The Instigator
brad1999
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

to remove the phrase "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 74744
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

brad1999

Pro

This will be a great debate about getting the original Pledge back

Round 1 Acceptance only
Debate Round No. 1
brad1999

Pro

We should act to remove "under god" from the Pledge since we are a country with many religions and not all of them worship one god or even a god. The original Pledge was written by a Baptist minister and even he felt that "under god" was not needed in the Pledge. This is a violation of our First Amendment rights and to have our children reciting it in schools is a direct violation of their Children's rights. The thing is that if we are a nation who lives by the rule that we accept everyone no matter the color of their skin, their religion, or even their social status we are contradicting our self by making the Pledge of Allegiance harbor the words "under god". That is not fair to not only the citizens who come here for a better life but the ones who live here and do not worship "the one true god" as it is said.
Lexus

Con

Thanks for starting this debate.
I was never told that I had the BoP, so all I have to do is to discount my opponent's argument to win.

"we are a country with many religions and not all of them worship one god or even a god"
I am not disagreeing with you. But that's not applicable to the debate

"The original Pledge was written by a Baptist minister and even he felt that "under god" was not needed in the Pledge"
Just because you created something then didn't like it doesn't mean we should get rid of it.
A perfect example of this (and relevant to the time of posting this) is Anna Jarvis and her creation of mother's day [1].
She created mother's day, but after creating it, she hated all that it had become. That does not mean it is inherently bad, just that the creator fell out of love with it, if you could say.

"This is a violation of our First Amendment rights and to have our children reciting it in schools is a direct violation of their Children's rights."
Woah now, back up.
Voluntary recitation of a few words does not impede on any rights that you have [2]. See that bolded word? It's important.
The freedom from foundation, which is all about keeping religious rights, notes that you do not have to stand for the pledge. It is just something voluntary [3].
This point is invalid.

" The thing is that if we are a nation who lives by the rule that we accept everyone no matter the color of their skin, their religion, or even their social status we are contradicting our self by making the Pledge of Allegiance harbor the words "under god". "
No, we live in a nation where the majority gets to decide how things work.
If the majority of americans believe in god and want it to exist in the pledge, then that is fine.
Just because you are the minority does not mean that you get to have the ability to overturn the majority's rule.
That's not how democracy works.

"That is not fair to not only the citizens who come here for a better life but the ones who live here and do not worship "the one true god" as it is said."
It is fair. You have no moral or legal obligation to stand for the pledge, so why does it matter to you?
That's like saying that we should ban churches. Not because they are inherently bad or because we have to go to them, but because someone will get butthurt over their existence at some point in time.


[1]. http://mentalfloss.com...;
[2]. http://aclu-or.org...
[3]. http://ffrf.org...
Debate Round No. 2
brad1999

Pro

Last Argument

C1. Separation of church and state/Religion

The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state. The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower.(83rd United States Congress 2nd Session) When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion. The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed.

C2. Removing under god would promote religious tolerance.

Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity.

This associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American. The proposition believes that this is divisive and promotes religious intolerance and that, therefore, this legislation would help relieve the tolerance and divisions caused by the current Pledge of Allegiance.

Rebuttals

If we remove the two words then it will still be there for people to 'opt in'

Lexus

Con

"The inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is representative of religion’s involvement with the state"
More like representative of an ideology that 87% of the American public holds close [1].
Religion being included within the government is not inherently bad or anything. If it was then there should be no religous people at all within the government, and that is a wild claim to make.

"The words under God in the pledge of allegiance were clearly government sanctioned as the words were added by congress with the sanction of President Eisenhower."
Not disputing this.
Just because the Eisenhower administration added two words to a government poem (basically a poem), then what's the real harm, really?

"When they did this congress, the state, was clearly promoting religion"
First, congress =/= the state. States are basically sovereign and adhere to their own laws, after adhering to federal ones. That's not the point though.
Promoting something that nearly 90% of Americans believe in is not something that is bad. That is like saying that the federal government was promoting eating healthy, because 90% of Americans believe in that [1]. It's not inherently bad.
As I said above, the pledge does not even diminish the rights of religion so how is this a valid argument against 'under God'?

"The proposition believes that religion has no place in politics and so these two words should be removed."
The wording 'no place' is really slippery.
'No place' could mean something as big as no religous peoples in all of the congress, the state governments, presidency, judicial branches... anything. That's not democracy, that's suppressing the majority with the whims of the minority.

"Even if the proposition accepts, which it does not, that the words “under God” do not show preference towards Christianity, it is undeniable that it is widely understood that these words are a reference to Christianity."
I deny this claim.
'God' is pretty broad if you really look at it.
'God' could fall under Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Druze, Lingayatism, Mandaeism, Rastafarism, Pastafarianism, and many many more religions. This is not showing any preference toward Christianity and is certainly not referencing it.

"This associates national pride with Christianity and presents other religions as inherently un-American"
Says who? :O
You can have national pride without having Christianity, for you can have many other religions that believe in a God (or gods, of course) that would fall under the line of 'under God'.

"If we remove the two words then it will still be there for people to 'opt in'"
Is this a concession that we should not completely remove 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance? It seems that way...
Voters, I urge you to take note of this line.


[1]. http://abcnews.go.com...

Thank you for the interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
I am getting errors so I might not be able to post final round.
Posted by brad1999 2 years ago
brad1999
I am for removing 'under god' from the Pledge
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
What is your stance here? I'm confused.
Posted by brad1999 2 years ago
brad1999
I have edited it to 48 hours
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
I'd accept if you allowed more time to post arguments. I might be gone for a day at a time
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Espera 2 years ago
Espera
brad1999LexusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both were polite and had wrote in a readable format, but Lexus' arguments were clearer and seemed to be more about logic then emotion. Also only Lexus presented anything like a source so she of course gets the point for that.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 2 years ago
Phenenas
brad1999LexusTied
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: Pro made many assumptions and logical fallacies, leading to a very weak argument. Con had better conduct and a more structured debate, as well as better grammar. And of course, she was the only one to use sources.