"Under God" Should Be Removed From the Pledge of Allegiance
Debate Rounds (4)
In order to make the statement "should be removed", especially for a long established tradition, one should have sufficient grounds to remove. The phrase "Under God", as stated by founding Fathers is not a phrase that states an exclusive or official religion for our nation. Such an example would be "The Islamic Republic of Iran" which in itself denotes an official state of policy and preference. "Under God" as used in the Pledge of Allegiance refers to the founding Fathers idea that the principles and moral foundations of our nation originate from "God's principles", hence the saying "Under God". When they were drafting the constitution as well as bill of rights, etc, they used Christian principles as a moral guide; therefore, the phrase does not state an official religious ideology or take away religious freedom and equality as Pro mentioned. It ultimately represents a source of origin.
P.S. many of the Founding Fathers weren't Christian.
one more P.S. I'm not religious
Two points you made that I will address.
1) Eisenhower didn't add the phrase to combat atheism at all. It was coined because of the influence of a religious group(The Knights of Columbus) that understood and recognized the foundations of our country's moral system. "These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded" as stated by Eisenhower in addressing the nation. In no way was the motivation for "Under God" based upon destroying atheism, but instead as a means of recognizing an origin, as I mentioned in the first round. I'm not sure where you found your information as to the reasons for the phrase being added but its largely inaccurate.
And yes "In God We Trust" was created to combat atheism; but not atheism as an individual ideology, principle, or belief system. More specifically it targeted STATE ATHEISM in order to distinguish America's political foundations and ideology from that of the Soviet Union. However, the argument isn't about "In God We Trust" so there's no point in even discussing that.
2) You stated "Under God" is going against another group or religion. Again as I discussed above, the motivation for the phrase was to serve as a reminder of the basic foundations of the country. This doesn't go against any group or any religion.
1) Although the USA was not founded as a Christian nation, it was founded on Judeo-Christian based principles of morality. Again AtheistPerson's statements that the country is diverse does not negate the fact that the country's principles first formed from Christian, "God" based ethics. Pro's argument here falls short.
2) Its not a prudent assumption that because "In God We Trust" was "stated to combat atheism" why wouldn't "Under God" be as well. Both situations came as a result of completely different motives. Also as I mentioned before, "In God We Trust" was targeting STATE ATHEISM specifically, not atheism in our country. It was not a way to eliminate atheism, but instead a method of making a political stand and distinction due to the confusion of the Cold War time. In addition, the reason for coining "Under God" is to recognize the source of the nations founding moral code. This is a fact, not an opinion, and history backs what I'm saying. Finally, "In God We Trust" came two years after "Under God" so if anything, "In God We Trust" should have the same motivation as the prior statement. With all respect, Pro's argument here falls short.
3) As for the students in the classroom being forced to say the Pledge. By reciting the line "One Nation Under God" one is not giving up freedoms or even stating that they are Christians. By saying this part of the Pledge, one acknowledges that they understand the history and moral background of the nation. To not say the pledge would be perfectly understandable, given that the person may not like or agree with the moral system or its origin.
Pro still has not given sufficient grounds to remove "Under God" from the pledge. I'm curious as to who's freedoms are being taken away or inhibited, and the teacher sounds like a quite ignorant person. Even though I'm not sure as to how it supports Pro's arguments.
3. No, saying the phrase "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is not acknowledging the Nation's history. It means that the people in our nation are people of God! What is separation of church and state and religious freedom for if people are required to say it routinely!
I didn't mean for it to support my argument, I just wanted to state a personal experience of being discriminated against by my own teacher on the subject of the Pledge of Allegiance.
As this is my final say, I want to let you know this is my first debate on here and 12 years old so I am just a beginner.
1/2) Pro says he agrees that the principles that the nation was founded on come from religion, then proceeds to state that "even if all the founding fathers were atheist, they would still know not do those things and include those laws". So this means take "Under God" out of the pledge? If someone creates something and later you give credit to where the creator believed he received the ideas for that something, should you not give credit because people that use the product don't like the source of the ideas. Forgive me if my example is confusing, but that is essentially what is happening. Great that atheists are morally sound people. The pledge doesn't say they aren't. The argument has nothing to do with the moral uprightness of the atheist community.
3. By saying the phrase "One Nation Under God" you are in no way admitting or referencing that the people in our nation are people of God. In fact, to be specific, saying that one is "a person, or people, of God"(quite a different statement than 'under God') is the same as saying one is a Christian. Those saying the Pledge of Allegiance have not proclaimed to be Christian. Again as I've said before, "Under God" does not denote an official state of religious beliefs, but instead a recognition and admission of the source of a moral tradition original attributed to God.
This was a great discussion/debate and I have only respect for Pro and his arguments. I wouldn't have thought you were twelve. Very mature and logical debater. LET THE VOTING BEGIN!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by z1 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm interesting. I must say, I am a bit bias on this one lol. Tried not to be though.
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.