The Instigator
jesusfreak22
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Dig3stingLizard
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

We should ban "God bless America" from being printed on money

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Dig3stingLizard
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,805 times Debate No: 42537
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (3)

 

jesusfreak22

Con

1st round acceptance. 2nd round arguements (no rebuttals allowed). 3rd round rebuttals only (may not bring up new evidence). Opponent takes PRO side and must prove that "God bless America" should not be printed on American money. Must site sources (if used), back up arguements. Am looking forward to this debate! Good luck.
Dig3stingLizard

Pro

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
jesusfreak22

Con

The United States of America was founded on a Christian principle... a principle that is infringed upon time and time again. We have repeadly taken God out of our school systems. So why must we take him out of our monitary systems too? (I apologize, I wrote it wrong. It really says In God we trust.. sorry!!)
This saying "In God we Trust (again, wrote it wrong, sorry!) first appeared on coins in 1864 and on paper money in 1957. It was chosen as our national motto in 1956. Why? Because it was by the grace of God that we defeated the British and gained our independance. It was by the grace of God that we made it across the ocean without wrecking. We trusted God, and forever we shall.
Many have tried to abolish the use of the phrase in money, saying that it offends nonChristians. The thing is, no matter if we put it in or not, someone is still going to be offened. U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr stated, "the Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto's secular purpose and effect, however have found no constitutional violation in the motto's inclusion on currency."
There is no good reason why we can't say IN GOD WE TRUST. People hold signs expressing their religion. People wear shirts, chant, hold rallies, go to church. What is the problem with money? We all are aware of the fact that there are other religions in the USA. So why is money the biggest problem? Perhaps the athiests are board and simply want to start a riot against the religions.


(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Dig3stingLizard

Pro

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 & State." - Thomas Jefferson

Analysis: In this quote Thomas Jefferson established that the religious beliefs of one man should be left out of politics when they decide on major issues, and that the beliefs of the people cannot be disrupted by the law. He was attempting to thwart history from repeating itself time and time again. For all over Europe, religion had been the greatest cause of death and wars known to man. The reformation had destroyed much of the Catholic Churches power, with the formation of many religious orders and other religions that are based on the same basic principles and pray to the same god yet hold little differences. However the people still saw the difference and slaughtered others and hated at will. So to prevent any church power to establish high dominance in the United States this was created to protect the government from being pressured by "The words of God" to do something that did not benefit the people of this country or another.

I type this to the reading audience and my opponent to inform you that this could be A easy way for a dominant church figure to easily take advantage of the United States government. "In God we trust....do you truly believe in god Mr. Blaugh?" "Why sure...but I don't see the point..." "If you truly believed in God then you would promote this law for the benefit of the church which will please God..." This is an over dramatization of what could potentially happen, however with enough money and this labeled on the front of A corrupt church officials intentions he and or she could easily raise support from A blind politician or a blind mass of people that he could be preaching out too. If the United States truly believes in God, then we should be able to remove this statement from our dollar bill without the fear of God wanting to oppress us for doing so.

Declaration of independence:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." - Declaration of Independence

Analysis: The Founding Fathers would agree to remove this statement so the government wouldn’t appear to be religiously based, however I cannot accurately say for one hundred percent that they would do this but I am almost certain that they would for they were attempting to appeal to all of the people not just the Christian or the religious population. Their beliefs were to give everyone their fair half without having to take away part of the half from another person and they pulled that off beautifully, however they did not account for the radical change in the political mind set of people today or even decades after they had all perished. For this miscalculation has caused the spawning of multiple political parties and radical groups which will do anything to keep change from happening for the better.

Overview: It is in my opinion that the phrase: “In God we Trust” Should be removed from any form of United States currency not only for the fact of “Separation of State and Church” and for the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for God to play A major role in our everyday lives. In A society that demands change for things that do not work it is necessary to appeal to all of the public, especially for a proper Democracy to work?


“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
R13;
Thomas Jefferson


“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”
R13; Robert A. Heinlein


“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
R13; James Madison

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
R13;
George Washington

“For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
...
This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died.”
R13;
John F. Kennedy

http://www.archives.gov...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.treasury.gov...

http://www.goodreads.com...

Debate Round No. 2
jesusfreak22

Con

jesusfreak22 forfeited this round.
Dig3stingLizard

Pro

Dig3stingLizard forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Yet again it doesn't matter if I'm offended or not. Bottom line is that we don't even need anything even remotely religious in a school graduation party. If you don't mind what song's going on then this shouldn't even affect you, let alone your "First Amendment right". Your rights stop when they interfere with others.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Then you must not get around much.
Posted by jesusfreak22 3 years ago
jesusfreak22
@Ninja, Proverbs 12:16-- A fool is quick tempered, but a wise person stays calm when insulted.
I understand that many people get offended, but the thing is... there ARE mutiple religions in this country. Just because someone mentions a specific religion in your prescence that you don't believe, doesn't mean you have to get all hostile. Simply smile and say that that is not your belief, then change the subject. I don't hear many people complaining that most stores feature Christmas rather than Hanukkah or Kwanzaa.
Posted by Obnoxious_Ninja 3 years ago
Obnoxious_Ninja
If you enjoy a nice change, and are open to the beliefs of others, then why are you adamant against the removal of "God Bless America" on our currency? Just because you are not offended by something does not mean that others are not. I'm not offended when someone says "Athiests are devil worshippers!", as their idiocy brings a smile to face. I know for a fact though, that others would be very angry at such a remark. You need to include all religions in something, or include none. There's no justifiable middle ground.
Posted by jesusfreak22 3 years ago
jesusfreak22
Would you be offended if you heard someone singing a Christmas carol? I'm not offended hearing other religious songs... I enjoy them. They're a nice change. We shouldn't have to change anything!
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
We also have the fact that by School you thought teacher. I hardly think this even needed specification!

The school didn't ban it. The article even says that the school apologized to the parent and child. The teacher is not a school. The teacher was confused, and disregarded the rules. That should not be deemed as a school banning this if a teacher made a trivial mistake on an assignment, realized it was not against the school rules, and apologized.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
@Jesusfreak:

This is still irrelevant. The teacher took it off because she deemed it inappropriate. As. I looked at other articles, (One that wasn't on a clearly biased website) The teacher told them it might offend other cultures. So she changed it to a mutual song...

1. If something offends other cultures, we best take it out.
2. Anyone would be offended if there child was forced to listen to a song that goes against their beliefs.
3. There is such a song that people are being forced to listen to at their graduation.
4. We must take it out.

Yet again I wouldn't want you to tell my children they have to play with our toys. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to have your children be forced to listen to me play a song called god is not real... I think the only difference is that I'm able to understand that it's justified, and you can't seem to think about others
feelings. This is not taking away your first amendment right, because your rights stop when they start to interfere with others.
Posted by Dig3stingLizard 3 years ago
Dig3stingLizard
I realize the difference between them; it was three in the morning when I got these comments together so I really didn't care about the grammar or the spelling at that point in time.
Also I'm not great with being grammatically correct, so if in future debate you see myself doing something like that please attempt to ignore it; I'll try to fix the grammar and the spelling errors.
Posted by Obnoxious_Ninja 3 years ago
Obnoxious_Ninja
Just another (friendly) critique to help you in the future: Realize the difference between "to", "too", and "two". You could also make sure that you're using the correct "you(')r(e)".

A slightly more important detail is the separation of your thoughts. The end of your last comment felt like a very long run-on thought. Commas, semicolons, and periods are your friends.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
jesusfreak22Dig3stingLizardTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Both sides had equal conduct errors, thus there is no excusable way to vote on this section. S&G: Certain repeated errors from pro, such as "A" really became bothersome after awhile; in addition to the shortfall on punctuation (the font size was also quite annoying); however con could also use improvement (see quote). ARGUMENTS: FAIL! Sorry but con's belief that "Perhaps the athiests are board and simply want to start a riot against the religions." is borderline insane. Pro on the other hand did not challenge even one thing con said, he mostly spammed inspirational quotes (to include from science fiction writers), plus the belief that a couple words on money will make us kill each other... SOURCES: Neither actually incorporated them into their argument, their links are barely related and not once referenced (in addition to pro's quote spamming far more than he actually had anything useful to say... which doesn't actually count against him, he merely gains nothing from it).
Vote Placed by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
jesusfreak22Dig3stingLizardTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did have the better spelling and grammar. Because of a Forfeit I'm going to give PRO the conduct. Arguments to pro as well, as he refuted con's (I'm sorry to say, but weak) case. Small debate.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
jesusfreak22Dig3stingLizardTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I keep Con tied because both sides forfeited the final round. Pro had a more logical argument that con, and used more sources to back it. If jesusfreak had typed as much as Pro did, it would've bee possible for her to make more S&G mistakes, but as it is she only had two S&G errors by my count, and I found more than that in Pro's.