In God We Trust

[otters]

Umm. Considering this country offers freedom of religon, I think it is *absolutely ridiculous* that we are required to recite 'under god' in the pledge.

Where? I don't recall any jobs forcing you to 'pledge to god'

In a number of Southern states, belief in a creator deity is an explicitly stated requirement in the state's Constitution for holding political office.

Wait, it is?

[SlappyMcGee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimina ... _countries

[otters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimina ... _countries

"In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century"

[Amadeus]

I couldn't be bothered to read all the pages of this debate, so if this has already been addressed, sorry:

However, it's more of a problem for those of non-Christian faiths. If the money said "In Allah, we trust", or "One nation, under the pantheon of Zeus", I would suspect that a significant proportion of American Christians everywhere would be complaining that every monetary transaction they made was a blasphemous act.

I'm a Christian, and I know many other Christians, and neither I nor most of them would give a shit about what a tiny green paper rectangle said. By the same logic, I think it's ridiculous that anyone cares what's on our money. It isn't hurting anyone. If it's easy to change our currency to not say that, then whatever. It really doesn't matter either way, and I think people make too big a deal out of this :/

In that case, let's put in big writing on all our currency "Muslims are evil" or try "Proud supporters of the KKK" or "Up with White power" or "Asians are slant eyed yellows". How about "Christians are all ignorant retarded faggots". Yes it does matter what our government endorses. Very much so.

[bobaganuesh_2]

India's ahead of the curve. they have the all religions guy on the rupi: Gandhi! the States need to step it up and advertise something that everyone appreciates.

[SlappyMcGee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimina ... _countries

"In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century"

That's accurate, yes. :/

[otters]

I couldn't be bothered to read all the pages of this debate, so if this has already been addressed, sorry:

However, it's more of a problem for those of non-Christian faiths. If the money said "In Allah, we trust", or "One nation, under the pantheon of Zeus", I would suspect that a significant proportion of American Christians everywhere would be complaining that every monetary transaction they made was a blasphemous act.

I'm a Christian, and I know many other Christians, and neither I nor most of them would give a shit about what a tiny green paper rectangle said. By the same logic, I think it's ridiculous that anyone cares what's on our money. It isn't hurting anyone. If it's easy to change our currency to not say that, then whatever. It really doesn't matter either way, and I think people make too big a deal out of this :/

In that case, let's put in big writing on all our currency "Muslims are evil" or try "Proud supporters of the KKK" or "Up with White power" or "Asians are slant eyed yellows". How about "Christians are all ignorant retarded faggots". Yes it does matter what our government endorses. Very much so.

Yeah, except the money doesn't say "Atheists suck," it says "In God We Trust."

[SlappyMcGee]

Yeah, except the money doesn't say "Atheists suck," it says "In God We Trust."

incluye, I'm not saying Jesus doesn't exist, but Atheism is the only correct theology.

[otters]

Yeah, except the money doesn't say "Atheists suck," it says "In God We Trust."

incluye, I'm not saying Jesus doesn't exist, but Atheism is the only correct theology.

Alright.

[SlappyMcGee]

Yeah, except the money doesn't say "Atheists suck," it says "In God We Trust."

incluye, I'm not saying Jesus doesn't exist, but Atheism is the only correct theology.

Alright.

Understand that if it said that on the money, you would be offended.

[blue_tetris]

Money doesn't say "Black people suck". It just says "In White people we trust". I think we can all understand the distinction.

I like black guys, but I certainly wouldn't trust them with stuff. It's not that they'd purposefully ding my car or break something at my place. I'm sure it's all an accident. But, like, any time I've ever had a house party where the black guys rolled up or lent my car to one, something always gets screwed up. They somehow, always inadvertently, of course, get my lamp broken or fuck with this seat and then I have to readjust the seat. When someone lends you shit, black people, please don't fuck around with it. You don't know the manner in which they try to keep the item, so you can't make any judgments about what's okay and what's not okay to do with it. Just chill and be delicate with that shit. If you lend your shit to me or have me over, I'll return the favor by not accidentally making a wild gesticulation in the course of a story which chips the ceramic off the lamp sconce. I didn't get my deposit back in full because there was a $5 bit of damage done to a lamp. That cost me something like $40. For a $5 bit of damage.

Come on, black people. Get it together.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Yeah, except the money doesn't say "Atheists suck," it says "In God We Trust."

incluye, I'm not saying Jesus doesn't exist, but Atheism is the only correct theology.

Alright.

Wow, that was easier than I thought.

[jinxed_07]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimina ... _countries

"In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century"

But what did radium mean if such tests haven't been used since the 1800's?

[otters]

incluye, I'm not saying Jesus doesn't exist, but Atheism is the only correct theology.

Alright.

Understand that if it said that on the money, you would be offended.

No, I'm not too worried about it. I don't have enough money to be worried about reading it and being offended. And even if I did read something like "in Atheism We Trust," I would just think, "Haha, who put that there? I guess there's an atheist somewhere in our government offices..."

I don't look at money and think, "YEAH! That's the American Way! This is our philosophy!" I currently trust in God, so I find myself a part of this group which is described by the phrase on a dollar bill. If it changed to be contrary to my actual beliefs, I would no longer view myself as part of the group. Any new phrase wouldn't change anything. (with, of course, the exception of something like "Muslims suck ass")

Of course, you can always rely on the Christian population to produce one homicidal dipshit and one hardcore fundamentalist faction per government issue, so it's not really in my hands.



Also, Dave, with all due respect, stop straw-manning, you cock.

But what did radium mean if such tests haven't been used since the 1800's?

It was Tsukatu, actually, and I think he was trying to use it to prove the "everyone hates the atheists" viewpoint. I'm not sure, though, where he lives if they're still using such discriminatory tests when it's been frowned upon for two hundred years.

[blue_tetris]

Also, Dave, with all due respect, stop straw-manning, you cock.

Haha! I forgot about how everyone in Debate misused the names of logical fallacies to pretend like they were all Debatey. Goddamn, I missed this forum. I'll be stopping in more often.

It's like it's some kind of game with its own conglomerate of invented nonsense rules.

[otters]

Also, Dave, with all due respect, stop straw-manning, you cock.

Haha! I forgot about how everyone in Debate misused the names of logical fallacies to pretend like they were all Debatey. Goddamn, I missed this forum. I'll be stopping in more often.

It's like it's some kind of game with its own conglomerate of invented nonsense rules.

Haha! I forgot about how the higher-ups skimmed through posts searching for people who used terms for logical fallacies and used their findings to form the belief that anyone who refers to a logical fallacy at any point on Metanet is using it incorrectly! Goddamn, I missed that, Dave.

According to Wikipedia: "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

You took my statement "...not 'Muslims Suck'", then parodied it by saying "Black people don't suck, but In White People We Trust." Then you took the meaning of "trust" literally and, based on that misconception, wrote an enormous paragraph about how we shouldn't trust blacks.

The only reason that wasn't a straw man is if you weren't actually arguing with me.

[blue_tetris]

I thought, to create a straw man, you had to pick the weakest proponent out of a set of proponents that share the same idea. So, instead of arguing against you, I start arguing against Jerry Falwell as an example of how Christians are idiots. I didn't do that. I didn't pick the weakest opponent of mine to argue against or even set one up. I was just being hyperbolous.

Y'all need to use specific words instead of catch-all concepts made of words that are designed to anger Debate people. I think you've engineered the use of a bunch of terms so that when people hear them, instead of considering them, they assume that something is wrong.

I was extending the metaphor (at best) and using ill-fitting hyperbole (at the worst). Call it what it is.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I thought, to create a straw man, you had to pick the weakest proponent out of a set of proponents that share the same idea. So, instead of arguing against you, I start arguing against Jerry Falwell as an example of how Christians are idiots. I didn't do that. I didn't pick the weakest opponent of mine to argue against or even set one up. I was just being hyperbolous.

I think that'd be closer to "explaining by naming," or simply "being a douche."
Wight had it right. And that rhymes, so you know it's true.

[blue_tetris]

I was trying to make a point to incluye, by changing the text in a way that might allow him to see how a different side of the argument would feel.

Let me re-rephrase it and see if it's still straw-manny instead of metaphorical:



If money said "Christians suck", incluye might be offended. But it doesn't say that. It says "In a Godless world we trust". So he and the Christian population should not be offended. There's nothing inherently offensive about "There is no God" on money. Only if it says "Christians suck" is it palpably offensive. Money simply states a truth about reality that our ancestors believed--that there is no God. It's not intended to offend anyone.

Yeah, except the money doesn't say "Atheists suck," it says "In God We Trust."

If it's a logical fallacy to make one person consider a second person's point of view by using rhetoric, then debate fails entirely. The very core of it fails. Force the rest of the threads in Debate to not using any manner of induction. Wanna see that happen.