The Instigator
DudeStop
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Cade_Griffin
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
DudeStop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 957 times Debate No: 43171
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

DudeStop

Pro

First Round is for acceptance.
No new arguments can be made in the fourth round, because I won't be able to refute it then.
One FF is equal to an all 7 points FF.


This is supposed to be a serious debate.

I wish luck to my future opponent! (Not as much as I wish myself though)
Cade_Griffin

Con

I stronlgy believe that "In God We Trust" should remain on the American currency. I wish myself and my opponent the best of luck and am eager to see the outcome of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
DudeStop

Pro

Thank You CON!

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.

By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Not everyone believes in god in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. I don't think my opponent will argue that no atheists exists in America, but I'll provide a source either way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
5% of Americans are atheists.
As for the second class citizen, the definition is here:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
"A person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration."


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. The Government is getting involved with religion, and- that's a problem.

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"
-Jefferson.

http://www.loc.gov.........
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"
http://dictionary.reference.com...

By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion. The government is supposed to be neutral on this subject, meaning it should not have any statements regarding god. Therefore we must take god off of our currency.
Cade_Griffin

Con

Point One
1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency

In 1970 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." [2]

It has been said before that 'In God We Trust' on American currency is not a religious act. This is not to discriminate against any group of people or their beliefs but simply to provide symbolism of patriotism.

Point Two
2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off.

Since I feel like I addressed most of this in the first point the only thing I'm going to add is that no matter what we do someone is going to complain about the 'In God We Trust' print on our currency. Currently you are debating that Atheists are feeling discriminated against for having it on there, but did you think that maybe the Christians would also feel discriminated against for you taking it off? (Or anyone who believes in God, for that matter)
This is to assume that 'In God We Trust' was a sign of religion, which it is in fact, not.

Point Three
3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens.

Atheists would not be the only people affected by this is this is indeed the problem that we face. It makes me wonder if you yourself are an Atheist (Though this is just out of curiosity and has nothing to do with the debate at hand)

In addition to your definition of second-class citizen I would like to add my own as an elaboration to yours.

Second-Class Citizen: A second-class citizen is a person who is systematically discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there. [3]

You are arguing that Atheists are not treated with respect, are not recognized, and are discriminated against because of their beliefs despite being legal citizens of America. I'm sorry but I've never heard of anyone saying that they weren't friends with an Atheist because 'In God We Trust' is on the American currency.

Point Four
4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency.

To elaborate a bit on my third point I would like to say that the only person I have seen so far being offended by our United States motto are the Atheists (Though I will acknowledge any evidence for any other minority group)
As you have said yourself America is only made up of 5% of Atheists. This is not to say that they don't matter and their opinion should be pushed aside, but this is to say that not everyone will be happy with any decision the government makes.
In 2006 the Senate reaffirmed 'In God We Trust' as the official national motto of the United States of America with a vote. The vote came out to be 396-9. [2]
And seeing how it would be completely absurd to say that Atheists never got a job or were able to enter into school because of this national motto I still see no huge reason as to why it would be imperative for the national motto to be taken off of our currency.

I cannot take Jefferson's quote into consideration since it is not in the first amendment of separation of church and state. I also cannot take your dictionary reference of separation of church and state since it is a summary of the amendment and not the actual quote. I will, however, provide the amendment for you.

Separation of Church and State
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." [1]

I will also provide article VI as it pertains to this debate

Article VI
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." [1]



http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3]
Debate Round No. 2
DudeStop

Pro

" 1970 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." [2]

It has been said before that 'In God We Trust' on American currency is not a religious act. This is not to discriminate against any group of people or their beliefs but simply to provide symbolism of patriotism"

Immediatly there are some problems here.

1. No rational has been given as to why this is so.

2. Her argument dodges the actual point. It did not address the definition of a second class citizen, nor did it address the fact that the money was lying in saying that all Americans trust in god.

3. There is also the fact that even if we assumed some points were given to show why this is so, the Court is not always 100% correct in it's rulings. Therefore my point still stands.

"Christians would also feel discriminated against for you taking it off? (Or anyone who believes in God, for that matter) This is to assume that 'In God We Trust' was a sign of religion, which it is in fact, not"

The problem with *this* argument is that I never said atheists are all feeling discriminated against. I said they would be defined as second class citizens, which you failed to address. This is also not justification for it. Saying "in god we trust" Is similar to saying "no one in America trusts in god". It does not matter if someone is offended if you take it off.

"You are arguing that Atheists are not treated with respect, are not recognized, and are discriminated against because of their beliefs despite being legal citizens of America. I'm sorry but I've never heard of anyone saying that they weren't friends with an Atheist because 'In God We Trust' is on the American currency"
1. Not true. Please don't ignore my definition and actually address the argument.
2. I am An atheist
3. Personal experience fallacy.

Point Four
4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency.

"To elaborate a bit on my third point I would like to say that the only person I have seen so far being offended by our United States motto are the Atheists (Though I will acknowledge any evidence for any other minority group)
As you have said yourself America is only made up of 5% of Atheists. This is not to say that they don't matter and their opinion should be pushed aside, but this is to say that not everyone will be happy with any decision the government makes.
In 2006 the Senate reaffirmed 'In God We Trust' as the official national motto of the United States of America with a vote. The vote came out to be 396-9. [2]
And seeing how it would be completely absurd to say that Atheists never got a job or were able to enter into school because of this national motto I still see no huge reason as to why it would be imperative for the national motto to be taken off of our currency. "

Con is now appealing to popularity which is a well known Logical Fallacy.

I wish I had more time, but. I have less than a minute!
Cade_Griffin

Con

I was not avoiding the definition of second-class citizen. If you see in my previous argument I stated that I would be adding onto your definition of a second-class citizen; simply elaborating, not disregarding.

Second-Class Citizen: A person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration.

Second-Class Citizen: A second-class citizen is a person who is systematically discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there.

I used both definitions for my argument which is as follows: You are arguing that Atheists are not treated with respect, are not recognized, and are discriminated against because of their beliefs despite being legal citizens of America.

Because you argued that Atheists are second-class citizens because of this motto on our currency you had argued that they are being discriminated against.

With this, I still do not understand how Atheists are being classified as second-class citizens since I see no hindrance for them when it comes to handling money. Please elaborate for me as I wish to understand, and not understanding Atheists as well I need to understand their point of view in order to debate with you effectively.

Debate Round No. 3
DudeStop

Pro

Thank you con. "I used both definitions for my argument which is as follows: You are arguing that Atheists are not treated with respect, are not recognized, and are discriminated against because of their beliefs despite being legal citizens of America"

Right,,,

Well because it is saying "In god we trust" it is asserting that Americans trust in god. It does not say a single thing about atheism, therefore atheism does not get it's fair share of respect. If there was no mention of religion on the dollar bill, this would be no problem. However they respected all other religions except for atheism. They also told a lie by asserting we all believe in god.

"Because you argued that Atheists are second-class citizens because of this motto on our currency you had argued that they are being discriminated against. "

They are not getting a fair share of respect, and a lie is being told on our dollar bill. Yet again not all people are theists.

It would be like me putting a sign up next to the local School saying: "Westhardly middle school students trust in god" this would clearly be not appropriate,.. It is not respecting all of the atheists who do not in fact believe in god.

I await your responses.
Cade_Griffin

Con

I will acknowledge that Atheists do not believe in a deity. I will also say that 'In God We Trust' is offensive to them as well. When taken in a religious point of view it is indeed a lie to say that everyone trusts in God when nothing like that could ever be ascertained from our country.

While I do not believe it is a huge deal to have 'In God We Trust' on our currency due to the fact that I honestly don't think anyone is paying attention to it and believes that you are preaching to them if you use it, I do also understand that I have this point of view simply because I myself believe in a deity.

Thank you for the debate, Con. This was most interesting.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
It did in fact violate the definition I put up.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
There can be more than one definition to one word mate...
Posted by SaadTheWise 2 years ago
SaadTheWise
I invite you to debate me in an open forum if you believe you are so correct. Your flawed logic and extrapolated points will earn you no votes in this community. I argue facts, and you continue to twist the meaning of very clean cut definitions to fit your needs.

"second-class citizens have limited legal rights, civil rights and socioeconomic opportunities, and are often subject to mistreatment or neglect at the hands of their putative superiors"

Nowhere does In God We Trust violate any of this. Now please stop commenting, or debate me officially. You are wasting mine, and everyone who reads this time.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Cool Story bro. You failed to refute anything...

"As for the second class citizen, the definition is here:
http://dictionary.reference.com......
"A person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration.""

It's obviously defining Atheists second class citizens. Would you like to put out your case for why it is not defined that way or are you just going it continue to insist it isn't? I provided the dictionary reference to it, so it's definitely accurate. Atheists are not given a fair share of consideration in the dollar bill, or in the allegiance.
Posted by SaadTheWise 2 years ago
SaadTheWise
Your argument is more emotional than factual. According to the Constitution of the United States no law is being violated. It also seems you are defining what is a second class citizen arbitrarily according to your own needs.

Everyone in the U.S. has the same rights, and what religion you are makes no difference (even a lack of religion). If it offends your eyes along side Merry Christmas I advise you to avert them.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
As I said in my arguments! it is a lie and also defines atheists as second class citizens. Then I still stand firm that the Goverment should not have anything to do with god, and needs to take it off of the dollar.
Posted by SaadTheWise 2 years ago
SaadTheWise
@DueStop you are very close but I still think you are off the mark. While your argument is not wrong, it is misguided. The courts have already ruled that 'In God We Trust' bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. Thus the connection between church an state that your argument implies is not there.

Your confusion comes from the term 'Separation of Church and State' itself. Nowhere do those words appear in the constitution. Rather it is phrased "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In god we trust on a coin does not violate this in the slightest, and so I again ask what good reason do you have to change it.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
No, the add on should not be to not say the words, it should be to add the words. The goverment does not need to have any religion at all. Meaning god is supposed to be out of everything they do. If someone feels the need to have a religious duty to say "Under god" or write "I trust in god" on there money then they can go for it. But the "Normal" should be to print money without god, and to not include god in the pledge of the allegiance.

It's basically: "If you don't want to say it, then don't say it"
But I'm arguing that it should be: "If you want to say it, say it"
Because: The goverment is required under law to have no religious things, and by saying that the "Normal" way to recite the pledge is with "god", then it is breaking that rule in half.
Posted by SaadTheWise 2 years ago
SaadTheWise
@DudeStop - Whether or not god exists does not matter for the debate at hand. But just for your own edification, it has not been proven either way that such an entity exists or does not exist. As well, we will never be able to prove or disprove this notion in our own lifetime.

Under your logic it would be just as plausible for us to keep the status quo, and if someone doesn't want say the words they do not have to, which is currently how it is. Having the words on the currency is inconsequential, as ruled be the courts. So it is really just a matter of having no reason to keep it, and also having no reason to remove it. So the status quo always remains when there is no reason for or against something.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
I know it does not "Sponser" a religion... However I do not see why we need to have this "motto" on our dollar bills or in the allegiance. It's quite obvious that god doesn't exist. The goverment should just stay out of this... Hey, how about if someone WANTS to say under god in the pledge of allegiance, they can? In other words, it would just be a little add on for them. That's all.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
DudeStopCade_GriffinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, that looks like a concession in the last round. Nice debate. I'll give a point to Con for being so graceful about it.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
DudeStopCade_GriffinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes in the final round. By stating that it is actually offensive to atheists, and that it is a lie, Con is granting Pro the win in this debate. The only way Con wins with that concession is if there's a harm that results from its removal that counterbalances it. Since I don't see a harm (beyond the possibility that some Christians may be upset, which I don't see much evaluation of), that means that this phrase on the dollar bill is actually harmful, and therefore should be removed. It may not be sufficient reason for its removal, but I don't hear argumentation as to why it would be more harmful to remove it, so Pro wins.