Should we take "In God we trust" off of the American currency?
Debate Rounds (3)
1. We are going to debate.
2. Please no trollers
3. A violation of any of the rules is an automatic 7 points forfeit
4. The last argument is when con literally says "Nothing" As to make it more fair.
5. This is regarding American money
6. If you forfeit a round, you lose the entire debate.
Funny video related to this subject.
1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency
2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off.
3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens.
4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency.
I'm not saying we need to take every dollar bill and erase the statement. Only that we must stop printing it on our bills.
If someone wants to write it on there, then that is fine. I don't have a problem with someone writing that they love a Sky Wizard on his or her money, and I'll even be fine with using it. The only problem though, is that the government is putting this on here.
This brings us into the law of separation of Church and State.
"Separation of Church and State: "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 and State"
The actual rule:
"The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion"
By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion. The goverment must remain neutral on this subject, therefore we must take god off of our currency.
Prejudice- an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc.
History nor the United States government is not unfair towards Atheists. The quote has been on money since 1955. Unied States government is not trying to take away your rights. It is a saying. The quote is not downgrading or condoning any particular religion. Even if the government wanted to change American Currency, it would be expensive and could cause an even worse recession in the United States. In life and in politics, you cannot impress everybody. That is exactly what this quote is. There is nothing prejudice about American currency. Because of my reasons above, "In God We Trust" should NOT be taken off of American Currency. The third link shows the real origination of the motto "In God We Trust".
"I am not trolling against non believers of God but the separation of Church and State has nothing to do with American currency. All of your arguments are invalid. In the United States, EVERY state in the United States uses money that has "In God We Trust" on the bill. Because of this, you cannot use the separation of Church and State. The Federal Reserve uses this type of money. If every state and territory uses different currency that has the quote "In God We Trust", you can use the argument of separation between church and state. The quote "In God We Trust" is not condoning one particular religion. Therefore, you cannot say that American currency is being prejudice"
1. By putting: "In God we trust" Is favoring theists, and at the same time offending atheists. It is also a lie, considering not everybody is an atheist. I extend all arguments. You avoided refuting them. Oh, and by favoring theists, it's identifying all atheists as second class citizens because they don't believe in god.
2." EVERY state in the United States uses money that has "In God We Trust" on the bill. Because of this, you cannot use the separation of Church and State"
Well that's like saying (Rewind a few more years) That because all states do not allow gay marriage, it is okay not to allow gay marriage. But we know that this is not true, because (Go to present time) it is now begging to legalize in quite a few states.
Your logical fallacy is bandwagon. You said all States in America do this, so it is therefore okay, without refuting the actual argument.
"Even if the government wanted to change American Currency, it would be expensive and could cause an even worse recession in the United States"
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
"Unied States government is not trying to take away your rights. It is a saying. The quote is not downgrading or condoning any particular religion"
Assuming you meant United States, I never said it was taking away any rights. I'm saying it tells us that America trusts in god, which violates Church and State. The Government just needs to stay neutral, and get out of this. By putting god in their, it automatically means religion. The Government should not have anything do with religion. If we are going to argue that atheism is a religion, then it violates the law. But if atheism is not a religion, and Government should have nothing to do with religion, then if anything we should be endorsing atheism. :)
Notice how he did not show how any of my points were wrong. Vote PRO.
Obviously, my reasoning are based on facts not theories. By your counter argument, you are trying to say that the expenses of changing American currency would mean nothing to the American economy.
"The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."-PRO The paragraph I quoted from you is completely irrelevant. My argument is not "unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture". If the United States were to change the American currency, it is favoring non believers in God. The quote is not favoring any religion. It is apart of American history. In order to actual counter your argument about Atheism, do you believe Atheism is actually a religion? I in no way condone atheism. I am a believer in God. Based on the last sentence in your round 3 argument, this is really not about American currency. People like you will find any way to make Atheism more popular in America. You are just trying to convince me to be Atheism. The quote is history; it has nothing to do with religion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I really have no opinion on this matter. S&G to Pro because Con had several noticeable spelling mistakes. Arguments to Pro as well because Con made several logical fallacies and the statement "In God we Trust" DOES indeed relate to America's religious tradition, contrary to Con's argument.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.