Remove 'in god we trust'

[Richard81]

Having God on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance fuels the false belief that the United States is a Christian nation. As declared in the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was signed by president John Adams. Having God in our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance directly disrespects those among us who are not of the Christian faith, and it should be removed.

I took that from this site https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... e/sx9gbfgW
It is a petition to remove 'God' from our currency and pledge of allegiance. Do you agree that this should be done? Why or why not? If you do, please sign this petition.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 221:

...
The atheists will just have to find a way to man up and carry on.

I propose that if the Christian could "man up", he wouldn't hafta hide behind the government to get his goofy notions recognized.

Cuba beckons.

Ah yes, the old "you reject my take, so you must be a communist" argument.

Are we to now conclude that Poland beckons the Christian?

[WinePusher]

We have millions of people suffering because of a weak economy. We have millions of people being slaughtered in Syria, we have thousands of people who are homeless because of Hurricane Sandy. And what are the American Atheists concerned about? They're concerned about the motto "In God We Trust" on our money and in our pledge.

This is a good example of the informal "starving children" fallacy. (As in, "how can you complain about x when there are children starving in Africa?")

Arguing that expressing concern about a (relatively) small problem means that the person doesn't care about any larger problems. A type of Strawman, this fallacy takes the opponent's claim and appends to it the following additional claims:

- That it is not possible to care about big and small problems simultaneously.
- That venting a minor complaint is sufficient proof that the major problem is considered unimportant.
- That if the person irritated over the minor problem did help solve or even cared about the big problems, he would then not mind at all that his car broke down or whatever the frustration was...or because there are people with worse problems, that person shouldn't complain about a frustration.

The intent is to distort the opponent's claim X into "X, which is far more important than anything else."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... seProblems

This is a good example of bad debating. Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting that atheist organizations have screwed up priorities, you counter with this garbage. There comes a time in a debate when retorting with, "You're guilty of X fallacy" isn't good enough.

For example, many people who debate evolution and global warming cite the consensus amoung scientists as proof for their position. A good debater would respond to this line of argumentation by saying something along the lines of, "Well, while many scientists do agree on the overall point, they disagree on some of the smaller points" or something like that. A bad debater would say, "You're just committing the Appeal to Authority fallacy" and would simply leave it at that. That type of response doesn't cut it in an honest academic setting, which is a type of setting you're not familiar with?

And my point still stands despite your asinine response. American Atheists, a non profit organization, chooses to spend it's time and money lobbying our government to remove references to God from public spaces (something that does absolutely no harm to anything other than the inflated ego's atheists) rather than lobbying our government to do something about Syria, or Hurricane Sandy, or the recession. You call yourselves humanists but you don't seem to care to much about humanity.

[East of Eden]

From Post 221:

...
The atheists will just have to find a way to man up and carry on.

I propose that if the Christian could "man up", he wouldn't hafta hide behind the government to get his goofy notions recognized.

Tell it to the Founders. Who do you think they would have thought 'goofy'?

Are we to now conclude that Poland beckons the Christian?

I already live in a Christian nation.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 233:

The atheists will just have to find a way to man up and carry on.

I propose that if the Christian could "man up", he wouldn't hafta hide behind the government to get his goofy notions recognized.

Tell it to the Founders.

I'm unaware of any reliable method by which we may converse with dead folks.

Beyond that, it is my firm conviction that if we bond ourselves to the ancients, we become ancients all.

Who do you think they would have thought 'goofy'?

Yours is a seeming argument from popularity. That folks think the wrong stuff is right don't make the wrong stuff right.

Are we to now conclude that Poland beckons the Christian?

I already live in a Christian nation.

You live in a nation dominated by Christians, so many of whom see little wrong in imposing their goofy, unsupported beliefs upon others, through government action, as it is quite apparent the god in question can't "god up" to him a dang thing.

That aside, my point was that where you present folks with a Cuba beckoning simply 'cause they disagree with you, I was presenting you with a Poland beckoning, for the utterly ridiculous way in which you seek to besmirch the character of anyone with whom you disagree.

Alas, it is evident to all by now, that intelligence is non-transferable.

[East of Eden]

From Post 233:

The atheists will just have to find a way to man up and carry on.

I propose that if the Christian could "man up", he wouldn't hafta hide behind the government to get his goofy notions recognized.

Tell it to the Founders.

I'm unaware of any reliable method by which we may converse with dead folks.

Beyond that, it is my firm conviction that if we bond ourselves to the ancients, we become ancients all.

Who do you think they would have thought 'goofy'?

Yours is a seeming argument from popularity. That folks think the wrong stuff is right don't make the wrong stuff right.

Are we to now conclude that Poland beckons the Christian?

I already live in a Christian nation.

You live in a nation dominated by Christians, so many of whom see little wrong in imposing their goofy, unsupported beliefs upon others, through government action, as it is quite apparent the god in question can't "god up" to him a dang thing.

That aside, my point was that where you present folks with a Cuba beckoning simply 'cause they disagree with you, I was presenting you with a Poland beckoning, for the utterly ridiculous way in which you seek to besmirch the character of anyone with whom you disagree.

Back up, in what way does it besmirch the character of someone who prefers to live elsewhere? Lots of people do that, for various reasons. Certain atheists here seem very uncomfortable living in the US, to the point they spend many hours on internet forums complaining. Would they not be happier moving rather than trying to change the minds of 90% of their countrymen?

[Nickman]

From Post 233:

The atheists will just have to find a way to man up and carry on.

I propose that if the Christian could "man up", he wouldn't hafta hide behind the government to get his goofy notions recognized.

Tell it to the Founders.

I'm unaware of any reliable method by which we may converse with dead folks.

Beyond that, it is my firm conviction that if we bond ourselves to the ancients, we become ancients all.

Who do you think they would have thought 'goofy'?

Yours is a seeming argument from popularity. That folks think the wrong stuff is right don't make the wrong stuff right.

Are we to now conclude that Poland beckons the Christian?

I already live in a Christian nation.

You live in a nation dominated by Christians, so many of whom see little wrong in imposing their goofy, unsupported beliefs upon others, through government action, as it is quite apparent the god in question can't "god up" to him a dang thing.

That aside, my point was that where you present folks with a Cuba beckoning simply 'cause they disagree with you, I was presenting you with a Poland beckoning, for the utterly ridiculous way in which you seek to besmirch the character of anyone with whom you disagree.

Back up, in what way does it besmirch the character of someone who prefers to live elsewhere? Lots of people do that, for various reasons. Certain atheists here seem very uncomfortable living in the US, to the point they spend many hours on internet forums complaining. Would they not be happier moving rather than trying to change the minds of 90% of their countrymen?

Now thats not the winning spirit. Why would we bend over to those who don't understand what the constitution stands for? No, we are gonna stand up and in a little while people will begin to realize that this Jesus fella ain't coming back. Then we will start to move on for the good of humanity and not the good of the Christian agenda.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 235:

Back up, in what way does it besmirch the character of someone who prefers to live elsewhere? Lots of people do that, for various reasons. Certain atheists here seem very uncomfortable living in the US, to the point they spend many hours on internet forums complaining. Would they not be happier moving rather than trying to change the minds of 90% of their countrymen?

I respect that I may have missed your intent.

But...
I propose that the use of "Cuba beckons" is an attempt to insult or smear folks as some sort of non-patriot, or worse.

This patriot finds much in the land to be disgruntled about, and hopes that by debating these issues, with the very patriots I may disagree with, that we may come to some agreement. I propose that by issuing the "Cuba beckons" call, all that is being done is an attempt to declare some folks who've not renounced this land, as somehow less of a patriot.

It is my firm conviction that when folks disagree with the government, they are in a sense a "patriot", insofar as the government is ostensibly there for all of us, and that the government needs to be made aware of when they goof. I reject the oft used "If you don't like it, then leave" argument as but another example of an individual who thinks only they know what government, nay this government is about.

It is, if only to me, an admittance that one has no stronger argument than the kid who takes his toys when the game doesn't go his way.

It's an attempt to impugn the integrity, and the patriotism, of those who happen to disagree with a given law, statute, or whatever.

It is, in the end, an admittance that the one tossing the "Cuba beckons" statement knows, if only subconsciously, that his argument is weak.


It is my firm conviction that you, East of Eden, have one of the best political minds on this site; and that's why I seek to point this out. I ain't here to just jump on you and just disagree for disagreement's sake. I seek to have you present your sound (if errant?) argumentation in a way that forces me (read all of us) to consider it without all the baggage.

I 'pologize if that comes off as passive-aggressive or something, but I'm just trying to be honest.

I have, if only begrudgingly so, come to respect that you are up on all this, and that you have a valid (if errant?) way of thinking about it. You're able to winnow the chaff down to it, and I hate it when I see you bog yourself down in what I contend are notions that have nothing to do with the core argument.

Do you, East of Eden, contend that all is well in the land? Do you renounce this nation for its errors, or do you seek to teach this nation to overcome?

You have it in that fat brain of yours to teach us much about the various aspects of this nation's history and governance, but I dare say, bringing up Cuba is liable to turn more away than you ever 'convert'.

Argue your intellect, not your emotions.

I say as I suffer not having the one, and too much of the other

[PhiloKGB]

This is a good example of bad debating. Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting that atheist organizations have screwed up priorities, you counter with this garbage. There comes a time in a debate when retorting with, "You're guilty of X fallacy" isn't good enough.

It is right now, though. The fallacy in which you're engaging does not need lengthy explication.

For example, many people who debate evolution and global warming cite the consensus amoung scientists as proof for their position. A good debater would respond to this line of argumentation by saying something along the lines of, "Well, while many scientists do agree on the overall point, they disagree on some of the smaller points" or something like that. A bad debater would say, "You're just committing the Appeal to Authority fallacy" and would simply leave it at that. That type of response doesn't cut it in an honest academic setting, which is a type of setting you're not familiar with?

Yes, in that case one might ask why it's illegitimate to appeal to people who really are authorities.

In your case, not so much.

And my point still stands despite your asinine response.

No, it doesn't. Your point is a fallacy and you're acting like a spoiled brat by insisting it isn't.

American Atheists, a non profit organization, chooses to spend it's time and money lobbying our government to remove references to God from public spaces (something that does absolutely no harm to anything other than the inflated ego's atheists) rather than lobbying our government to do something about Syria, or Hurricane Sandy, or the recession.

It's not like that's a surprise. People who donate to American Atheists usually know more or less how their money's going to be used. And many who donate also give to other organizations with a more humanitarian focus.

You call yourselves humanists but you don't seem to care to much about humanity.

Good grief. It's hard to believe someone can think this narrowly.

[cyb53]

[Replying to post 1 by Richard81]

The simple mention of a god, although not specific to any religion, does assume a religion of some sort. If we were to fully embrace the idea that this country was founded on the freedom to practice whatever religion possible, it is also important to note that the converse of that is the freedom to practice no religion. The First Amendment states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The endorsement of a god on the currency of a state vowed to not make any legislature respecting the establishment of religion seems a bit backwards.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

This is a good example of bad debating. Instead of doing the honorable thing and admitting that atheist organizations have screwed up priorities, you counter with this garbage.

You have not showed any evidence that such screwed up priorities exist. All you've done is make a fallacious argument to try to insinuate that this is the case.

And my point still stands despite your asinine response. American Atheists, a non profit organization, chooses to spend it's time and money lobbying our government to remove references to God from public spaces (something that does absolutely no harm to anything other than the inflated ego's atheists) rather than lobbying our government to do something about Syria, or Hurricane Sandy, or the recession. You call yourselves humanists but you don't seem to care to much about humanity.

Being concerned about cause x doesn't mean you can't be equally or more concerned about cause y. Being concerned about cause x doesn't mean you think cause x is the most important issue in the world. By accusing them of "messed up priories" you are clearly creating and fighting against the strawman argument. You aren't arguing against anything that has been claimed, you are simply trying to misrepresent your opponent's position.

American Atheists have claimed this:

"In God we trust should be taken off money."

You are misrepresenting their claim as this:

"In God we trust being taken off money is more important than the people being slaughtered in Syria."

They actually made the first claim. They didn't make the second claim - that's just a strawman position you're fallaciously accusing them of holding.