God is a figment of religion. The government cannot impose religious values upon its governance. Thus, the government cannot impose god upon it's money. Also, do you actually think that our currency has remained the same since the drafting of the constitution? That's laughable, at best. Let me try this again. The original intent of the phrase "E Plurubus Unum," specifically that phrase on American currency, was to remind bearers of our country's beginnings as 13 separate colonies.
And the wounded animal retreats and attempts to hide behind a pane of glass. Seriously, 3 times now you have proven your illiteracy by looking no further than the "offensive" statement. At this point, I really do think you're an idiot, but I didn't necessarily before. I was simply making a point, a point that doesn't seem to appear when you have GodGoggles on. Besides, I am above the law anyway. Actually, neither of those things. I just wrote an entire DBQ on the subject of New England and Chesapeake colonies, in which I explained the intent of immigration to present day America. Try the pursuit of wealth and religious toleration (though this last one was hypocritical, since the Separatists displayed no religious toleration though they sought it), but I doubt you ever set foot in a classroom with the intent of learning, not counting Sunday school.
You know what else is a figment of religion? Living. Well, I guess we should just go kill everyone in the government because they are associating themselves with church.
Were you there in 1776 when that motto was put on the United States' seal? Do you know exactly what the average constituent's viewpoint was regarding the motto? Are you suggesting that people in the late 1700s were not patriotic? Why are you trying to shove a solitary and one-dimensional interpretation down my throat? We're arguing two different things here: I am mindfully trying to demonstrate one or more potential interpretations of the motto; you are shortsightedly trying to convince me that your interpretation is the only acceptable one. Am I making myself clear?
This isn't the god debate thread. If it makes you happy, I'll rephrase that and say that God is a fundamental part of religion. No religion in government means no god in government.
Yup, that's totally it. I don't really give a **** what you think about me. You're just a sad little man that sits here all day claiming that America is just a little old society that doesn't believe in anything, isn't "backed" by anything, and that it has always been that way. I feel sorry for you. I truly do. You know what else is a fundamental part of religion? Living. Well, I guess we should just go kill everyone in the government because they are associating themselves with church.
I'm not trying to say there's only one interperetation. I'm saying the intended one was what I have said before. You can find patriotism in it, go ahead, that's a great thing to do. But that's only one interpretation, and there are many more. If you happen to be a secessionist, you can read it in my interpretation and not be offended whatsoever. You cant be offended when reading it under your interpretation, because it's not what the phrase was meant to convey. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about anymore.
I need not say a word more. You're doing my job for me. Oh, by the way, I'm a wonderful man for the record.
Technically the Puritans came to be alleved of religious intolerance but upon arrival immediately readopted the process. 99.99% of people who came to this country believed in some form of a god so to say the founders were atheists is a stretch. However, the men who came together, though they believed in god, thought that secularism would insure the greatest and most equal amount of freedom for all people. The freedom to choose a religion or not choose one and not have the government influencing you with bills, legislation...or mottos. America has always had a religious background and its only recently that atheism has had a noticeable percentage of the population so these issues that once weren't questioned are now being examined. The constitution clearly states that...well...nothing about religion. The BILL OF RIGHTS, clearly states that the religion and government do not mix and until the Bill of Rights are removed from the constitution we must honor them and make legislation accordingly. So I ask, please remove "In God We Trust."
I'm not sure if you realize it, but you're still trying to argue that you know the intended meaning of the phrase. It's not like everyone involved in putting the motto on official United States documents interpreted it in a single dimension and left the constituents with the freedom to expand their viewpoints. The motto may have very well been selected because of its clear implication with unity. You do not know the "intended meaning" of the phrase.
To tell you the truth, I don't care whether or not you believe it should be removed because it's a very small detail. I personally wouldn't mind if it was removed either. I trust in god, but I don't know why it needs to be stamped on our currency.
I'm a Christian. This isn't a Christian nation. Get over yourself. But wouldn't the act of removing the phrase promote atheism. Wouldn't it send the message "Oops, we got this one wrong, there is no god."? Oh and when the amendments are ratified they become part of the Constitution, so you can refer to things in amendments as being referred to in the Constitution.
Im atheist and Im not for taking the statement off the bill. Its been there quite some time and I don't think replacing or removing "in God we trust " would be a good move. I have the respect not to want to change a iconic piece of history we handle every day. Something our country was founded on. Im a conservative when it comes to messing with legal documents like money.
If you right a wrong it doesn't make you a good person. It puts you back on neutral ground. E.g., holding a gun to someones head and then putting it down doesn't make you a better man. In the same way, removing it isn't a promotion of atheism so much as it is a concession of oppression. Saying that by removing it is a promotion is like saying allowing blacks and women to vote is a promotion of feminism and black pride. Its a promotion of equality. That's all.
I'm not sure you're really helping your case here. Thomson, the creator of the finalized seal, said the motto refers "to the union between the states and federal government..." which secessionists oppose. Yes, the motto describes the action of many uniting into one: many uniting into one by means of a mutual federal government. And you certainly provide no credibility by citing the U.S. Treasury, which itself expresses uncertainty by using the word "probably" in its explanation...
The motto, as that first link said, is expressing the themes of the shield. The shield is a reference to a past event - the uniting of the thirteen colonies into one country. The second link is still a good source. The use of probably does denote uncertainty, but it also means that it is much more likely that it does, in fact, refer to a past event. No matter how improbably my interpretation is, yours is even more improbable. I'm done with this argument after this post. It's really not worth the effort and I have work to do.
I disagree. An interpretation cannot be incorrect; anyone can interpret the motto however they would like to. All I have said is that any rational interpretation, including the "intended meaning" (as you like to say) of simply joining the states by means of a single federal government, relates to the patriotic feeling of unity. And, as I said so long ago to make an example of poor logic, a secessionist would be offended by a motto promoting unity. Keep trying to convince yourself that there is only one correct interpretation of a phrase first used in an American context 230 years ago. I find it ironic that in a debate involving freedom of religion and the Bill of Rights, you are trying to suppress my argument that the individual has the right to freely interpret four vague words. Good night.
Its funny, you tell me that I don't use relative arguments (implying that I'm hypocritical at best) yet this is all I managed to find relating to what I said in your post. Its not about exploits in the God thread, it has nothing to do with it. If you haven't noticed, I don't even debate there anymore. Being an expert debater has nothing to do with it either, and you don't have to be an expert to tell who a newb is. You're the one that I rarely see post in the specific thread you called me out on, although I never see you post there. I don't even have to use evidence for God - its called logic. So, please explain how my arguments are not relative? I've addressed all of Dow's points properly, and all still without proper refutation. Allow me to go over this, because I surely don't want to repeat it again, and simple things might work better on someone like yourself. Show me the irrelevance, or continue parading in your faults, or why not just go ahead and bend your logic. It seems to me that you're not the one using any relevance, or maybe you can't find any. Either way, its not my issue to deal with. Just because I'm not the king of debating doesn't make my points moot, and relevance certainly doesn't stand tall in your posts any more than mine.
i personally dont mind it. but i have a veery lose connection to christianity, and am probably more athiest than anything. Has anyone ever considered that this statement is NOT related to religion? "Under god" or "In god we trust" could just as easilly refer to the belief that America is a nation "ordained" for great things. "under god" also sends the message that america is a "holy" nation, not in the religous sense, but in the "better than the rest" sense. dont know if im making myself clear, its an abstract concept