogans such as ‘In God We Trust’ have ‘lost any true religious significance.'”

Time Magazine: How 'In God We Trust' Got on the Currency in the First Place

Note that the examples you cite do not specify which God is being referred to. If the government made reference to Jesus or the ten commandments, that would be different.

That vagueness seems to be accepted as good enough both politically and legally. It's too vague to be classed as establishing a religion.

Atheists and some non-Abrahamic religions are unfortunately left out by this. That's a political consequence of those groups being a tiny minority in the US currently and even smaller historically. (However, that is slowly changing and the situation may look different in 50 years.)

And many people in those groups simply ignore such vague references to God. Many people say "Oh my God" in a purely secular manner and interpret these official references similarly. So even amongst that small group, there is not much political will to change this.

The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.

Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.

There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.

Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.

Update based on chat conversation:

To be clear and avoid misunderstandings: I am answering the question "does acknowledgement of God violate separation of church and state?" and making the case in general that no, it doesn't (for the Constitutional definition). Some of the specific examples listed by the OP may well be violations of separation.

It is a (arguably slight) violation of separation of state and religion, as it implies the existence of a god and also (arguably) of a single god. However, that doesn't specifically imply support for a single religion, so it would only discriminate against atheists and potentially polytheists.
Note that it doesn't force or endorse a single religion and thus, doesn't, by itself, restrict an individual's choice of religion. It sure might offend though.

However, it is not a violation of separation of state and church, as it does not identify any particular church, imply support or preference for any church or support any particular church with means of the state.

Now this argument is general in nature, it is a different question whether the imprint violates any US law that might enshrine some form of separation of state and religion/church. There are many countries that are in principle secular states, aim to be, have laws in that direction and/or are generally considered as such, but do have some lawful entanglements with particular religions/churches, typically the (historical) majority denominations.

A very novel question, and I deeply appreciate the factual and dispassionate answers given here. I would add a few more points here:

• that "In God We Trust" and so forth are merely ceremonial and, to a certain extent, decorative; they do not have the force of law. In the United States, there is no penalty for not trusting in God.


• that the Establishment Clause, at the time it was written, was intended to prevent the establishment of an official state church, complete with mandatory church tithes, state-sponsored seminaries, and precise creeds on esoteric theological questions. The Establishment Clause did not and does not prevent religious lay people from exercising secular political office and influence in a manner consistent with their ethics and beliefs. Example: George Washington's Thanksgiving declaration.


• that the Establishment Clause was actually intended to promote spirituality in this country. In the Motherland, strict blasphemy laws backed by capital punishment prevented lay people from earnestly debating, for example, the exact nature of the Holy Trinity. Also, religious scholars had to give full assent to the complex creeds to retain their official church salaries, and politicians had to take religious oaths before assuming office. Powerful people maintained their privilege, while honest, god-fearing people were punished for seeking the truth. Thus, there was the perception of corruption and hypocrisy. See the Virginia Statute on Religion Freedom; and Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.


• That, despite the literal text of the First Amendment, the founding generation of American statesmen had their own implicit biases that were not entirely in line with the spirit of the Constitution. Thus, Justice John Jay's soundbite about "our Christian nation" which "prefer[s] Christians for their rulers".


• That some of the Founders kept their non-Christian beliefs secret, and had, perhaps, ulterior motives for legislating the church-state separation. Paine is a prime example of this; he did not fully announce his Deist, anti-religious views until near the end of his life, and after the Revolution was a success. Jefferson was more open about his selective interpretation of religion; and Washington mostly kept his beliefs to himself. There is a lot of (mostly uninformed) conjecture about their Freemasonry activities, as well.

Establishment Clause jurisprudence in this country has a fascinating history. It has been historically weak; it was not uncommon for heirs to dispute a will in court by claiming that money was left for an "un-Christian" charity or organization, or for defendants and witnesses in court to be questioned about their church attendance; Constitutional guarantees were no match for small-town politics and jury biases.

God is not the church. The church is not God.

There's a separation of church and state, but nowhere is it written that there's a separation of God and state.

This is just based on logic.

If you're an atheist and don't believe in God, this argument still stands. God or no god, the word/concept God is different from the word/concept church.

If you downvote my answer please let me know why in the comments. Thank you.

Without addressing your question per se, let's examine a parallel issue:

Does separation of church and state require the US government to promote atheism?

I think the answer is very clearly "No, that is not required by separation of church and state." The two extremes of building religion and destroying religion are addressed in turn by the first two clauses in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

A law with respect to the establishment of religion, such as the Church of England or the Church of Denmark, would be an unconstitutional law. Likewise, a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, such as the laws which regulate the order in which akharas enter the water during Kumbh Mela, would be unconstitutional.

Ever since the first settling of America, Americans have believed in God. The statements already offered, proves that the United States Government does believe in God. The real issue is that the State does not recognize a specific church or religion. The government has promoted God in the past, and has the right to do so in the future. Technically, the state could require belief in God. It is not prohibited anywhere. They just can't force you to go to a church. You are compelled to believe in God when you recite the pledge. Our laws are based on a Christian ethic. This is generally accepted as being the correct moral path. Take other religious attitudes that require stoning to death, amputation, beating, slavery, and no rights for women. You could say that the government, in practice, is Christian, although not specifically one Christian faith. Even the atheists involved with the creation of our government agreed with these ideas, if not the faith. There are those who do not like this and want it to be different. They are attempting to change history, but the past does not change. History can be rewritten, but it would only be lie. It would be good for all to accept the truth and build on truth rather than lies or distortions. If something needs to be changed, today is the time to do it, not 200 years ago.