The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
21 Points

"Under God" should be abolished

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 649 times Debate No: 78538
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




As con, I am arguing that the phrase "Under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance.

A forfeit is an automatic loss.
No "kritiks"
BoP is shared.
No new arguments except Round 2.

Round Structure:
R1 Acceptance
R2 Opening Arguments
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Closing Statements


I accept.

However I ask one question that you possibly can provide in the beginning of your arguments.

Are we talking about the God based from christianity? Or just God's in general.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate. To clarify, we will be debating about the generic sense of God, as understood by Christians, Jews, and Muslim.

As Con, I am against removing this phrase from the pledge of allegiance. Throughout this debate, I will be referencing the origin of the Pledge of Allegiance and the country's history. I will be listing my sources at the end of the round.

C1) Tradition

The phrase "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by Congress as a result of Eisenhower"s support [1]. Since this phrase was added, it has embedded itself into our culture and our heritage. Taking this away, takes a part of ourselves away with it. I remind my opponent, that they have the burden of proof in this contention, to prove to us why this should be removed.

C2) Christian Nation

The United States" population predominantly consists of Christians. In a recent poll, 83% of US citizens identified themselves as Christian. [2] Christianity is a major part of the nation"s culture it therefore follows that this should be represented in our Pledge of Allegiance. In other words, the values that are represented and practiced by the citizens of America should be acknowledged in our Pledge of Allegiance.

C3) Under Almighty Creator

Having the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance signifies the importance of government, and reminds us of irreplaceable rights.

The Declaration of Independence (1776) reads,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3]

When our founding fathers were referring to "creator," they were signifying the importance of the inalienability of our rights. The phrase "Under God" highlights this importance by reminding us of how paramount our rights are. Why can't the government take your rights away? Because, our rights are endowed to us by our creator, our God.

"The phrase 'under God,' therefore, struck me as a comforting expression of humility, that we as a nation recognized the grandeur of our universe and conceded its unfathomability."
-Yonason Goldson



Because I have accepted this debate I will be debating on side proposition of why "Under God" should indeed be abolished from the Pledge of Allegiance. [Note I am talking about all religions who believe in their own "God]

I would like to start off by setting you an example:
Today we see an uneven balance of religions already. One side has people who look up to God -any God based off of their religion- and one side is people who do not believe any God. This scale right now is tipped over to the side with No God at the bottom. Putting "Under God" keeps this uneven balance of religions into bigger problems that can expand in the future. Is this what unity looks like in America, where one side is becoming unconsidered just because they do not believe in any "God"?

The Pledge of Allegiance is sending one direct message to everyone: Unity. But now that we put "Under God" in it, it completely undermines the whole "getting our society together" thing. President Dwight Eisenhower signed a bill passed by Congress that put the words "under God" within the phrase "one nation indivisible." This is where the whole problem comes into intact. In America, they are trying so hard to unite the phrase "one nation indivisible" but with "under God" put into this, it in fact makes our nation *divided*.

[1] In 2004 the Supreme Court ruled in a case from an atheist who said a California school"s pledge requirement violated his daughter"s rights under the First Amendment"s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. However, they were overruled.
It violates the First Amendment, which is that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The pledge of allegiance indicates that we honour God for we are "one nation under god". But however, times have changed and people today are no longer as religious as they use to be. If there is supposed be a separation between Church and State, stating that were are "one nation under God" is not necessary and it clearly violates the constitution. The original pledge was intended to express patriotism to our country; it is unnecessary to acknowledge God. There are many people who have done many great things for our country whether they believe in god or not. It is up to an individual whether or not to practice any religion at all. In putting the words GOD in the pledge, we have changed the statement from a vow to a prayer. This country does not teach religions in public schools because they are government founded and thus would be in violation of the separation of church and state. However, in teaching our school age children the pledge we are teaching them to commend this country to GOD that makes the pledge a prayer which have been outlawed in public school systems. " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" by congress including the phrase under god in the pledge they have made a law with respect to establishing religion for the entire country. In addition, there are beliefs systems that worship more than one God, or none at all. Saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" to a god that you don't believe in, in school, at public functions, in government proceedings, etc is tantamount to forcing people to pledge against their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, which in fact violates both stances.

[2]The pledge"s "under God" language sends a message to public school children, and indeed to the general public, that the government favors belief in God. It then discriminates the humanist/atheists. They do not believe in a God and just because there was a war against/with Atheists, that still does not mean we leave them out in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is simply unfair to them and rather discriminatory towards their own beliefs. We live in a country with a great diversity of people. We *need* take everyone into consideration. The pledge of allegiance should be able to be equally expressed by everyone, it is unfair that who ever does not believe in God has to stay quiet while the words "Under God" are being said. The pledge itself says "with liberty and justice for all" so who are they referring to when they say justice? Only the believers of God? It makes the whole Pledge of Allegiance an unfair statement for those who are becoming forced into something do simply do not believe in. We as people have to respect their own religion.

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands"one Nation indivisible"with liberty and justice for all."

This saying expresses everyone. "One Nation Indivisible". We as a nation would be much better off with this saying because the saying we have right now which addresses that we *must* be indivisible "Under God" creates a division, which is the opposite of what the Pledge of Allegiance is trying to succeed in. Rather than abolishing it, we should remove it completely and replace it with the most original one because this saying refers to every individual being; believing in a God or no God at all.
Debate Round No. 2


nathin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


nathin forfeited this round.


Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by hellywon 2 years ago
Note in his rules that he said "Forfeit" is an automatic loss.
Although there are no "Code of conduct" points, I ask the voters to go with the rules, as he failed to ensue throughout this debate.

Good day to my opponent
Posted by Gogert777 2 years ago
Under Science.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sarra 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Luharis 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to refute any of pro's arguments, and con also had multiple forfeits.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: FF, Con forfeited all of Pro's arguments, and failed to defend their own.