The Instigator
SweeneyTodd
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Sir-debates-alot
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The line, "One nation under God," should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
Sir-debates-alot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 728 times Debate No: 55867
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

SweeneyTodd

Pro

The phrase, "One nation under God," and, "In God we trust," was not always affiliated with the United States. Ever since these terms have been added to our Pledge and our currency, there have been numerous attempts to take it out and it has stirred up controversy in this nation. Why? -Because it doesn't support the views of every American citizen. The United States of America is not a Christian nation, nor should it even be considered a theistic nation, but a collection of peoples with various different beliefs, religions and opinions, in the same way it is a collection of various different races, and not specifically one, and we should not therefore coin this country as anything signifying one general consensus. Not everyone believes in God, and saying, "In God we trust," on our currency does not protect this nation from school shootings or terrorist attacks. God has no room in this country; the most devoted of "God" in this country; the most zealous are the ones who abuse their rights and picket the funerals of our war veterans; the ones who are proud to kill in the name of God, whether it be Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, etc. Humanity is growing up and it's time to keep our personal theistic beliefs to ourselves and pray in our closets, and on fox news.
Sir-debates-alot

Con

I understand your points of view in this debate. So I say let this be a respectful debate, nothing I say should be directed personal.

Now you say the pledge of allegiance should be changed. This is most directed to schools. You think that atheist children should not have to say "under god". But the pledge of allegiance is not required to say in school. If a student does not want to he or she does not have to say the pledge of allegiance. The pledge is totally optional. Plus the pledge is not focused on the Christian God.

It is simply to honor and to pay your respects to the soldiers of the United States. You also say its time for us to keep our religions secret, and worship in private. But you saying that is the same as a preacher preaching. You are spreading your belief. So by eliminating the ability to spread your beliefs and thoughts you are eliminating your own argument.

It sounds as if you are trying to eliminate the freedom of religion, or the freedom of speech. You can't say its time for us to lose god because you don't think there is a god, and I'm not saying you can't say there is no god. If you don't have a religion that's fine. You have the right to do that.

I know that most the time a preacher is trying to help you. I'm not saying all preachers never do anything bad, but that for most of them their sole reason of preaching is to help you. But if you have your own thoughts and your own mindset than all you have to say is that you have no religion and that you do not want to be preached to. Then if they don't leave you alone call the police for a public disturbance. So if you think that public preaching should not be allowed, than your stepping on your own tail.

We have as just as much a right to keep "in god we trust". As we do to lose it. It is a right and amendment to keep it on there. Though I personally don't see a point of keeping it or losing it. Its just currency, its not a religious item, people don't use it as a tool for worshiping. People use it as currency as its meant to be used as.

I personally don't see the problem in either the pledge or the currency of this nation. Nothing is directed towards "god" in either one of these matters. I don't see either one of these as preaches.
Debate Round No. 1
SweeneyTodd

Pro

You opined that the Pledge of Allegiance mostly applies to schools, but I will insist that at most military if not all military related events the Pledge of Allegiance is recited, required to be recited by the soldiers, who are required to say the words, "One nation under God," despite their personal beliefs. I concede that restricting the freedom of speech and public display of religion is a violation of American rights, and have been swayed to at least overlook the minor religious amendments to our nation's pledge and currency. I would like to finish with your comment about public worship, however, by quoting from the gospel of Matthew 6:5-6 (NKJV), "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." Now this is more of an internal issue within the Christian conscience to be dealt with personally.
I will finish with this: All nations have a Pledge. The Pledge signifies a citizens values; not all citizens believe in a God, therefore it should not be included in the Pledge. One should be allowed to show reverence to their soldiers and veterans without having to hear the words, "One nation under God." I digress.
Sir-debates-alot

Con

You have just gave out false information. The U.S. military does not recite the pledge of allegiance. They do not say them before training, or during a ceremony or anything like that. As I said before the Pledge is for the U.S. military. It is to honor the soldiers.

Plus might I add that many people believe it is part of U.S. history. It is not directed to religion. It is simply a traditional pledge, of U.S. pride, history, and soldiers.

You refer as the part you shouldn't use as "one nation under god'. Though I think the words you should be protesting against are "under god". What is religious about "one nation"? Nothing. Yet you insist of including those words as well.

Now here is in my opinion the most confusing part of the argument. You referenced a bible scripture, the thing you despised in your last argument, is now your argument itself. This tells me your only intention of this debate is for self-purposes.

You are refusing to say the pledge because you say in enforces a god. Which you are atheist. But it does not enforce a god.

You say that we are suppressing our beliefs, our thoughts. But are you not doing the same? You only mention the "bad" Christians. Things some of them have done wrong. You call the atheist oppressed. But are you not oppressing as well?

You are the one trying to take away the tradition and honors of our soldiers. You see this as equality and fairness. I see it only as a ongoing fight.

I do not see the world for religion, I see it as people holding together.

But back to the actual argument. I have proved that people are choosing to say the pledge it is not anywhere required to do. Both of these things you have chosen to protest about, because they are oppressing religion are in fact not at all doing that. Now it is more tradition and religion for "in god we trust" to be on the coin.

It is not made to "save students from shootings" or anything like that. Some of our first settlers came here for the freedom of religion. All religions had the same Christian God.

So even though even I myself am not much for religion. I still want to keep it because it is our tradition and history.

I will not be arguing in the next debate you are putting out of this, I think I know of someone better than myself to argue this point.

I thank you for the debate though.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 3 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Intense.
I would like to debate this. Is it "I accept" first round, or straight into arguments?
Posted by democratblake 3 years ago
democratblake
i agree
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Shadowhuntress 3 years ago
Shadowhuntress
SweeneyToddSir-debates-alotTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources were cited. Con made better arguments and better rebuttals
Vote Placed by Plexon_Warrior 3 years ago
Plexon_Warrior
SweeneyToddSir-debates-alotTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that "One Nation Under God" should be kept in the pledge.
Vote Placed by Ajab 3 years ago
Ajab
SweeneyToddSir-debates-alotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as Pro was slightly better he was making the positive claim, and he could not fulfill his BoP requirement.
Vote Placed by debatingequality 3 years ago
debatingequality
SweeneyToddSir-debates-alotTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Gave good evidence
Vote Placed by TheBunnyAssassin 3 years ago
TheBunnyAssassin
SweeneyToddSir-debates-alotTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a great believer of the line that should be taken out. But, con had much better conduct and better arguments.