CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Freedom we trust seems like it would be short lived by the way this current administration is going. After all, we as Americans no longer have an exclusive right to choose how we live our lives financially with Obamacare forcing us to pay for a product we may not want or need or can afford.
As pro abortionists like to say, "stay out of my bedroom," how about "stay out of my living room and let me decide what is best for my own financial situation."
Yes, freedom we trust would be short lived under a couple more liberal presidents.
I have no idea what you are getting at. If I have income and choose not to have health insurance, I have to pay a fine. That is forcing me to pay for something if I choose not to have it.
Please explain. I know more about Obamacare than just about anybody.
Something like $90 a year fine if you don't have health care, I don't like it anymore then you, but how else am I going to get my handout, somebodies got to pay for my Obama phone : )
Also, stop blaming all problems on the opposing side. Be it Christians, atheists, Democrats or Republicans, we need to stop playing the blame game here. That goes for all of you
But, the Democrats will want it to remain the motto so that they can pretend that freedom exists. You don't have to believe the motto is true to create it.
Nice effort there to try to sneak in a phrase that is blatantly wrong. There is no such thing as freedom FROM religion. It is freedom of religion. Also, the US constitution never mentions separation of church and state either. What it does say in the first amendment is that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Meaning no national church.
The other mention in the constitution, article 6, prohibits religious tests from people seeking office.
I don't know if that was a slip on your part or you were actively trying to decieve people by that comment.
No religion can impinge on my rights or force to me be in their religion. That is freedom FROM religion.
It is freedom of religion.
Actually it is both.
Also, the US constitution never mentions separation of church and state either. What it does say in the first amendment is that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Meaning no national church.
And no laws based purely and explicitly on religion, as well as freedom to practice any religion. This equivalent to a separation of church and state.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"- Thomas Jefferson while serving as US President.
I should have clarified my post. The US constitution says freedom of, not freedom from. However, you are correct, the intent was never to force someone to believe in a particular religion or religion in general.
I don't think he was ever claiming that the constitution specifically said that we had freedom FROM religion, however it did say we have freedom OF religion, and you can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Just like how I can't have freedom of soda, without having freedom from soda (before I have the right to pick any soda I want, I need the right to be able to choose not to have any soda at all). Freedom FROM religion usually means to be able to choose not to have a religion and to not have to follow any religion.
The First Amendment does not say freedom of religion either. It says the government can't make a law respecting a religion (freedom from), or a law prohibiting free exercise (freedom of). The words "freedom of religion" aren't there.
I think what he is saying is the phrase "Freedom of religion" isn't there, there is wording that implies or directly means that, but that exact wording doesn't exist in the constitution is what he is saying.
Those three words do not appear together, you are correct. But freedom of religion is exactly what the founding fathers meant. They just put the words in two different places.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment OF religion
I said the words "freedom of religion" don't appear. Your example shows that those words don't appear together.
Respecting an establishment would mean favoring one over the other. since it says they won't do that, it is a freedom from religion. Prohibiting the free exercise would mean stopping someone from participating, since the government can't do that, that would be the freedom of religion.
Just ask for language lessons, don't look like a fool when you don't have to. Just raise your hand and ask someone to explain the stuff you don't understand.
First off, you are hung up on the word from. No where is it mentioned or implied by our founding fathers that a person has freedom FROM religion.
If you were to study what our founding fathers actually believed in you would find out that almost every single one of them believed in a Creator. The founding fathers never meant that a person has a "right" to have all references to God or religion forbidden. (freedom from religion) What they were clear on was that every person has a right to choose whichever religion they want to. (freedom of religion)
Please learn about history before you start to criticize me. It makes you look like a fool. What the founding fathers wanted should be obvious to all.
WRONG. I just showed you twice where it is implied.
If you were to study what our founding fathers actually believed in you would find out that almost every single one of them believed in a Creator.
This has nothing to do with freedom of religion.
The founding fathers never meant that a person has a "right" to have all references to God or religion forbidden.
This is way more extreme than anybody is talking about.
What they were clear on was that every person has a right to choose whichever religion they want to.
What the were clear on before they were clear about your choice is that the government wouldn't choose a religion. That's freedom from religion, too. It doesn't have to be super extreme in order to be a freedom.
Please learn about history before you start to criticize me.
Please learn to read before you respond to me.
It makes you look like a fool.
Actually, you didn't address anything that I said. You can only show I am a fool by taking what I actually said and showing it is foolish, much like I just did to you.
What the founding fathers wanted should be obvious to all.
Join a gun debate and you will see that is an incorrect statement.
You have a very strong inferiority complex about you, that much is obvious. When your right and someone else is wrong you certainly go out of your way to express it in a negative way. When someone insults another person they are almost always trying to hide their own insecurities or problems. So tell me, what is yours. Are you grossly ugly or overweight, were you molested as a little boy. Were you bullied on an everyday basis?
Educated, happy, and or mentally stable people don't respond the way you do. I feel sorry for your family, I hope you get the help you need and deserve.
The second amendment clearly implies that individuals should be allowed to own guns. No discussion there.
You actually are very knowledgeable, too bad you have emotional problems, otherwise holding a debate with you would be interesting and fun.
When someone insults another person they are almost always trying to hide their own insecurities or problems.
What were you covering up when you called me a fool?
Are you grossly ugly or overweight
Well, I am not fat, I am big boned.
Educated, happy, and or mentally stable people don't respond the way you do.
Disagree, I am all of those things.
I feel sorry for your family, I hope you get the help you need and deserve.
They are fine as long as there are people like you on the internet for me to harass.
The second amendment clearly implies that individuals should be allowed to own guns. No discussion there.
I don't think you quite understood why I mentioned that. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the second amendment. But, go look at how crazy people get trying to defend gun control. Your assessment about the first amendment is very close, but it is clear that you are wrong about the one aspect.
You actually are very knowledgeable, too bad you have emotional problems, otherwise holding a debate with you would be interesting and fun.
I am sorry I come across as emotional when people try to deflect their own problems as mine.
They also were not atheists. Most were either Christian OR Deists like you said. They still never intended for people to be free from their Creator. However, the Christian founding fathers believed in freedom OF religion and not freedom from religion.
the Christian founding fathers believed in freedom OF religion and not freedom from religion.
Yes or No, did the founding fathers want people to have the choice to not be religious at all? If you answer yes, you just admitted you were wrong about the said statement I am replying to. Freedom from religion simply means having the option to not be religious. That is it. It doesn't mean forcing everyone to not be religious... Where did you get that idea from?
Yes they did. I guess what i was trying to get across is that the founding fathers would be appalled today when atheists file all these lawsuits against the nativity set, Christmas trees, the 10 commandments being displayed in a government building, kids not allowed to sing Christmas carols in school. That is not what they envisioned at all.
Yes they did. I guess what i was trying to get across is that the founding fathers would be appalled today when atheists file all these lawsuits against the nativity set, Christmas trees, the 10 commandments being displayed in a government building, kids not allowed to sing Christmas carols in school. That is not what they envisioned at all.
None of this was brought up at all what-so-ever so I don't know who you are trying to dispute... You originally disputed cartman over a misunderstanding what he was saying, that had nothing to do with what anyone on here has been arguing with you over. Nobody here has tried to justify any of that. I will admit I am not a big fan of lawsuits, I feel like they are cheap means of attacking another in a lot of cases, in these cases as well. Though I do agree that religious texts shouldn't be on government property I don't think their is anything right about it at all to sue people over. In any case though, no you were not trying to get that across, nobody had brought any of those things up. With the threads that you have been on here, all I've seen is you misunderstand people, and what they are arguing for. This is what I tried to clarify for you earlier. Nobody is arguing that those lawsuits are right, or even that most of those things are wrong.
I guess I need to do a better job of getting what I mean to say across. Sometimes I just assume people know what I mean and I should be more clear.
I do know of atheists who oppose any religious symbol on public grounds. To some atheists, freedom from religion means they have a right not to see the government show any religious objects. One example is a fire station that was forced to take down a nativity set. They claimed their right to religious freedom was violated.
Another example was when a rabbi came to the US and complained when the airport had a christmas tree up and they had to take it down.
I find that a lot of people aren't grateful for what they they have and end up fighting over minutiae like this. Not just atheist, pretty much every group has dine something like this at some point.
The founding fathers never meant that a person has a "right" to have all references to God or religion forbidden. (freedom from religion)
That isn't what freedom from religion means... Freedom from religion doesn't mean that religion is to be banned, nobody wants to ban religion... No atheist I ever meet wants to ban the freedom to have religious beliefs... Freedom from religion simply means this: The right to not have to follow any religion, the right to be non-religious without having any of it forced upon you. You can have freedom FROM religion, and still have religion, to not have freedom from religion would mean that everyone would be forced to have a religion.
It is to some people. I am not saying they are the majority, but there are people that expect no reference to a deity or religion under any circumstances.
That is their definition of freedom from religion. I know you don't take their position, but that is how some people interpret the constitution.
To be fair, it might have seemed as if I was attempting to quote the constitution, but I was speaking more of application than strict wording. The phrase "freedom of and from religion" is often used to reference the perceived intent of the establishment clause (as is "separation of church and state"). I used only half of the phrase specifically in relation to this debate.
Not at all. But you don't have a right to expect a non religious society either. All that means is that things like In God we trust on money should not be an issue or kids leading a prayer at graduation, two things atheists vehemently oppose. That is what I mean about not having a right to freedom from religion.
I may not have articulated very well earlier so that is my fault, my apologies to you that I was not clear in how I presented it.
Ok dude, to avoid further misunderstands, I suggest you to stop saying "(insert group name here) this" or "(insert group name here) that". It really just comes off as if you're saying all (insert group name here) enforce that viewpoint.
In God We Trust because the majority of the population in the US trusts God.
I think the fact that not everyone believes in god, makes that motto not ideal. If population is what we are trying to go with here, we should go with the other, since more people trust freedom then people trust god (not that they oppose each other, the secular AND the religious both trust freedom where as only the religious trust god). Also, this country's intent was to separate church and state, therefore this would be unamerican.
Your post is very logical, with one minor correction needed. If as you say that motto is not ideal because not EVERYONE believes in something (God), then what about the communists who don't believe in freedom. And we do know that there are communists in this country, so maybe in freedom we trust isn't such a good idea either.
I personally don't believe this, fuck the communists, but your post will piss off a few whacko political nutcases, which is fine by me.
well I think we should go with the motto that represents as many people as possible and is most american since it is American's motto. America is typically a capitalist nation founded for the principles of freedom, trust in freedom is more representative for Americans than is freedom in god, the former represents more people where the latter represents less people, the thing is trust in god and trust in freedom aren't opposing each other, one can trust god and trust freedom. One can't trust freedom, and also trust in not having freedom so in comparison to those, which of those represents more people in america? the former does.
Got to say this one because saying there is freedom in USA is too ridiculous. Maybe 150 year ago they had freedom compared to many countries but nowadays its well behind any other first world country in terms of human rights. 0.7% of your its population are imprisoned. It has the highest rate of incarceration in the whole world!! Imprisonment is kind of the opposite of freedom!!!!
True, however, if you took out all the people in jail for drug offenses our rate would be much lower. Europe has a much more lenient view on drug offenses than we do here in the USA.
