The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance
We are waiting for jonahofdeath to post argument for round #4. If you are jonahofdeath, login to see your options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||18 hours ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||98 times||Debate No:||97454|
Debate Rounds (4)
The beginning round is the acceptance round, as well as basic statements and points to be addressed during the argument.
Reciting the pledge in public schools with the words "under god" targets children, and instills them with a monotheistic statement not believed by all Americans.
You have a swearing of loyalty to your country that includes a biased, religious message. That isn't, and can't be constitutional in my opinion.
The "under God" statement was added in 1954, and was not an original addition to the pledge.
The first amendment does not require the government to be hostile towards religions, but orders government neutrality towards all religions. The fact that it is "under God" and not "under Allah" or "under Zeus" (I'm not saying they should be added) is unconstitutional because it is not neutral towards all religions.
My concluding statement is that it is not constitutionally allowed to be in the pledge, and we should support the separation of religion and state in order to retain constitutional values.
I would like to say that even though in the original pledge of alliance there was no mention of under God. It was added in the time Communism was prevalent which was the beginning of the Cold War. My argument isn't trying to prove if Congress was right or wrong. I am not here to debate the Socialist positions. I am here to basically say that the under God isn't a indoctrination of children or anyone. It doesn't force a child to believe in God. I will argue that God or god could be in reference to any higher knowledge above 'SELF'.
For example Science could be a higher form of knowledge or infinite thought above your thoughts and therefore the under god or God could be in reference to Science. Think about it, is the USA better than or greater than Science? We use science everyday to live and function. Without Science life would be really hard.
So once again thank you for the this opportunity.
You say in your previous argument: "I am here to basically say that the under God isn't a indoctrination of children or anyone. It doesn't force a child to believe in God. I will argue that God or god could be in reference to any higher knowledge above 'SELF'."
For one, of course it is not forcing a child to believe in God. It doesn't in any way shape or form demand a certain lifestyle. However, I could disagree with the indoctrination part. Children are pledging there allegiance to a country that is under a Christian influence. It is not "under Allah" or "under Zeus", it is "under God". "Under God" is in reference to the Christian religion, and could influence how a child thinks about the country he/she lives in in regards to the CHRISTIAN RELIGION ONLY.
I don't protest the idea that it could be a reference to any higher knowledge above 'self', but to specifically target the one "higher power" of a Christian deity is biased to all other religions, which makes it a religious problem.
Our country is not a religious country. However, instead of putting Science in the pledge, we put a religious icon on instead. In that way the pledge in saying "under God" is unconstitutional, and certainly not right.
The fact is, the government should not be asking impressionable, vulnerable children to pledge their allegiance to a God at the same time that they are pledging their allegiance to their country. This is easily seen in the pledge "I pledge allegiance to the flag... ONE NATION, UNDER GOD... (I'm not yelling, just adding emphasis)
Anyone saying the pledge is pledging to their nation, which is "protected by a god". It is only indoctrination because only one religious view is present. Like I've said before, if it wasn't biased, why don't we put "under Zeus?" or "under Allah?" in the pledge? Why just "God"?
"Under God" is not a rhetorical statement; there isn't any way you can't take it literally. "Under God" doesn't have any hidden meanings especially not with higher beings above "self" either. It was a mistake to put it in the pledge, and it is not patriotic and and it is definitely not American.
I await your third argument.
Once again God is an universal term that is accepted by most if not all people that represents something greater than themselves. It is possible to argue that the reason they didn't say one nation under Science,Mother Nature,Zeus, the Force is because there are so many gods out there and so many names for "God" that the acceptable name amongst the people is God.
It depends on the person for example a muslim may say the pledge of allegiance and God would be Allah to them because that is the god they serve or worship. To the Hebrews it could be Yahweh. To the Indians the ' Great Spirit'. To the atheist Science. For example Ohio's motto is with God all things are possible. To the Jehovah Witness that could be to them that with Jehovah all things are possible. To the Hindu with Krishna all things are possible. To the Buddhist with Buddha all things are possible.
Firstly, "Under God" is in reference to the Christian religion. What else, I ask you, would it be reference to? And if you say it's a metaphor, than you are agreeing that we should change the pledge to "under science" or "under Allah". Why does there even need to be a metaphor in the first place? Can it not just say, "stay humble, and be we are protected by greater things"?
You say, "Once again God is an universal term that is accepted by most if not all people that represents something greater than themselves. It is possible to argue that the reason they didn't say one nation under Science,Mother Nature,Zeus, the Force is because there are so many gods out there and so many names for "God" that the acceptable name amongst the people is God." And again, why does it need to represent anything at all? What gives "God" (capital G- god, mind you), the only metaphorical representation of the things greater than ourselves?
What about the people that believe in the Greek, roman, or any other polytheist gods? They aren't being represented fairly compared to the greater number of people believing in other gods?
The fact is, any mention of "God" or "Allah" or "Zeus" is acknowledging that their is some higher power in the universe. It is an acceptance that God is in our lives, whether we like or not, protecting us. That is supporting religion. Instead of remaining literal, many people thought it to be ok to "metaphorically" add a god whom many people don't believe in.
"It depends on the person for example a Muslim may say the pledge of allegiance and God would be Allah to them because that is the god they serve or worship. To the Hebrews it could be Yahweh. To the Indians the ' Great Spirit'. To the atheist Science." Or, a Muslim may say the pledge of allegiance and not say "under god" because we aren't serving or worshiping Allah as himself, making them unfaithful and declaring their allegiance to another god. Same with the Hebrews, and the Indians. The atheists, whom don't even believe in god, are saying something clearly in the favor of the Christian faith, not the Islamic faith, or the Hebrew faith. God has different meanings to different people, those supporting your argument and those supporting mine.
I have mixed my reasons throughout my argument today, but to those voters out there, realize that people have different interpretations for god. God is not Allah, and Allah is not Zeus. Con is trying to justify the unconstitutional problem in our pledge by saying that everyone treats god as the same. If that were true, there would only be one religion, one that clearly has "God" in it.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.