Here’s a quote from Hugh Nibley (World of the Prophets, 187-188) about “In God We Trust”:

“Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States contain statements of general principles along with specific and particular provisions for their implementation. The principles are the really important thing. Both documents specifically render back to God those rights of judgment and execution which men had usurped. That is why both have a strongly negative tone. “Hands off!” is the theme—there are certain rights which all men enjoy which the Creator himself has declared inalienable and with which no man or group of men has any right to interfere. Men may check and admonish each other in their little affairs, but where the great decisions of life are concerned, God alone is the judge. That is the key to the whole thing: “In God we trust.” The Founding Fathers did trust God. They trusted him enough to give back to him and him alone the right to judge the hearts and minds of men. In the eyes of absolutism, our Constitution is hopelessly soft on sinners. Here, heresy, held for centuries to be the quintessence of subversion and the worst of all crimes, does not fall under human jurisdiction at all; people with wrong ideas are expressly allowed to talk about them and even hold meetings; Congress may never declare one religion more desirable than another (Article VI and Amendment I), or one person more noble than another (Article I, Section 10). God alone knows who is really virtuous and who is not. The king may be right some of the time or even all the time, but that, as Macaulay observes in his “Essay on Civil Disabilities,” is beside the point, which, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, is that men must be free individually and collectively to make their own choices, no matter how bad. That, as we have seen, is the ancient law of liberty.”

As much as we’d like to legislate virtue and morality, even sin is protected by the constitution as far as it doesn’t trample other’s rights. Here’s another thought about picking your battles (Approaching Zion, p. 114):

“Satan’s masterpiece of counterfeiting is the doctrine that there are only two choices, and he will show us what they are. It is true that there are only two ways, but by pointing us the way he wants us to take and then showing us a fork in that road, he convinces us that we are making the vital choice, when actually we are choosing between branches in his road. Which one we take makes little difference to him, for both lead to destruction. This is the polarization we find in our world today. Thus we have the choice between Shiz and Coriantumr—which all Jaredites were obliged to make. We have the choice between the wicked Lamanites (and they were that) and the equally wicked (Mormon says “more wicked”) Nephites. Or between the fleshpots of Egypt and the stews of Babylon, or between the land pirates and the sea pirates of World War I, or between white supremacy and black supremacy, or between Vietnam and Cambodia, or between Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers, or between China and Russia, or between Catholic and Protestant, or between fundamentalist and atheist, or between right and left—all of which are true rivals, who hate each other. A very clever move of Satan!—a subtlety that escapes us most of the time. So I ask Latter-day Saints, “What is your position frankly (I’d like to take a vote here) regarding the merits of cigarettes vs. cigars, wine vs. beer, or heroin vs. LSD?” It should be apparent that you take no sides. By its nature the issue does not concern you. It is simply meaningless as far as your life is concerned. “What, are you not willing to stand up and be counted?” No, I am not. The Saints took no sides in that most passionately partisan of wars, the Civil War, and they never regretted it.”

While I realize Hugh Nibley has no moral authority over us, I think he’s pretty insightful here. I’m more convinced now than before that “In God We Trust” should be our motto so thanks for giving me a reason to think about it.

I am all for leaving it on the currency. I wouldn’t say it means we really trust in God or not. I do, and the founders did too. Obviously some people don’t. But the insistence that we remove all historical evidence of faith from the public eye is ludicrous.

If they can come up with a meaningful, intelligent argument as to why having In God We Trust on our money is a bad thing, I will happily hear them out.

I think you’re right on with most of this. It always galls me when people apologize for alleged offenses to “boisterous minorities”. I think that a lot of people get on band wagons and don’t have the slightest clue about the consequences of what they’re fighting for. They clearly haven’t considered the issue from their opponent’s perspective.