The Instigator
dirtbiker0405
Con (against)
Losing
49 Points
The Contender
sorc
Pro (for)
Winning
77 Points

Should they take "One nation under God" out of the pledge of allegiance

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 18 votes the winner is...
sorc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,237 times Debate No: 6707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (18)

 

dirtbiker0405

Con

I don't think they should take "one nation under God: out of the pledge of allegiance because that is how it was first made and why change it. This nation was originally Christian so why should they try to change it.
sorc

Pro

In my opponent's 2-sentence argument, he makes 2 main points, 1) "that is how it was first made" and 2) "This nation was originally Christian." Both of my opponent's arguments are based on the flawed theory that "one nation under God" was always in the Pledge of Allegiance. According to history.vineyard.net, the original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' It was not until 1954 that the words "under God" were added into the pledge.
My opponent then goes on to note that "This nation was originally Christian." However, this reasoning is illogical and impractical. While the majority of colonists/ citizens of the young US republic were Christian, that has absolutely no bearing on the decisions we should take today. In addition to being Christian, the majority of early Americans were also slaveholders. From my opponent's logic, we should not have abolished slavery because this nation was originally slave holding; this is simply absurd. In addition, in the Constitution it specifically states that the government has the ability to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution." This "Elastic Clause" has one very specific purpose: to allow laws to change and improve based on the current times. Ergo, according to the Constitution, we are not bound by any of our previous (non-Constitutional) laws/policies.
Now, my opponent twice posed a single question to me: Why should "under God" be removed? The answer is very simple: it violates one of the main principles this nation was founded upon, the separation of Church and State. By combining religion with the government, we are violating the one of the core beliefs of this nation.
Pew research refers to the pledge as "an unconstitutional "[slap] in the face" that suggests to those who do not believe in God that their "religious belief system is wrong." The fact of the matter is that these words are a gross violation of the First Amendment, specifically the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Not only do these words respect the establishment of religion, but they assume that 1. There is a God and 2. There is only one God. These beliefs are not held by many Americans: we are not a Christian nation. According to ffrff.org, in 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." According to the US Census, over 20% of Americans are not Christian. These words are oppressive to dissenting beliefs.

In short,
1) My opponent is ill-informed and provides made-up facts

2) The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the American value of separation of Church and State
3) "Under God" forces all Americans to express beliefs towards the nature of God that a significant amount do not hold

Keeping "under God" is an enormous violation of everything America stands for and *can not* be ignored.
Debate Round No. 1
dirtbiker0405

Con

I still think that they shouldn't take under God in the pledge of allegiance I guess the main reason is that I really believe in god and there is no reason that they should take it out and just because my argument is only two sentences... it still proves my point.
sorc

Pro

Sorry, but your belief in God has absolutely no relevance to this issue. Also, I note that you have dropped all of your "contentions" in favor of only one. Again you say that there is no reason the government should take it out, but I feel that I have sufficiently demonstrated that the government should in Round One. Since apparently you like simplicity, I'll sum it up for you: It infringes upon the beliefs of those who are not monotheists as well as contradicting two values our nation holds (separation of church and state and (to a lesser but still relevant degree) religious freedom).
Debate Round No. 2
dirtbiker0405

Con

They still should not take one nation under God out of the pledge of allegiance because if God wanted it out he would of not made the pledge with it in there.
sorc

Pro

"if God wanted it out he would of not made the pledge with it in there"

First of all, you are switching your points every round. Please stay with the same one(s).

Anyway, this is very, very subjective. How do you know what God wants? As an example, take drug dealers. Does God want them in the world? According to your logic, he does. So you are therefore accepting that not everything God wants is what we would consider "good." Also, it is obvious that we cannot allow these drug dealers to thrive, so we interfere. How do you know that our interference is not what God wants? In summation, it is impossible to know what God wants, so your point is negated.

As I have proven in Round 1, which is yet to be refuted, the foundation of the USA is threatened by this phrase. My opponent has failed to provide any valid reason as to why the threatening of the principles of this nation is justified. As such, please vote Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by poetistry 3 years ago
poetistry
I won't respond by my religious belief. I will go by the law. The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No one is making people say the pledge of allegience with "under God" in it. Its not law, it is optional. But to ban or make law to take out "under God" could be considered prohibition the free exercise thereof. And that's why it should stay in.
Posted by CHRISTinME 4 years ago
CHRISTinME
Sorc: you are wrong on many levels! God does get what he wants. HE'S THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE! he is the reason we founded this nation! I will agree that it is violating the right between state and church. Like Dirtbiker0405 said if God wants it out in time it will be out, because the will of God ALWAYS happens! the reason we have drug dealers and murders is because we can't have a perfect world which gives us the reason for the cross Jesus Christ came to earth to show us how to live without sin and as human beings we FAILED (starting with Adam and eve) there for Jesus died to take our sin away so that every time Our Father sees us he us as white as snow. The meaning for Christian is Christ Like. which is what every Christian is supposed to strive to be but we all fall short even on our good days. And all people who are voting "Pro" do you know what your even saying? you have a Father in Heaven who loves you every much! he's with you even if you neglect him and say he isn't real! his love for you is incomparable to any human! read the bible read the stories of miracles in there it will change your faith! if you say you don't believe want can't see or feel..you can't see air but your breathing..you can't feel feelings but you feel think. think about what your saying and what you believe you'd be surprised how much God can change your heart cause in all reality you are his. I don't want to say your all idiots but you are.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 5 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Debaters seem to think the premise fo the debate s what they "think". It is evidence and solid theory that win a debate. Just because "your mind hasn't changed" doesn't mean you get an auto-win. It isn't case of who gives up first.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 5 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Whoever gave con 52 points should burn.
Posted by Epicism 5 years ago
Epicism
I've been wanting to debate this issue as well. But as for con, america was called the "melting pot" for a reason. We shouldn't narrow something like the pledge of alligiance down to any single religion. America is all about diversity.
Posted by FlamingSheep 5 years ago
FlamingSheep
Also all points to Pro because Con never stuck with an argument, or provided support. His weak 2 sentence arguments were akin to a small puppy being ran over by an 18-wheeler.
Posted by FlamingSheep 5 years ago
FlamingSheep
"Muslims believe in Allah".... I don't know how many times I've said it; ALLAH SIMPLY MEANS GOD IN ARABIC. It's the same exact God that the Jews know as "YHWH" and the same one Christians simply call "God". Same one. No difference.
Posted by TheSkeptic 5 years ago
TheSkeptic
People like CON should never be allowed to vote - all points to PRO.
Posted by KyleLumsden 5 years ago
KyleLumsden
Another nothing argument by dirtbiker followed by an influx of votes.
Cf. http://www.debate.org...
Posted by gibsonm496 5 years ago
gibsonm496
In response to Maya9-
Thanks for explaining that, honestly I didn't fully read the debate. Which goes to show how most people's opinions aren't easily swayed.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FlamingSheep 5 years ago
FlamingSheep
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 5 years ago
TheSkeptic
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by felipmartin 5 years ago
felipmartin
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dirtbiker0405 5 years ago
dirtbiker0405
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by internetjimjesus 5 years ago
internetjimjesus
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 5 years ago
KyleLumsden
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 5 years ago
Its-you-or-me
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Copperhead 5 years ago
Copperhead
dirtbiker0405sorcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70