The Instigator
Emperor_Edward
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
John_C_1812
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Words"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 97886
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Emperor_Edward

Pro

"No child should go to school each day to have the class declare that her religious beliefs are wrong in an exercise that portrays her and her family as less patriotic than believers."

-David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association

Back then, we were a nation full of white and Christian people, we were that same nation who added "under God" to show that we were different from the Soviet Union. But now, it is not the same.
America is a changing country; a melting pot of people from different parts of the world and of different religions who worship another higher being. Many of them are all American citizens who have contributed almost their entire lives to the "American Dream" and would do anything to protect America, this pinnacle of light.
However, many of these people are suppressed, and the pledge of allegiance is one of the things that does that; the words "under God" are just too old these days when there are so many people who worship another and it is time Congress and Mr. Obama and President-elect Trump should consider to remove the religion barrier that separates us as a nation.
Those words may have proven us as a nation before, but time has moved on and change is rapid, and one of those things that must be changed is our pledge and the removal of the words "under God" in the pledge.
John_C_1812

Con

The declaration of Independence made for you today is that "GOD" is a mathematical axiom. It has many purposes and not just a limited definition dictated by religion, a person may have grown accustom with just one definition, so the direct point.
If the axiom of GOD can be presented in self-evident form to you. Making itself independent of a religious GOD, it has a right to not only be seen, it should also be heard, equal representation, by any tax sponsored separation including the pledge of allegiance to a Republic.
A Nation is described by Google as a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
You have already said you share the same language this axiom symbolizes, that a person's chosen belief can not be wrong. only misunderstood.
Debate Round No. 1
Emperor_Edward

Pro

I would like to thank you for accepting my debate as it is the first time I have tried this and I would also like to thank you for your time.
Now, i shall say only one thing, and that is that many religions worship their god under one name such as Buddha, Allah, etc. Eisenhower (the one who passed the law saying that "under God" should be put into the Pledge) said that the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance meant God as in the Christian faith and you may search it up as it was passed in 1954. The words "under God" were meant to separate us from the U.S.S.R. and was proposed by the Catholic group "Knights of Columbus". Thus,I believe that it was you who had misinterpreted the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and that it must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Once again thank you for your time.
John_C_1812

Con

You are welcome, thank you for starting and excepting the debate.
Roman numerals follow the history of Rome itself from the early stages at the Latin Palatine hill in the 8th and 9th century BC to its fall in the 2nd Century AD from Civil war. Plague, civil apathy and the rise of Christianity and Northern European powers. (http://www.thefactsite.com...)
Any connection to a possible plagiarism of the term God by religion, or even the association a President elect of the United States may have had with a term. Does not mean a religion, or group of religions have the authority to hold a definition incriminating to the United States, and its prescribed method of Constitutional Separation.
Roman Numerals in documents and inscriptions from the middle ages sometimes include symbols which are today called "medieval Roman numerals". Notes and etymology, O, Presumed abbreviation of "onze", French for 11. G representing the number 400, and finally D abbreviates Quingenti, Latin for 500. (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org...
When placed in the described order of GOD forms a number by use of equation, which can be describes as a basic principle and model for algebra. The translation as written 400, 11, 500, solved by applying a mathematics principle 500 " ( 400 " 11) to establish an answer of 89. The principle is the same as a person might write 4 with the roman numerals IV, or 6 VI.
We establish a personal liberty to which we can understand and gain not only knowledge but wisdom. Eisenhower was quoted as saying: "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it." ( Wikipedia)
The goal set before me is to provide a self-evident truth. Meaning something a person can be shown then see for themselves. Interpretation is not a substitute for Constitutional truth, basic truth guided by precedent that does not always stop at what the first witness may introduce as fact.
Debate Round No. 2
Emperor_Edward

Pro

Once again thank you, but I am afraid I must say somethings you might deem harsh:
1) I'm afraid that you have gone completely off topic, suggesting mathematical concepts instead of religious and logical concepts.
2) Once again I'm afraid you misinterpret me and I have made it clear that the words "under God" are religious, means people of different religion are praying to God and the conclusive fact that the word "God" in the pledge is upper-cased, meaning that it means the Christian "God", not any other god or else that god would be lower-cased.
3) The law Eisenhower passed says that the words "under God" were for Christians.
Sorry for being both blunt and rash and I hope you can understand, but I have to say you have misinterpreted my meaning.
John_C_1812

Con

You are welcome and it is a pleasure to debate this topic with you.
Completely off topic is an exaggeration. If you would like time to gather information that supports a limit words must have by definition in law. To debate or better prepare argument, I would understand. There are no facts that tie the use of God, god, and GOD to only be religion based on strictly only Christian beliefs or English grammar.
Where the witness you provide, a former President Elect of the United States is impressive, it does not make the witness perfect, all knowing, or the holder of the only meanings of word, words, letter and letters. When a person offers letter, word, or words to a crowd of people, everyone is allowed to examine them and introduce meaning or definition, even if contrary to a label it was previously given by sue of law, or in this case more specifically if it carries as an burden of religious bias.
Regardless if a "President elect " introduced it by written law for all posterity, before the Republic of the United States. It doesn"t dictate that this verbal and written incrimination must be left to stand against it. The United States holds the only written non- biased Separation of Church and State, by Constitution in the world. Where all people may not be so inclined to preserve it. As proved by the number of Amendment held against it. It most certainly can be used to protect, preserve, and defend it.
Moving one step forward in this round three. As a common defense and to insure the general welfare. It could be described that what is seen as interpretation, is not interpretation at all. Simple just facts either ignored or never learned by few ,or by many, for money, or for promise of money, by taxation, or by donation.
Regardless of how the phrase has been presented to us, "We the People" of the Republic of these United States of America. No law should states, that the Republic is bound to exemption from its own Constitution created under an axiom, and must allow itself to be openly and publicly incriminated. Very possibly by those religions people who may fear it as a symbol to a false profit of their own religious design.
Debate Round No. 3
Emperor_Edward

Pro

Once again thank you for your time and your refute is very impressive however after reading our arguments over again, I have realized that both of us may have gone off topic by assuming the meaning of the word "God" when the topic was whether or not the words "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance should or should not be removed. I believe we should stray away from our interpretations of the word God and get onto the real topic. I say we should begin the REAL disscussion at Round Five. What say you?
John_C_1812

Con

"The understanding is straight forward. People may be free to believe that "Article VI, United States Constitution" may not apply.
All Depts Contracted and Engagements entered into before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made. (This is not excluding the Separation of Church and State, which is held as self-evident inside the United States Constitution itself) under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States an of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
This is a very complicated issue which pivots on the basic differences and evolution of a voting consensus, as at this time in world history the voting public has been greatly increased. The position a citizen holds with power to vote, places them into public office. Where is this going, as people we are free to believe that the Letters GOD, God, and however written god are only a religion. Still no religious test can be given to hold office, so by affirmation and a stance outside religion, an axiom of god has full rights to representation equal to the flag in any Nations Pledge of Allegiance by this Condition.
"The topic was whether or not the words "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance should or should not be removed."
Addressing the term of letters God as being an example as visually confusing the principle may be, the phrase under God is no more than admitting truth we are all under an order of often complex principle.
Your point is not my point; as the line between them takes shape, it is the image which is created when only two ends meet which describe the body of State.
Debate Round No. 4
Emperor_Edward

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate once again. I agree; your point is not my point. My point is that the words "under God" should be removed because in the Flag Code it CLEARLY STATES that the words "under God" refereed to the religion of Christianity and none else which leaves NO ROOM for any other theories of whether or not the words "under God" refers to another religion. However, you do not make yourself clear in stating whether or not you believe that the words should be removed or not, coming up with theories on what the words mean when the Flag Code, the Knights of Columbus, Eisenhower, and EVERYONE in Congress have agreed that the words "under God" mean the Christian God. I know that this is the last argument but for the past four arguments you have not stated what stance you are taking and I refuse to deduce for the fear of making a mistake.
John_C_1812

Con

In closing:
No your point is my point, exactly. It is the Federal or States flag code which may need editing, to remove a word from associating the Republics non-incriminating declaration as it relates to the understanding of the letters GOD inside the pledge of allegiance. As it clearly States, I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the "Republic" for which it stands, not the Flag of the United States of America and "Christianity" for which it stands.
Possession is Nine Points of the Law Law and Legal Definition.
Possession means holding property in one"s power or the exercise of domination over property. By having possession one exercises control over something to the exclusion of all others.
Christianity has no possession over the Letters GOD in the case of the pledge of allegiance. Unless Christianity can substantiate how an axiom using numbers can be used as a model for a non-biased forms of justice for all. Like the claim states in the pledge of allegiance.
https://definitions.uslegal.com...
You are very welcome for the debate your efforts and knowledge are very impressive. Keep in mind when the axiom is abused it establishes a number. That number is 911 this is fact. Also keep in mind religion is at the Center of all World Trade, so this creates a great value on the only known legal separation process from self- incrimination.
It is not a Theory it is an alibi, held in trust for the Republic, by the Republic of the United States of America. As We the people, for the people. For Congress can pass no law respecting the establishment of religion. The republics evidence clears both President elect and congress to spite their own possible bias.
Good Luck".. All the Republic asks is for Representation" It is not a religious GOD.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
It is not about proving or disproving of. It is a matter of representation to due process. As a non-religious God would be both the symbolism, and accused, as the false profit mentioned publicly by some religions.

So it faced and faces a real legal right to equal and fair representation before the people.

Religion has a motive to try and suppress and stifle basic representation, as this axiom GOD by fact can be a visible model that may show material things. Not things of Faith. Under basic separation an axiom can provide a blue print for non-biased Justice for one.
If taken from the pledge or not, it really does not matter. It is fact regardless.
Posted by stcornerap 1 year ago
stcornerap
I guess the FFRF should first be required to disprove the existence of God.
Posted by bitsnpieces 1 year ago
bitsnpieces
Yes, it should be removed.

According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), the constitutionality of inserting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance is under litigation. If the ruling permits, "under God" shall be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance so that America is not perceived as a nation under control of an imaginary super powerful character invented on paper.

https://ffrf.org...
Posted by stcornerap 1 year ago
stcornerap
We say under God because America is a Judeo-Christian nation. People try to change it but that's what America is. Same reason our money says "in God we trust"
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
You probably don't know this, but there is creationist science out there. It is a thing.
Posted by Emperor_Edward 1 year ago
Emperor_Edward
... If you wuld like you may debate.
Posted by reubencpiplupyay 1 year ago
reubencpiplupyay
@Mharman: Creationism isn't science, it's religion. I think it's perfectly fine to be religious, but religion should not be brought into the classroom. Evolution has more documented evidence than the heliocentric model of the Solar System (the idea that the planets orbit the Sun), yet everyone but conspiracy theorists believes in the heliocentric model. If you are against evolution, that's fine, but that's a matter of religion, not science.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
Do you believe, at the same time, that only evolutionary science should be taught instead of a choice between creationist science and evolutionist science that the students can make?
No votes have been placed for this debate.