azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

It isnt constitutional and if YOU dont like it then too bad.It's not my money so I don't particularly care. Yes it does! God is attributed to Christianity. Judaism calls him Yaweh and Muslims call him Allah so G-O-D is specifically geared towards xianity. If it was saying what you claim it is, as in, claim in A god, then that's what it would say: In A God We Trust" that way it could incorporate all deities. HOWEVER, that would still be infringing upon Atheists and Agnostics and any other philosophic type of religion. God[god] Show IPAnoun1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.3.( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.4.( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. Actually, that's a matter of opinion because in the English language simply means the supreme being and creator of the universe.Also, Atheists and agnostics are not a religion. They are exempt.(edited note: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have the same God. The God of Abraham.)
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

1) its my money and country so i do care. A lot2) Sure, by definition it is general but everybody knows that the US is predominantly christian and that Christians (and maybe jews) refer to God. Muslims dont say "the god of islam" they say allah. And Buddhists and Wiccans the same. They all have different names. So putting G-O-D on money, by dictionary definition is technically general, but all people see it as clearly a pro-christianity movement.3) Congress passed it to seperate the US from the GODLESS communists and back then EVERYONE was christian so nobody had a problem with it. I would argue that it was a Christian movement for a Christian people, which, violates the 1st amendment.4) Even if this dictionary definition was the basis for it, it still violates those who dont believe in any god.5) Atheists and Agnostics are exempt from what? A piece of their country? Being included in a statement that is supposed to reflect EVERY american citizen? That isnt right and isnt constitutional.Congress may not have came up with it but them passing it is just the same. They reviewed the proposal that they knew violated the constitution and passed it anyway.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

They reviewed the proposal that they knew violated the constitution and passed it anyway. I agree, in 1954 the words "under GOD" were added to the pledge, but this nation was and still is a majority Christian nation, and no one felt the need to argue, and if they did they didn't have very much success.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

1) its my money and country so i do care. A lotThis is good and I encourage you to end the fed. It would do a lot for you, your country and even mine.2) Sure, by definition it is general but everybody knows that the US is predominantly christian and that Christians (and maybe jews) refer to God. Muslims dont say "the god of islam" they say allah. And Buddhists and Wiccans the same. They all have different names. So putting G-O-D on money, by dictionary definition is technically general, but all people see it as clearly a pro-christianity movement.Where would we be if dictionary definitions were not the basis for our language and words used? The dollar bill does not state "In the God of Christianity either" If it made the Christians feel special back in the day then well, tough luck and they were fooled. Allah is the Arabic word for god. There really isn't a difference except for vocabulary used. We Wiccans tend to learn or make up the name of our own personal gods and again the statement on the bill wouldn't have any effect on me in disbelieving it wasn't my god it was referring too. 3) Congress passed it to seperate the US from the GODLESS communists and back then EVERYONE was christian so nobody had a problem with it. I would argue that it was a Christian movement for a Christian people, which, violates the 1st amendment.Evidence please.4) Even if this dictionary definition was the basis for it, it still violates those who dont believe in any god.I addressed this below.5) Atheists and Agnostics are exempt from what? A piece of their country? Being included in a statement that is supposed to reflect EVERY american citizen? That isnt right and isnt constitutional.Agnostics believe in a supreme being. Therefore, even without a religion they can still find solitude in this writing. Agnostics believe in no god and have no religion and seeing as this brings the term of God down to earth it simply would mean their government to them. They may as well be exempt from the argument.Congress may not have came up with it but them passing it is just the same. They reviewed the proposal that they knew violated the constitution and passed it anyway.Since when has the government been around to uphold constitutions? That's the peoples Job.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

But a single GOD in this case the capitalized version, referred to in the definitions 1, and 2 seems to me to exclude any polytheistic religions, like Hinduism,and any sub-sects of it. Violating the Establishment Clause, as AveSatanas mentioned
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Not true, even in poly theistic religions there is still a supreme God and ruler of the universe accompanied by lesser Gods. For example Zeus.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

And actually come to think of it, it isnt just a phrase thats plastered on money. Its the US's MOTTO. How can whole amounts of US citizens be exempt from being included in the motto? Also, this means that the Government is directly promoting God through the nations motto and it is not solely the work of the Federal Reserve so it clearly violates the 1st amendment.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

This isn't about the american motto. This is regarding to the constitutionality of "in god we trust on american money". Sadly, this is off topic and I don't know where to begin to respond.anyway. ""In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto" Id assume the federal reserve had a hand in it.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

This isn't about the american motto. This is regarding to the constitutionality of "in god we trust on american money". Sadly, this is off topic and I don't know where to begin to respond.anyway.""In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto""In God We Trust" IS the american motto and you just stated that! Id assume the federal reserve had a hand in it.Assuming something isnt an argument and even if it DID originate with the Fed Reserve, Congress was still unconstitutional in passing it.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Also, after 1913 it stopped being unconstitutional because at this point the federal reserve ha been created and had begun printing the nations money. Had you been here in 1912 arguing with me you would be right. At least I think... Iunno. .
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Well the federal reserve is not fucking constitutional either, I say get rid of both!
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

The federal reserve isn't constitutional. I never said it was. I'm trying to get it through some thick skulls that a private organization can print whatever it wants on it's product under the first amendment. On top of that, it had congressional approval and lastly there is no evidence that "in God we trust" pertains to any one religious god so it is not technically forcing any religion on anybody. Besides if you get rid of the Fed you get rid of the product.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

I'm trying to get it through some thick skulls that a private organization can print whatever it wants on it's product under the first amendment.Sure they can, but the government doesn't have to use that product as money. If you make a bunch of slips of paper that say "I Hate N*ggers," the government isn't going to say, "Oh well, freedom of speech. I guess this is the new design for our money." They'd find something better to use.there is no evidence that "in God we trust" pertains to any one religious god so it is not technically forcing any religion on anybodyWhile not forcing a particular religion on anyone, it is forcing religion in general on them. "In Santa Claus We Trust" would be better.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Sure they can, but the government doesn't have to use that product as money. Exactly.. They could do what Gadaffi was trying to do and go back to the golden dinar. Which is my personal favorite. http://www.thedailybell.com/2228/Gaddafi-Planned-Gold-Dinar-Now-Under-Attack.html Which is just essentially the gold standard... but, for some reason the U.S doesn't want this?... in the world... at all? Suspicious, no?While not forcing a particular religion on anyone, it is forcing religion in general on them. "In Santa Claus We Trust" would be better.It's not forcing religion on anyone. I'd love to agree with you here but I cannot."Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.” - G.K. ChestertonChesterton has the right idea. Really, it has so many diverse meanings to every religion and non-religion denomination alike. Unfortunately, it's non-religious meaning is the most terrifying and should be considered by all atheistic people. To non-religious folk, this statement means "In my ruler(government) I trust". As I stated elsewhere on this debate.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

The name by which one calls upon God is meaningless. Whether you say Allah, Yaweh, or God, or the one great and true creator, the meaning is intended to be the same.Furthermore, putting an inscription on a coin is not establishing a religion, nor infringing upon the free exercise thereof. The money as taxed is not going to fund and establish a religion either, therefore it is entirely constitutional.By the way, America was founded to be a nondenominational Christian nation, which one principle of Christianity is tolerance of other religious faiths. Thus the nation is Christian, but it makes no intent to force the practicing of the Christian religion on it's populace. Other religions are free to exercise. But it was not intended to allow Atheists to hold public office.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

The name by which one calls upon God is meaningless. Whether you say Allah, Yaweh, or God, or the one great and true creator, the meaning is intended to be the same.I would argue that it isnt meaningless, but that doesnt matter really in this debate because even saying "creator" in general is still promoting religion in general over non-religionFurthermore, putting an inscription on a coin is not establishing a religion, nor infringing upon the free exercise thereof. The money as taxed is not going to fund and establish a religion either, therefore it is entirely constitutional.The establishment clause isnt about establishing a state religion. It means the Government cannot promote one religion over another OR religion over non religion in any way. Putting a religious inscription on the countries currency is promoting God and religion over secularity.By the way, America was founded to be a nondenominational Christian nation,I did an entire thesis paper on this very topic. No it wasnt. It was founded to be a purely secular one for many MANY reasons. But instead of giving all of them ill give my ace-in-the-hole:Treaty of Tripoli- between US and Barbary: "The United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion..." -Signed by President John Adamswhich one principle of Christianity is tolerance of other religious faiths. Thus the nation is ChristianWHAT? Christianity does NOT promote the following of other faiths! It tells people to go out and convert the masses. And theres many stories of Jews or Christians mass murdering other peoples because they dont believe in the bible. I have no clue where you pulled that out of but i have a good guess. but it makes no intent to force the practicing of the Christian religion on it's populace. Other religions are free to exercise. But it was not intended to allow Atheists to hold public office.Other religions OR no religion. It was never intended to mean that every religion is free to be practiced as long as you HAVE a religion, it is all encompassing. A few founders themselves were atheists, and a couple closet atheists as well. And a few more were deists. But they all have one thing in common: they were extremely critical of organized religion and christianity based on quotations we have from them. Some were christians, but they founded the US to be a purely secular nation, with a secular government. That is, indifferent to religion. They fully intended for anyone to be able to hold office.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The establishment clause isnt about establishing a state religion. It means the Government cannot promote one religion over another OR religion over non religion in any way. Putting a religious inscription on the countries currency is promoting God and religion over secularity.I don't think it means what you think it means. I think you are changing words around to suit your purpose. To me what it means is "No one in congress can make a law respecting (With reference or regard to) an establishment(The recognition by the state of a national church or religion.) of religion. Not what is, can be or cannot be printed on the money.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

I don't think it means what you think it means. I think you are changing words around to suit your purpose. To me what it means is "No one in congress can make a law respecting (With reference or regard to) an establishment(The recognition by the state of a national church or religion.)Changing the US motto is putting it into law.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

So if there was no law would it still be unconstitutional?because It's sounding more like the law making it mandatory to be put on the money is the unconstitutional thing. Not the printing of "in God we trust".Also, it sounds like making a law saying you cannot put anything religious on the money is unconstitutional because both would be "laws in reference to an establishment of religion" clause and if that wasn't enough it might even break the "freedom of speech" clause by signing into law that it cannot be printed.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

So if there was no law would it still be unconstitutional?because It's sounding more like the law making it mandatory to be put on the money is the unconstitutional thing. Not the printing of "in God we trust".Also, it sounds like making a law saying you cannot put anything religious on the money is unconstitutional because both would be "laws in reference to an establishment of religion" clause and if that wasn't enough it might even break the "freedom of speech" clause by signing into law that it cannot be printed.The law is unconstitutional because the printing of it is.And it wouldnt violate free speech because it isnt a person that passed it and printed it, its the government that passed it.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

The law is unconstitutional because the printing of it is.And it wouldnt violate free speech because it isnt a person that passed it and printed it, its the government that passed it.What you said are blatant lies. The law isn't unconstitutional because the printing of the words "in god we trust" is. The law is unconstitutional because it goes against the constitution.It would violate free speech because it would be a double dashed law that both makes a law in regards to an establishment of religion AND it is a law that would say "you can say anything anywhere at any time under the constitution but... you can't have the words "in god we trust" (which is covered under the free speech clause) on the money" which is printed by anything but a government agency. Good thing that one is hypothetical.Thus, the printing of "In God we trust" would then be constitutional even if the law's surrounding it are not. I would recommend an appeal(petition) to get the law removed. Then maybe you can ask the FED nicely to remove the words from the money since it concerns you so very much.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Im tired and really dont give a shit any more:Establishment clause promotes secular governmentCongress passed change in motto to one with a religious naturetherfore unconstitutionalend argument. End debate. goodnight
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

"Im tired and really dont give a shit any more:Establishment clause promotes secular governmentCongress passed change in motto to one with a religious naturetherfore unconstitutionalend argument. End debate. goodnight"Nice poem, Establishment clause does indeed promote secular government.The establishment only forbids the congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievancesU.S. Constitution - Amendment 1Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress passed change in motto to one with a religious nature; therfore unconstitutional end argument. End debate. goodnightBUT THAT ONLY MAKES THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL! NOT WHAT IS PRINTED ON THE MONEY! EVEN THE MOTTO IS CONSTITUTIONAL! IT'S SPEECH! THE LAWS ARE WHAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Stupid Liberals... All you want to do is undo everything the founding fathers have done. You people are ruining this country. No one complained about this crap until now. Do you think in the 1800's the people of America were bitching about something on a piece of paper? Do you think they freak out whenever they see someone pray? Do you think they made a huge deal about someone's self-esteem? You people just do this because you have nothing better to do. If you complain about America so much, why are you still here? Go complain in some other liberal country.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

Shut up. Not all liberals are the same. .
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

FYI the majority of our founding fathers were not Christian, also if we are to remain a free nation with religious freedom from and for we should get rid of God in anything government, money, national anthem, everything and remain neutral, you might not like it but it's only fair.If we as a nation embrace any religion then we can no longer call ourselves a free nation but a "Theocracy".
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Most of the founders father's weren't Christian? In God We Trust is on our money! http://www.adherents.com/gov/FoundingFathersReligion.html
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

I might actually agree with you here. It should be kept out of everything government. You are exactly right.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa (bush interview saying "God told me to invade Iraq")Theocracy: a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.However, I believe that they should know that there is a greater being above them so that they don't then consider themselves as God. If this could even work... im not exactly sure.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

You regressive assholes want to take us back the the 1500's so why don't you shut the fuck up!
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"respecting an establishment of religion.Means congress can't set up a church, nor fund any church with tax money. That's it pure and simple.Making money is not making a church, neither is that money going to the establishment of any religion.Fun fact:It's actually not unconstitutional (according to the US Constitution) for a State to establish a state religion. In fact, at the time of ratification, at least 2 states retained a state religion, until prevailing opinion later down the line caused their individual state constitutions to be amended to reflect a greater degree of freedom.The 2nd Amendment binds the US congress only, not the congresses of the Several States. For that, you must look to your individual state constitutions for restrictions on congressional acts.
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Unconstitutional

I personally believe this should be America's new theme song(anthem). shrugs But, that's totally opinionated."sings If you were me could you defend the given rights of all the men."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUHnH7hZJMk Scars on broadway - they say
Debate: In God we trust on American money, Is it Constitutional?
Side: Constitutional

Let's look what the fathers had in mind in terms of their faith then decide.http://www.adherents.com/gov/FoundingFathersReligion.html
Debate: Islam Vs. Christianity
Side: Christianity

Islam is not submission to God, it's bow to the Muslims and be their slave or get your head cut off.
Debate: Islam Vs. Christianity
Side: Islam

Honestly all religions should be respected. It is by our religion that all people should be respected. The issue is that some Poole do not understand this, I mena all people have flaws? You can not base a community on the foundation of a couple of people. I respect you and your beliefs you respect mine, give and take. People read a verse without reading the next and jump to conclusions. The media is wrong, there are good Muslims ones that actually follow the Quran. Please, pick a translation of it and read it and understand it. Or go to a mosque it will all be clear. This is not an attempt to convert yoy but to show it's not a religion of violence.
Debate: Islam Vs. Christianity
Side: Islam

where in holy quran it is said cut their head off please one verse