Our National Motto Should Remain "In God We Trust"

I will refute my opponent's argument concerning the purpose of using the motto, and his argument that the word "God" may not even mean a deity. I am not contending that the motto violates the 1st Amendment, so there is no need for me to respond to this point. ==================== PRO Claims: The current national motto reflects the history of our nation ==================== Yes, it's true that the religion has a role in America's history - there is no denying that. However, just because religion is part of our nation's history doesn't mean it should be in our motto. There are several reasons as to why this lone historical fact is insufficient for making our national motto "In God We Trust": 1. It's true that religion can impact the lives of people greatly, and push them to strive for things they normally wouldn't even think of doing. The Pilgrims did indeed leave the Church of England so they wouldn't be persecuted for their Protestant beliefs, which differed from the Catholic beliefs in England. However, this isn't the whole story - what my opponent wants to do is attempt to shine the Pilgrims as helpless victims who merely want to express the ideal of freedom of religion. No, the Pilgrims themselves were just as bad as the Catholics! Both the Catholics and the Pilgrims believed in "the Old World theory that sanctioned. .. the need for uniformity of religion in the state. [1]" In fact, there are numerous cases of Puritan ministers exiling members for not subscribing to their theological doctrines. You should read the link I gave - it shows that Puritans themselves were very intolerant of any religion then their own. So let me ask you, shall be include that in our motto? Shall we edit the motto to say "We Shall Not Tolerate Any Other Religion Than Protestantism, In God We Trust"? I highly doubt you would say so, seeing as how absurd this is. So really, if you want to pull out the history textbooks it's actually more of a backfire. The Pilgrims didn't leave the Church of England to advocate freedom of religion, they left because they wanted to be the persecutors instead. 2. So many other things happened during/near the founding of America but how come they aren't in the motto as well? Why don't we talk about the driving out of Native Americans, or perhaps the widespread occurrence of slavery? The answer is simple - it's because choosing to include religion in our motto just because it was part of our nation's history is arbitrary, it's like saying Hitler and Stalin are evil because they have facial hair. Essentially, it's a non sequitor. ==================== PRO Claims: The current national motto doesn't respect any particular religion ==================== Of course, it's not designating any religion in particular, but it is respecting something - religion itself! The word God designated a deity - in which I will demonstrate in my next argument. Of course, there are some fringe definitions of God than can differ from this (pantheism for example), but these are so rarely talked about that it's almost unnoticed. The common definition of God is very likening to that of an Judeo-Christian conception, there is no doubting this. So while the motto doesn't respect any particular religion, it does respect religion itself. ==================== PRO Claims: The "God" used in the current national motto could not even mean a deity ==================== I don't know what definition of God you cited, but all many dictionaries state otherwise: From Merriam Webster[2] - capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind From TheFreeDictionary[3]- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. From Dictionary. com[4]- the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. You see, these are all the first definition that appears. It's quite obvious that the most commonly used definition of God is an "omni-entity", not a vague phrase such as "all perfect higher power". Sure, there may be fringe definitions such as calling your idol a god, but everyone realizes that the context of the motto is very different. ==================== My argument: The current national motto isolates a group of citizens, which is ill-suited for a national motto ==================== As shown by my previous arguments, the motto relates only to those who prescribe to monotheistic religions. The following are those who are isolated by such a phrase: -Atheists do not believe in a deity, therefore they don't trust in God -Agnostics do not know if a deity exists or not, therefore they don't trust in God -Deists do not believe in a personal deity, therefore they don't prescribe any sort of relationship towards God -Polytheists believe in more than one deity, therefore it's not only "God" There may be more, but the point is that there is a group of citizens who are isolated from this motto. I argue that any national motto should strive to be a common point or ideal among all citizens of it's nation, otherwise what is the point of a national motto in the first place? ==================== Conclusion ==================== There you have it. I have responded to all my opponent arguments except the ones dealing with the Constitution (for the purpose of this debate, I am submitting that it doesn't violate the Constitution). However, I have shown that the national motto is ill-suited because it isolates a group of citizens, namely agnostics, polytheists, deists, and atheists. Any national motto that doesn't relate to all of it's citizens is an erroneous one and thus it should be replaced. ---References--- 1. . http://www.loc.gov... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. . http://dictionary.reference.com...