Should "In God We Trust" stay on currency?

[Moondazed]

NBC has a poll up asking if "In God We Trust" should be removed from US currency.  There's an email push amongst Christians to go and vote in the poll to preserve God in our society so I thought I'd throw it out there to others as well.

[Dizzied]

I can't see any reason to keep it.  Since when has belief in god been a requirement to use currency?

Isn't greed a sin anyway?   ;D

[Zakharra]

 I see no need to remove it. I'm not a christian, but I'm not anti-religious either. Each to their own. I prefer to think the phrase, 'In God we Trust' is talking to a generic 'god', so it can mean any diety.

*adds 'dess' after God on the money*

[HairyHeretic]

Doesn't Allah mean God? Try suggesting it get changed to "In Allah we trust" and see how far that 'generic god' angle gets you with the christian right  ;D

As far as they are concerned, its THEIR god, not yours. Yours isn't real, either, the way they look at it.

[Zakharra]

 *nod* That's my thought to. It's not specifically saying -what- god. Of course those that are taking the 'separation of church and state' to the extreme are trying to remove any religious (mainly Christian) symbolism from all forms of government.

[Avi]

The Christian Right is absolutely insane... I'm a Catholic, and I try not to associate with people like that due to just how intolerant they are of others.  As far as "In God We Trust" is concerned... keep it.  It's a throwback to the founding of the country, and denying the Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation is not something I personally would want to see.  It's an integral part of understanding the early, formative years of the United States.

[HairyHeretic]

*nod* That's my thought to. It's not specifically saying -what- god. Of course those that are taking the 'separation of church and state' to the extreme are trying to remove any religious (mainly Christian) symbolism from all forms of government.

I can't say I have any real issues with that. The Law should be secular.

[Valerian]

As far as "In God We Trust" is concerned... keep it.  It's a throwback to the founding of the country, and denying the Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation is not something I personally would want to see.  It's an integral part of understanding the early, formative years of the United States.

That motto actually wasn't added to (some) U.S. money until 1864, and it wasn't on every piece of money until the 1950's.  There's a lot of debate over whether the people who founded the U.S. really wanted to set up a "Christian republic", and that would need its own thread and then some.  I'm more curious to know what brought this question up in the first place, since it seems like a pretty minor thing to be worrying about at the moment.  Is there some Controversy behind this?

[Zakharra]

I can't say I have any real issues with that. The Law should be secular.

The law is secular. The seperation of church and state was take beyond what it means in the Constitution. It was meant, in original context that the government could not set up a national church. That's now been takien to mean that there should be no religious influence and symbolism in -any- government organization or symbols at all. If the fanatic anti-Christians (which is what most of them are since they seem to have no problem with other religions being taught in schools) had their way, religious people would probably loose the right to vote since they are going to obviously want to put religion into law.

[Oniya]

I'm more curious to know what brought this question up in the first place, since it seems like a pretty minor thing to be worrying about at the moment.  Is there some Controversy behind this?

The first time I heard of it was when the Presidential dollars started coming out, and the motto had been edge-incised instead of being on the flat face of the coin.  There were people all up in arms about the fact that it had been 'removed', even though it had just been put in a different place.

[Jefepato]

Neither religious phrasing nor symbolism should be present on anything government-created.  The country is secular.  (And seriously, the "it doesn't say which god" argument doesn't fly.  The folks who added it sure didn't mean it in a generic sense, and even if you think of it that way it still excludes everyone but monotheists.)

Now, having "In God We Trust" in tiny letters on our currency is incredibly trivial and doesn't much bother me.  But it really shouldn't be there.

The Christian Right is absolutely insane... I'm a Catholic, and I try not to associate with people like that due to just how intolerant they are of others.  As far as "In God We Trust" is concerned... keep it.  It's a throwback to the founding of the country, and denying the Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation is not something I personally would want to see.  It's an integral part of understanding the early, formative years of the United States.

In what sense was the foundation of the nation Judeo-Christian?  When the founding fathers (many of whom were not Christians) sat down to enumerate some rights, religious freedom was the first thing they came up with.

[HairyHeretic]

The law is secular. The seperation of church and state was take beyond what it means in the Constitution.

Well, unless you've been chatting with those who wrote the constitution lately, then that would just be an opinion :)

It was meant, in original context that the government could not set up a national church. That's now been takien to mean that there should be no religious influence and symbolism in -any- government organization or symbols at all.

So where is the problem in that?

If the fanatic anti-Christians (which is what most of them are since they seem to have no problem with other religions being taught in schools) had their way, religious people would probably loose the right to vote since they are going to obviously want to put religion into law.

While I'm sure there are a handfull of anti religious types who would want to take things to that extreme, the steriotype of the equally fanatically christian would want to turn the country into a theocracy.

The Law, as I stated before, should be secular. It should not give favour to any belief. If laws are passed that give a higher status to one belief, or enforce the beliefs of one group upon others, then there is a problem. The law is no longer fair in that case.

I believe that everyone has the right to think, say, or do what they want, what their faith would have of them, right up to the point that it infringes on the beliefs of others. That's why the law has to remain separate from a particular groupings beliefs.

But since we seem to be moving somewhat OT here, should we split this off to a separate thread?

[The Great Triangle]

Given that the US dollar is a fiat currency, it seems perfectly appropriate to bring up the idea of trust on the currency.  Sure, it's not really backed by anything except a promise, but so long as people have faith in it, it has value.  Much like the idea of God, which is really a more poetic way of putting it than "In Ben Bernanke we trust" or "In the US Mint we trust", or perhaps "In the New York Stock Exchange we trust."

[Zakharra]

Neither religious phrasing nor symbolism should be present on anything government-created.  The country is secular.  (And seriously, the "it doesn't say which god" argument doesn't fly.  The folks who added it sure didn't mean it in a generic sense, and even if you think of it that way it still excludes everyone but monotheists.)

Now, having "In God We Trust" in tiny letters on our currency is incredibly trivial and doesn't much bother me.  But it really shouldn't be there.

In what sense was the foundation of the nation Judeo-Christian?  When the founding fathers (many of whom were not Christians) sat down to enumerate some rights, religious freedom was the first thing they came up with.

Even when it is a part of history? The colonies were founded, mostly as religious colonies. Religion was a strong component of their make up. Religion was a strong part of the nation and the founders were Christians or they believed in some form of religion. God was mentioned frequently in public addresses and speeches. Many of the state, federal and governmental seals and symbols have religious components to them. Should those be remade to remove that?

1Well, unless you've been chatting with those who wrote the constitution lately, then that would just be an opinion :)

2So where is the problem in that?

While I'm sure there are a handfull of anti religious types who would want to take things to that extreme, the steriotype of the equally fanatically christian would want to turn the country into a theocracy.

3The Law, as I stated before, should be secular. It should not give favour to any belief. If laws are passed that give a higher status to one belief, or enforce the beliefs of one group upon others, then there is a problem. The law is no longer fair in that case.

I believe that everyone has the right to think, say, or do what they want, what their faith would have of them, right up to the point that it infringes on the beliefs of others. That's why the law has to remain separate from a particular groupings beliefs.

But since we seem to be moving somewhat OT here, should we split this off to a separate thread?

1The basic meaning is fairly straight forward. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


2 Yes, it is a problem, it denies the history that is behind the reasons for the seals and symbols that make up this nation. It's like rewritting history. Revising it to fit a political agenda

3 I have no real problem with that. That being said, it shouldn't deny a religios based/funded organization anything if that specific organization can do the job if it wins a bid for funding for something. As long as it's made sure the money is spent on what it's intended for, i'd have no problem with that. If a secular organization can do better, they should get  it. Religion should have no influence in that.

[The Overlord]

Doesn't Allah mean God? Try suggesting it get changed to "In Allah we trust" and see how far that 'generic god' angle gets you with the christian right  ;D

As far as they are concerned, its THEIR god, not yours. Yours isn't real, either, the way they look at it.

Yeah it's sorta funny how that works out, how one group gets all uppity and enlightened and thinks they've got it all figured out. I think their god is smoke and mirrors too…sad thing about it, they're never going to be even open to the possibility of that. Amazing how some people can go through their entire life having handed their brain off to someone else so they can do the thinking for them.


As for the topic at hand, I don't find it a serious thing one way or another. Just remember that the slogan does not reflect the viewpoint of everyone here, and we'll get along fine.

[HairyHeretic]

2 Yes, it is a problem, it denies the history that is behind the reasons for the seals and symbols that make up this nation. It's like rewritting history. Revising it to fit a political agenda

I think we're addressing different points here. You seem to be refering to the symbolism, I'm more thinking of the influence. That being said, I don't particularly like the idea of any group .. religious, social, business, whatever .. getting special treatment for them written into the law.

3 I have no real problem with that. That being said, it shouldn't deny a religios based/funded organization anything if that specific organization can do the job if it wins a bid for funding for something. As long as it's made sure the money is spent on what it's intended for, i'd have no problem with that. If a secular organization can do better, they should get  it. Religion should have no influence in that.

Agreed. That should have no bearing on it at all.

[Zakharra]

I think we're addressing different points here. You seem to be refering to the symbolism, I'm more thinking of the influence. That being said, I don't particularly like the idea of any group .. religious, social, business, whatever .. getting special treatment for them written into the law.

There are groups that have tried and are trying to get religios symbols removed from city seals, monuments and the like. On the basis of 'Separation of church and state'. It's groups like that, that make me think they want to erase any mention of religion completely from society.

[HairyHeretic]

And there are groups that are trying to get more and more religious influence into society. Look at the Creationists and their constant attempts to get 'Intelligent Design' recognised as science.

[Zakharra]

And there are groups that are trying to get more and more religious influence into society. Look at the Creationists and their constant attempts to get 'Intelligent Design' recognised as science.

*nod* True. Religion expression should stop at the point it intrudes into my life when I do not want it. It's for each person to decide what they wish to follow. Common sense laws should be in, not ones that follow a religios view. 

<_<

No ban on same gender marriage.

>_>

*contemplates putting up a 'Evangelist Season is Open' sign in her yard*

[Moondazed]

The reason this came up is that some of the new dollars were printed without the text printed on the edge, which of course outraged the religious right.  Personally, I find the presence of that text offensive and misleading, because a secular country shouldn't have such things on its currency.  I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti-religion-in-government.

[consortium11]

Technically the federal reserve who prints the notes is a private entity (IIRC) and as such in theory it isn't a religion-in-government issue.

Emphasis on the words "technically" and "theory" above...

[Moondazed]

Currency is representative of the United States of America and tax dollars are involved in the creation of money, so it's an extension of government, imo.  Regardless of the Puritans and the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, their vision of the country did not include religion in government (read the Federalist Papers, etc.), and I don't want my tax dollars going to anything that support the mixing of religion and government... not my religion or any other.

[Trieste]

... over 11 million responses just now, and 85% for "no". Anyone who might have voted yes, it's just not gonna happen, methinks.

[Caity]

I don't see what the big deal is.  I'm not particularly religious but if someone wants to give me their money because they're so offended by the "In God we trust" they are welcome.  ;)

[Zakharra]

... over 11 million responses just now, and 85% for "no". Anyone who might have voted yes, it's just not gonna happen, methinks.

Since the majority wants this, it must be wrong. After all, some think it is a violation of the church and state and must be striken.

I can see that being used as an agruement to get it removed.

[Caity]

I think the country is facing bigger issues than this. 

[Kroduk]

I think it's a bit hypocritical to put 'In God We Trust' on the primary currency of a country that, as a whole, doesn't.

[Trieste]

Since the majority wants this, it must be wrong. After all, some think it is a violation of the church and state and must be striken.

I can see that being used as an agruement to get it removed.

I understand what you're saying and see what you mean. Just to be clear for future posters, that is not what I meant and I'm pretty sure Zakharra didn't take it that way.

/pre-empt

[Zakharra]

 *nod nod* I understand. I wasn't aiming at anyone here, but at those that do use arguements like that to get the minority's view/needs/wants thrust into people's faces and into law.  Sometimes that is good, sometimes it's bad. There is a reason this nation was set up as majority rule. My responce was slightly tongue in cheek. Humor and satirical method doesn't always translate well on the internet.  :)

[HairyHeretic]

Humor and satirical method doesn't always translate well on the internet.  :)

Unfortunately very true.

[Will]

I don't care what the money says personally, as long as I can buy groceries with it.

It seems to me like after the Bush administration, the religious right has been floundering quite a bit.  Why give them something to rally around?  This particular issue could even be made into a "patriotic" one, thereby gaining them the middle ground in some areas.  I just don't think it's worth making a big deal about, at least not right now. 

I hate to sound corny, but we really have bigger problems to worry about, and the last thing we need is politicians arguing about what our money says.  I'm more concerned with not having enough of it, and it comes and goes so fast that I really have no time to sit and appreciate what's on it. >.>

[National Acrobat]

I can't say I have any real issues with that. The Law should be secular.

And to add to that, when our Founders were discussing the idea of 'God' in a lot of cases they used the word 'Creator' or were referring to 'God' in a general term. Our founders were not right-wing fundies at all, and in fact, many were Deists that would have a hard time relating to the current right-wing fundies that are outraged at all of this stuff. Jefferson wrote his own New Testament and he surely wouldn't have taken a more fundamental approach to God in those terms. So the phrase should stay. I'm not a Christian either, but I am not anti-religion either. In fact, I have no issue with all of us practicing our religion. Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion is not Freedom From Religion, and I think you have to look at the Founder's intent when dealing with historical issues like this.

[Oniya]

I'm more concerned with not having enough of it, and it comes and goes so fast that I really have no time to sit and appreciate what's on it. >.>

Probably the best assessment of this situation, in my opinion.

[Nessy]

Freedom of religion, is not the same as freedom from religion. 

Our founding fathers were, indeed, religious but most of them were against organized religion, think nationalized religion, not religion as a whole which could explain why so many of them were affiliated with different churches or not affiliated at all. Our founding fathers were not exactly confident in the masses either, which one reason why we don't have a direct vote for the presidency. As for the majority ruling, true and false. True for the House. False for the Senate, and the Supreme Court was designed to protect the minority not the majority which is how segregation could be found unconstitutional when the majority of the country was still in favor of it. It's not the job of the Supreme Court Justices to rule in favor of the majority or do what is most popular at the time, which one reason they have lifetime appointments. It's also not the job of the government to try to make everything PC and erase history to do so.

Are we supposed to rewrite Lincoln's speech to make people happy. How about Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech? How about Dwight Eisenhower's speech? Should we remove Jefferson's image from money because he owned slaves, that might offend someone? How about Jackson, the guy was likely psychotic on some level.

I'd much rather look forward then try and smooth over the lingering visuals of our history. Besides that, cash accounts for less and less of our financial transactions each day. Credit cards, debit cards, checks are more prevalent. In 50-100 years time, we might not even have cash in circulation anymore. And if our credit cards are any indication, we're not likely to stick with historical images or quotes with our new found toys. ;)

[The Overlord]

I think the country is facing bigger issues than this. 

Here I have to agree. We're fighting two wars, the nation's infrastructure is hemorrhaging jobs at a faster rate than ever due to outsourcing and a crap economy, and we're actually concerned about a few characters stamped on the coin of the realm?

[Lindra]

While there are more important issues at hand, the presence of 'God' in our government is the root of so many other conflicts as well. The idea of the separation of church and state was Thomas Jefferson's idea, I definitely agree with him.  I feel that, 'In God we Trust,' should be removed, because in the current context of the christian idea, it doesn't hold true to what the founding fathers believed. Even though a number of them were christian, they didn't feel that god gave us innate morals that we must follow, but logic. God gave us logic, and from there we could take it and make our own logical decisions.

[Nessy]

While there are more important issues at hand, the presence of 'God' in our government is the root of so many other conflicts as well. The idea of the separation of church and state was Thomas Jefferson's idea, I definitely agree with him.  I feel that, 'In God we Trust,' should be removed, because in the current context of the christian idea, it doesn't hold true to what the founding fathers believed. Even though a number of them were christian, they didn't feel that god gave us innate morals that we must follow, but logic. God gave us logic, and from there we could take it and make our own logical decisions.

This just isn't true. The Declaration of Independence not only references God, not "god", but it says that we were certainly given morals that we must follow, that each of us have inalienable rights. If you follow the logic that you have an inalienable right and therefore that right should not be taken away, then it would be immoral for me to take that right away. This means that moral choice was given to me by a Creator (note the capital here), or God and that I should follow that moral guidance not to take away someones inalienable rights, rights that were given to all man kind. I am not suggesting that politics haven't gotten in the way some of the messages in the USA's early history's messages or meanings, but you can't just rewind the clock and try to make our founding father more progressive than they really were.

You can't erase history. They were religious white men who didn't trust in the masses, who were opposed to national churches and while they talked about religious freedoms clearly used Christian beliefs to formulate some of our most treasured documents. And it's not as if they were hypocritical from the get go, talking about liberty of Men while owning slaves. Our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc. etc. isn't perfect, neither were the men who drafted them.

[Oniya]

One thing to keep in mind is that at the time, the American colonists were all flavors of monotheism, and if you asked any given Catholic, Protestant or Jew of the time who created the universe, they would say 'God' (possibly Yahweh or Jehovah) - with the capital letter.  We didn't have a large (if any) Muslim population, let alone any of the polytheistic faiths, and even the atheists and agnostics were pretty quiet on that argument.  The key point is that none of these branches of monotheism were to be put ahead of the others as a 'national religion'.

[Nessy]

Well we were talking about the founding fathers right. The founding fathers were, by and large, christians but not from one particular church or denomination. I am certainly not suggesting that all the colonist were christians, or that some people in our history said they were christian, for obvious reasons, but really want. If we are talking about a document drafted primarily by publicly christian, educated white men, then there is a very good chance that God and the Creator are referring to the christian faith's God and not some other god that some of us might have learned about in a more progressive 21st century religious class or discussion. History is what it was. And my argument is simply, we can't exclude history in all forms because there are aspects of that are unpleasant to someone. Yes, we can be more PC and probably should be even but not on everything. In God We Trust has a more historical importance than a religious one.

[HairyHeretic]

In God We Trust has a more historical importance than a religious one.

I believe the religious right would disagree with you there.

Loudly.

Whilst damning you to their hell.

;)

[cattycutie]

"In God We Trust."

It's never been an issue before, right? It's just the fact that people that strive for political correctness are trying to remove anything that may be offensive to any type of people. Like I said, it's never been an issue, why should it be made into one now?

When I think of an English note, I think of the Queen. Should she be removed from our currency to appease the anti-monarchy peoples?

[Lithos]

The most amazing thing is that people have energy to bicker about such an insignificant thing. Wether it is there or not will not affect anything at all :p

[HairyHeretic]

The most amazing thing is that people have energy to bicker about such an insignificant thing.

Welcome to teh internets  ;D

[Nessy]

The most amazing thing is that people have energy to bicker about such an insignificant thing. Wether it is there or not will not affect anything at all :p

This is the most amazing thing you have encountered... i mean even this week?

[Apple of Eris]

In respone to the question posed in the title, "Should 'In God We Trust' stay on currency":

No.

Thank you, have a nice day.

[Inkidu]

Well then you've got to pull the eye in the triangle, the unfinished pyramid and a few other Illuminati (Freemason) symbols from the dollar bill. I think it's a genius movie. How do you get more plausibly deniable than God?

[Oniya]

Let me guess, you were watching the History Channel today?  Interesting note, Roman Catholics were not allowed to join the Freemasons, leading to the founding of the Knights of Columbus.

[Inkidu]

Let me guess, you were watching the History Channel today?  Interesting note, Roman Catholics were not allowed to join the Freemasons, leading to the founding of the Knights of Columbus.

Was that on?

[Oniya]

There was something about the 'Secrets of the Dollar Bill', and I actually thought about this thread when I noticed it was on.

(*is geek*)

[Inkidu]

There was something about the 'Secrets of the Dollar Bill', and I actually thought about this thread when I noticed it was on.

(*is geek*)

(*Geek too*)

[FM]

The phrase wasn't our official motto until the 1950s.  It was made so around the same time "under God" was shoved into the pledge of allegience.  Thank the theocratic Knights of Columbus for that.  Our government is supposed to be secular.

[Inkidu]

No in God We Trust is older than the 50's I'm sure. Still everyone needs someone to look after their money. Most people have Switzerland, but hey God.

Still your never going to have complete separation. The church isn't all sacred and the government isn't going to be all secular. The point behind separation of church and state is to avoid a theocracy. Politics. Having under God in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on the bills doesn't constitute theocracy.

[Valerian]

That motto actually wasn't added to (some) U.S. money until 1864, and it wasn't on every piece of money until the 1950's.

It was first suggested (probably) in 1861 and added to the then brand-new two cent coin in 1864.  After that it was used, off and on, on the various U.S. coins; and declared the official motto of the U.S. in 1956.  The following year it was added to paper money and has been on all U.S. currency since.

[Oniya]

It was first suggested (probably) in 1861 and added to the then brand-new two cent coin in 1864.  After that it was used, off and on, on the various U.S. coins; and declared the official motto of the U.S. in 1956.  The following year it was added to paper money and has been on all U.S. currency since.

Whatever happened to E Pluribus Unum?

[Inkidu]

Whatever happened to E Pluribus Unum?

Still there I believe.

[MHaji]

It shouldn't have been put there in the first place, but now that it's there, removing it would simply not be worth the trouble. Wait until we've reached a point where an atheist President is even a slim possibility, and there might be a chance.

[Raine]

Personally, as stated before, "In God We Trust," wasn't added the currency until later in U.S. history. I don't believe it should be printed on the money because of the whole Separation of church and state business. It was present on all money in the late 1950's as part of a brain washing technique in my opinion. It's similar to "One nation, under god" in the pledge. That wasn't added until much later to gain support for the wars. I don't believe it should be there. I don't see the need, and all it does now is give current Christian Extremists an Ego boost.

-Raine

[Inkidu]

It shouldn't have been put there in the first place, but now that it's there, removing it would simply not be worth the trouble. Wait until we've reached a point where an atheist President is even a slim possibility, and there might be a chance.

Well then the next statistically religious president will merely reinstate it. It's not worth any real trouble. It's neat to talk about but not worth doing anything over. Besides it ties the back of the bill together so nicely.

[Zakharra]

Personally, as stated before, "In God We Trust," wasn't added the currency until later in U.S. history. I don't believe it should be printed on the money because of the whole Separation of church and state business. It was present on all money in the late 1950's as part of a brain washing technique in my opinion. It's similar to "One nation, under god" in the pledge. That wasn't added until much later to gain support for the wars. I don't believe it should be there. I don't see the need, and all it does now is give current Christian Extremists an Ego boost.

-Raine

It was pointed out by Valerian that it has been on US money in one form or another since the late 1800's.

It was first suggested (probably) in 1861 and added to the then brand-new two cent coin in 1864.  After that it was used, off and on, on the various U.S. coins; and declared the official motto of the U.S. in 1956.  The following year it was added to paper money and has been on all U.S. currency since.

Over all, it does  -not- espouse a Church philosophy  and those saying it violates the Church/state separation are really reaching if they think this pushes a theocratic regime.  The phrase, 'In God we trust' acknowledges something mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, that our freedoms do not come from Human reasoning's or design, but from something greater than us. It might be a god or gods. Perhaps it is none of those, but the founding fathers knew that anything that humans give, we can take away. If the freedoms we enjoy in this country are Human given, then they can be taken away.

To keep them requires human diligence, against those that want to em-place their own religious philosophers and against those that want to help us 'for our own good'. Yet the freedoms are there and need to be maintained by constant vigilance from those that want to change them.

[Moondazed]

In the interest of factual documentation, here's the statement on the history of the phrase from the U.S. Treasury.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Edit:  As you can see, it wasn't on paper money until 1964.

[Oniya]

In the interest of factual documentation, here's the statement on the history of the phrase from the U.S. Treasury.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Edit:  As you can see, it wasn't on paper money until 1964.

It was, however, on the briefly minted 2 cent coin from 1864 to 1873.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-cent_piece_(United_States_coin)

It does not appear to have been included on any currency that I could find between 1873 and 1964, however.

[Moondazed]

It does not appear to have been included on any currency that I could find between 1873 and 1964, however.

Which kind of nullifies the 'but it's always been there!' argument ;)

[Valerian]

Okay, a little more clarification, from the aforelinked U.S. treasury page:

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription.

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957.

Due to costs, it was only gradually added to paper money.  I believe 1964 may be the year when it was finally included on all bills.  Otherwise I'm not sure where you're getting that date from.

[National Acrobat]

So it stands to reason that it was on coinage, at least the five cent coin, prior to 1883.

[Apple of Eris]

"IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin."
- http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

"Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866."
- http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml


Side Note: BRING BACK THE THREE CENT COIN!

[Inkidu]

You know it's funny, there is a two dollar bill but unless you do a lot of time at the horsey tracks you're probably not going to see them.

I think Jefferson is on it./hijack

[Oniya]

My husband likes to get $2 bills and dollar coins from the bank with the express purpose of keeping them circulating.