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.
