There is no difference at all. Dow said that since not every American believe in God, "In God We Trust" should not be on our currency. Applying the same logic, "E Pluribus Unum" should not be on our currency because not every American supports the Union. There's no debating that.
I don't believe in god but I see no issue with it being on our money and or in our pledge of alligence. Its tradition passed down from our forfathers which should be respected. People died for these little things theres no reason to remove it in my opinion. I'll say it again im an atheist but I don't see an issue with god being on our currancy. Its part of our history whether we like it or not and the founding fathers would have it no other way than it is now.
If you're reading a book and the author writes, "I invited some friends over for lunch today; we ate sandwiches," do you automatically associate yourself with that sentence because it contains the word "we"? I see no reason why "we" should necessarily apply to Americans. Haven't you ever heard of the majestic plural? Why can "we" not refer to those who designed the currency? If it said "in God those who use this currency trust," that would be another story. The common perspective is not necessarily the correct one.
The point of my statement is that having "We are White and Latino" would actually offend less people that "In God We Trust" Also, I'm not sure if your aware of the significance of "E Pluribus Unum." It doesn't mean that we stand strong as a nation or anything. It is referring to how our country was formed by the thirteen original colonies, and has nothing to do with anything happening in our time. The only way it can offend you is if you don't understand the intended meaning.
Your exploits in the God "Debate" thread do not make you an expert debater... And I rarely agree with Dow, but your frolicking in the field of separation of church and state is crushing your argument, not daisies. I thought it was common knowledge that such was never stated in the constitution, but maybe I am wrong. Regardless, just because it isn't doesn't make a difference in this discussion. The concept of separation of church and state was created because our founding fathers who did not want an "Anglican Church" of America. But the discussion as to whether "In God we trust" has little to do with such a concept. There are two stances on this, and two arguable viewpoints: 1. It should stay. 2. It shouldn't. We are not discussing the validity of the statement, we are discussing whether or not the words printed on America's official currency should pronounciate the beliefs of its users which may or may not coincide with their actual beliefs. Some believe in god, others do not, while others prefer to refer to it with other names such as "Allah". Should a Muslim be content with a country that declares god within several of its aspects a Christian god? Should we continue to feed the fire that is the belief that America is a Christian nation, letting it affect our politics and daily lives? Just this week, many American parents were outraged that Obama would address their children, fearing that he would preach "socialist" beliefs that they don't want to be forced upon them, yet the teaching of the Bible is a requirement in Texas schools this year. Is this not hypocritical? Is it not wrong? The fact is, America is not a Christian (or religious for that matter) nation. Sure, a majority of American's are religious, but we have the freedom to believe what we want, if anything at all. That is the Gospel truth. So excuse me Amoeba, but if you're such an expert debater, prove it by actually using relative arguments. Is that seriously the best comparative example you could provide? Because that is a completely different scenario. You have to look at the context in which something is used, and in your example it is clear who we is referring to. In the context it is used on the dollar, it is an American dollar. Draw whatever conclusions you want, it doesn't matter. Again, you are debating a moot point, and are currently as infuriating as Amoeba.
Yeah, and look at the constant degradation of our Country in that time. Removing that phrase is such a trivial matter. You atheists are more righteous than any Christians are. Get the **** over yourselves. If you don't want to be a part of this "one nation, under God" then gtfo of the nation. Or just continue to change it so it doesn't even resemble the once great country it was. Oh wait. You already did.
You're a ****ing idiot. See, such a narrow-minded view, yet it is already more easily supported than your own idiotic statement.
Way I see it In God We Trust should still be on the AMerican Currency. THis nation was founded under Christian belief. Now everyone may not believe in God and it may offend them but no matter what we as Americans do we offend someone. I say let it stay if not for the sake of those who founded and fought for this country, than because it is years of traditon.
Uhh, what? The very nature of the phrase implies that we, in fact, do stand strong as a nation... All I said was that "you could use the same stupid logic to say that the words "E Pluribus Unum" (Latin: out of many, one) should not be on U.S. currency because some Americans are secessionists." I know exactly what the motto means. It refers to a joining of many bodies to become one body, implying mutual agreement, liberty, and support for all constituents. I'm not quite sure what sort of argument you can make against that. I can't say it any better than this: The very nature of our nation's motto implies unity, and a secessionist living in the United States would not support the Union. Fine, if you want another example, I'll repeat the one that I've already mentioned and expand upon it. If you were looking at a collaborative piece of artwork and at the bottom it said, "We love painting," would you associate the word "we" with Americans? Perhaps, but it would also be rational to think that the artists love painting. How do you know that "In God We Trust" is not just a message from those who designed the U.S. currency? Maybe the legislators responsible for the motto took a vote and the Christian majority of those lawmakers got their choice? Am I saying it's irrational to think that the "we" on U.S. currency refers to Americans? Of course not. But I'm saying that there is more than one way to think about it, and open-mindedness may result in fewer people being offended by a relatively vague religious affiliation.
Wow. What a nice debate we have. Calling me a "****ing idiot" for expressing my view. I'm glad we can freely express ourselves here without getting flamed. Nice.
Do you fail to see the irony? You insult atheists, tell us to leave the country, but really, isn't it you who has the irrational sense of entitlement? All because we would like our beliefs to be recognized. The intent of the motto is to show how we, as a country, formed together from a group of semi-independent colonies. It doesn't have anything to do with our modern day unity. It's like being offended when told who our first president was. There's no bias, it's just saying "Our country was founded by many colonies, combining into one more powerful one" or "Out of many, one"
My sense of entitlement is no more irrational than yours. Just because you don't like something, the entire country should change? The fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans believe in God. And in a democracy, the majority rules. End of story.
Except when that democracy's constitution enforces a separation of church and state. Kind of like ours.
So you're saying that one of the nation's most beloved mottoes should be read entirely in one dimension, without even the slightest patriotic interpretation? That's just not how people think in America. The motto stands for unity.
What can I say? It appears someone can't read more than the first sentence to get the message in it's entirety. I can't say that I am surprised though, seeing as how you proved unable to read the OP to understand what this debate is actually about. But since it appears that I have to spell it out for you, allow me: C-O-R-R-E-L-A-T-I-O-N Correlations, the use of creating links between an assumed cause and it's effect. In your case, population of atheists rises which leads to the decline of America. In my case, you're opinions have no support which leads me to the conclusion that you are an idiot. If you actually read into my statement, you would see that I was inferring the fact that correlations are not a conclusive form of evidence. You say that atheists are ruining America? Name atheists holding political positions in the executive, judicial, and legistlative branches. Atheist protests perhaps? Well, what are the ratio between them and religious onces? Which propositions did atheists vote in that Christians and others of religion did not? This is not a Christian nation, never was and never will be. Stop treating it as such when talking about America's currency and what is printed on them. Though it all does make sense, really. The American dollar is backed by nothing, so it only makes sense that America is as well.
God =/= church. And you would think that the people that decided to put "In God We Trust" on money would have a pretty firm understanding of the Constitution. But I guess you know more about it than them, huh? Think I'm an idiot all you want, but to go ahead and post that is both immature and not allowed. You would think staff would know the rules. And, sure, America never was a Christian nation... We just left jolly old England to hang out with the Indians and learn how to grow corn.
Who are you to determine the end-all, be-all "intended meaning" of a phrase that goes back to 1776 in our history, and even further back in Roman history? What you just said is entirely paradoxical in itself. You're just being incredibly short-sighted.
Removing "In God We Trust" would costs pennies compared to the bailouts and stimuluses. It would be an administrative cost (a tiny one at that) to remove "In god we trust" from the computer program that guides the etcher. "In God We Trust" is a clear violation of separation of church and state, it alienates polytheists and atheists, and it literally does nothing to help or hurt religion so there is no reason to have it.