'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance
'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge
I wish to have a serious debate concerning the fact that the phrase 'Under God' should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. My opponent, however, will be arguing the case that the phrase 'Under God' should not be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and should persist in being.
I look forward to having this debate.
I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate and arguing such a salient topic with me. First, I shall begin by stating a few definitions so we know exactly what is being talked about.
God: a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force (reference.com).
Pledge of Allegiance: a solemn oath of allegiance or fidelity to the U.S., beginning, "I pledge allegiance to the flag," and forming part of many flag-saluting ceremonies in the U.S (reference.com).
Because those are all the definitions I would like to give, I will start with my arguments:
1. The founding fathers set a clear boundary between church and state. They knew that government and religion should remain separate. The following quote was used in a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson in 1801:
"Believing with [Jefferson] that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State (Wikipedia)."
Furthermore, in 1797, the US Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Wikipedia)."
This stands to reason that having the phrase 'Under God' within the Pledge of Allegiance is not legal and should be taken out effective immediately. The founding fathers of the United States warned against having religion and government together.
2. We must all be fair to the non-religious people in schools. They, having no religious affiliation, do not wish to have anything to do with religion. Con, being a Protestant, has no problem with talking about the Christian God. However, I have a question for him:
Con, if it suddenly became "One Nation Under Buddha", would you have a problem with that?
Because Con is not a Buddhist, he would have a problem with that. What about all the Atheists? 'God' goes against their beliefs. So why should we do that to them?
In this round, I have stated my arguments towards why 'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Now that I have done this, it is time for Con to state the reasons for his opinion. Though I have already stated the rules, I want to point out the grammar and spelling mistakes Con made in his acceptance line. It was in defiance of the rules I gave and should not occur in the rest of the debate.
As this is all I wish to state in this round, I will close off and wait patiently for the arguments of my opponent. Thank you.
"God." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://dictionary.reference.com...;.
"Pledge of Allegiance." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 13 Mar. 2014 <http://dictionary.reference.com...;.
"Separation of Church and State in the United States." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.
http://religions.pewforum.org... and also you can see that there are a ton of religious people agnostic and atheists in America. Now look at this link http://www.merriam-webster.com... if you read the whole thing then you will see that god in general terms can also mean a OBJECT http://www.google.com... here is the definition of worship. So for America to say the one nation Under God it's sort of like In God we trust no mater what religion or belief we all have something that we put are full trust/faith in science God Buddha the Flying spaghetti Monster Tv you name it. So basically we are one nation under what ever we personally believe in You may believe in evolution you have adoration and faith in it and I have faith and full trust in Jesus Christ.
I would like to begin by thanking Con for giving me his arguments towards why the term "Under God" should remain within the United States Pledge of Allegiance. Because Con has informed me that he is having some technical difficulties with his computer, spelling and grammar will not be a problem in his arguments.
Now that introductions and thanking is complete, it is time for rebuttals and any last arguments I may have.
"I would like to say that among adults in America 78.4 % are Christian and only 1.6 % are Atheists[sic]"
Indeed, that may be true. There are many more Christians in the US than Atheists. However, that does not mean they can be excluded from the law? There are a few concepts of Democracy. I will tell you about the one that matters in this situation: Majority rules; minority rights. If the views of the minority, who have their own beliefs and opinions, were not accepted, it would be considered discrimination.
Unfortunately, Con then went on to completely ignore the non-religious, when saying that "we all have something that we put [our] full trust/faith in". Not everybody, meaning Atheists, believes in a higher power. Now, in his argument, he is referring to God as an object. According to the definition, it is true. However, most people do not think of God that way. There are people who do not believe in a God at all. They do not even think of God as an object. Those people should not have to endure this. They should be able to endure equality and 'minority rights'.
Con has not answered my question. I asked: "If it suddenly became 'One Nation Under Buddha', would you have a problem with that?" I believe Con thought be was answering it by saying, "So for America to say the one nation Under God it's sort of like In God we trust no mater what religion or belief we all have something that we put are full trust/faith in science God Buddha the Flying spaghetti Monster[sic]." Unfortunately, he did not say whether he would have a genuine problem with it. What about if it was "One Nation Under Xenu" or "One Nation Under The Flying Spaghetti Monster". I guarantee many people would have a huge problem with that. In Con's next argument, I would like to see an answer to the question.
As I believe I have stated all the rebuttals and arguments necessary for this round, it is now time for Con to give his arguments. I look forward to his answer to my question and his rebuttals to my rebuttals.
Yes not many people know that god can mean a object but also not many people know what DNA stands for http://en.wikipedia.org... or not many people truly know the constitution. That is there fault that they do not know. ( by the way when I said everyone has something they adore and put there faith in I ment atheists as well. Atheists put there full trust in science and logic. That's basically saying one nation under science which equals what some people absolutely adore which can equal god as a object. Buddha equals what some people adore and praise which equals god as a entity as seen by the online dictionary. As you quoted founding fauthers earlier They are correct religion is between a person and his/her god but there's no denying there are thousands of Christians in America as well a Buddhists and atheists and agnostics and sciencestologists. We are country with many religions(including atheism) so by saying ONE NATION UNDER GOD we are saying ONE NATIONS UNDER WHAT EVER WE TRULY BELIEVE AND ADORE. For America to say One Nation Under Buddha that would truly violate rights because we are not a nation under one god/belief but multiple gods/beliefs. Basically what the people believe is what the country is under.
I would like to thank my opponent for responding. Though his argument may have been short, I thank him for an intriguing argument for me to refute.
"Yes not many people know that god can mean a object but also not many people know what DNA stands for[sic]"
I am not entirely certain what my opponent is trying to say by 'DNA'. Deoxyribonucleic acid has nothing to do with God being an object.
"by the way when I said everyone has something they adore and put there faith in I ment atheists as well. Atheists put there full trust in science and logic. That's basically saying one nation under science which equals what some people absolutely adore which can equal god as a object. Buddha equals what some people adore and praise which equals god as a entity as seen by the online dictionary.[sic]"
I understand Con's reasoning in this statement, however I disagree with him. God does not equal science and logic, nor does he equal Buddha. As I mentioned in my first argument, we must follow 'minority rights'. The minority must have their rights. Atheists do not equate God to science, so they do not agree with 'Under God'. When this phrase was added to the Pledge, is was used to fight back against communism. It was added in 1953 as a direct hate stance against the Communists (specifically the Soviets). Even then, it was highly controversial because people thought it was defying the separation of church and state.
"so by saying ONE NATION UNDER GOD we are saying ONE NATIONS UNDER WHAT EVER WE TRULY BELIEVE AND ADORE.[sic]"
As I have just stated, that is not what was intended. It was created by Christians to create a pledge that complies with their particular religion. It has never means whatever people truly believe.
As I think I have refuted all my opponent's arguments, it is time for the conclusion.
Now, I believe it is time for my opponent to post his last argument. Once he does, this debate will be in the hands of the voters. I would like to say some things before I close: Please do not penalize Con for spelling and grammar, for he has made it clear that his computer is not functioning correctly. Next, I would like to talk to the voters about a vote for Pro. In this debate, I have come to support the rights of the minority, as well as supporting the law that has been made very clear since the time of the founding fathers. Now, I understand that Con does not have a lot of time, however in this case, it does not matter very much. I have two words: Vote Pro.
I have enjoyed this debate and I await Con's final rebuttals. Thank you.
Voters please vote Con I now its a strange point of view but really think about it.
And also read John 3:16
Jesus loves you so much
|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:||6||0|