The Instigator
YeshuaBought
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
factandevidence1234
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should "In God we trust" be on American money, please watch.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
166days03hours51minutes41seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 183 times Debate No: 116110
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

factandevidence1234

Con

Should "in god we trust" be on money? No. You can"t just assume that everybody in America trusts in god. That"s basically it.
Debate Round No. 1
YeshuaBought

Pro

It is a free speech issue, and a belief in the God of the Bible through Christianity, and some deists has played a part in the founding of America, and because antitheists hate religion, they want to deny free speech and religious liberty, which are enshrined in the First Amendment. I support your nonchristian rights, why can't can't you do the same for me? I literally would go to bat to defend an atheist, and am a leftist progressive, but the antitheist stranglehold on America is tragique, mon cher!
factandevidence1234

Con

(Atheists, don't hate religion, they just choose not to be a part of it, and I support your christian beliefs.)
The US is a very diverse country, and not everyone believes in god. There could be Buddhists, or Hinduism, which support different gods. You can't just generalize everybody thinking everyone loves god. It's not right!
Debate Round No. 2
YeshuaBought

Pro

I did not say all atheists hate religion and think George Carlin had some valid points. What I am saying is radical antitheists are the isssue here, not the everyday atheist. I apologize for not having proper communication. I do believe both atheism and Christianity should have equal protections under the law. As a center leftist, I am fin with an interfaith section on government property, where skeptics and members of any religion can express their thoughts. I feel personally that the loving and peaceful, but open and honest exchange of ideas is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society. I want be fine with a Hitchen's Razor statue next to a cross as long as everyone feels represented. I pay taxes just like atheists, so I have the same right to be represented as an atheist. I want a society where those who pay equal taxes are equally represented. What I wont do is engage in supremicy because I am a Christian, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Finally, let's discuss the First Amendment. Freedom of religion as a right is mentioned, as well as freedom of speech, and that does not exclude religious speech. My final point is that "In God we trust" is not, I repeat not, a freedom of religion issue, but a freedom of speech issue/ Many of the Founding Fathers would agree that speech whether controversial or not, atheist, agnostic, religious, or political, is worthy of protection as a First Amendment right. You can call me a stupid head, and I will support your right to say that. I get nervous when some speech is protected, and some, not.
factandevidence1234

Con

This is not a matter of free religion. A person can still have free religion, but instead of generalizing the whole of america, we could put something more simple, or something that doesn't just assume everybody in america trusts in god. Instead, we could put, in liberty we trust, or something that can represent all people, not just Christians.
Debate Round No. 3
YeshuaBought

Pro

Yes it is. Freedom of speech is a right no matter what you opine on. I support your rights to equality of representation, but you don't support mine. I have the right to say anything I want, including "In God We Trust". You have no right to my free speech, and the government is most assuredly NOT saying in whom you have the right to trust. All monotheists are equally represented, religion or no religion, that is why I am asserting IGWT as a free speech isssue, not a religious issue.
factandevidence1234

Con

As I've been saying, this is not a matter of free speech. Here is why: You can still trust in god but because you do not have the authority of deciding what to print on money, you cannot just make the decision to print that on money, simply because, you and only YOU, are saying that you trust in god. Just because you trust in god it doesn't mean that everybody trusts in god. All of my points are still valid.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by canis 2 weeks ago
canis
A few hundred years ago "In slavery we trust" could be on american money... "In god we trust" is a lie to many people. So
Posted by John_C_1812 2 weeks ago
John_C_1812
The form of "Free Speech" expressed can be describe by the lack of self-value, or cost that can be lost by confusion. There are two meanings to which numbers can be given context by history, mathematics and wording. Roman Numerals and algebra both say letters can have numerical value and not just a verbal pronunciation. A letter used to form words.

An axiom based on numbers can provide a basic principle in understanding how to create a trust as savings that can be shared to all people who use a registered receipt as a form of numerical value. An example would be to simply add more receipts to the ones already in circulation to lower an overall cost to the payment of debt to everyone.

This type application of savings by Trust works the best as it is spread equally within the economy the Notes of receipt serve. An example is a simple addition of a seven and eight note can add Billions of dollars in Nation which must support trillions of dollars in debt of those under its economic influence. The saving s comes from the reduction of any one dollar notes used as change in sales interaction.
The reality is people can replace the IN GOD WE TRUST with a saying like "IN AXIOM WE TRUST." Or nothing at all.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 weeks ago
John_C_1812
"IN GOD WE TRUST" can be defended legally as a mathematic axiom explaining a separation made between the complex meanings religions can give to a words. A meaning a society trapped in the laws of nature can symbolize as a united state, or in this case a group of numbers which had been written as letters with separate meanings to interpretation. The Irony is that GOD can be explained through history to be an axiom based on values of numbers. As with like a Roman numeral.

Free speech can be described by representation when a person, or people viewing the misunderstood numbers, created by a past language as letters only then having just a single mean for assembly as word. As most society"s still use letters in the form of equations which are to be calculated out to produce the answer to a math equation. Letters are mostly use to form words which can be added together to create complete ideas.
Posted by canis 2 weeks ago
canis
A few hundred years ago "In slavery we trust" could be on american money... "In god we trust" is a lie to many people. So
Posted by Topaet 2 weeks ago
Topaet
I would accept the challenge but I'd prefer to debate against someone who actually clarifies his arguments instead of lazily posting a 30-minute video.
Posted by JavaScriptCoder 2 weeks ago
JavaScriptCoder
This is actually quite an interesting debate, despite the fact that I will not accept the challenge, I will continue watching this
No votes have been placed for this debate.