The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency
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: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,105 times | Debate No: | 43171 | ||
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)
 Pro 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)  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. |
 |
|
Pro 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. 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] |
 |
|
Pro 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! 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. |
 |
|
Pro 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. 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. |
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
| DudeStop | Cade_Griffin | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 3 | 1 |
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 3 years ago
| DudeStop | Cade_Griffin | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 3 | 0 |
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.