God should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

We saw in my first round of arguments two clear contentions and within my opponent’s first round that she felt she was not arguing for an atheist state but a secular one, and I quote her clarification: “I would like to make it clear, however, that I am by no means arguing that the United States is an atheistic nation, but rather that it is secular…Which should be evident, at least, in the Nation’s Pledge. ” I was also clear to define via the court system and documentation that “Under God” clearly meets a secular definition NOT an atheistic one. A secular definition again is irreligious, making no preference of religion. Secularism is not defined as without God, which is proper atheism. Taking God out is atheistic. My opponent has offered additional arguments and complaints. I will address these and reaffirm my 2 contentions within due to the low clarity of my opponent’s last round. In my final round I will restate my two main contentions. Opponent’s complaint 1: “How is it that anything containing a theistic reference is secular by any means? While theism is not necessarily a religious concept, it is spiritual, and therefore should not be considered secular. ” Again as cited before, secular is not devoid of God, but irreligious, neither confirming nor denying a religion. All of the courts affirm two articles: 1: A reference to be not expressing religious preference [Ibid] 2: or a reference to tradition. (Example Washington’s senate house, White House, monuments etc… is rife with Christian symbolism from our past) [2] And also to confound my opponent’s burden of proof, as stated before, the Executive nor legislative branch nor the judicial branch prior to 1947 affirmed America as a secular nation. In fact, they affirmed it as non-denominational Christian. [1] What my opponent is proposing is a new nation without references to God. She has a huge burden to met to be able to make a case for this new nation. Opponent’s complaint 2: “Key word: “majority. ” Ridding the pledge of any religious implications altogether would change “majority” to “entirety. ” While majority should be considered over minorities, removing God altogether would consider both and create equality. ” This is a false. First. Equality is met as all people are equally under God. We could say also that everyone is equally UNDER the Law. Even though Criminals would feel their opinion is not heard. Second, my opponent is suggesting that every voice be heard, but does not give warrant as to why the atheist voice merits the same favor. Third, what my opponent intends here is to suggest that an atheist view is benign. She would need to prove this considering. - Atheism as a philosophy has been complicit in the murder of an estimated 100 million people in the 20th century alone, when atheism became a significant factor in the espoused philosophy of the state. [3] To quote Richard Wurmbrand (tortured by atheists for 14 years, wife was raped and tortured by atheist, his five year old left on the streets with threats of arrest and torture to anyone that aided the five year old) “The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. ”[4] and Pope Benedict “As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” [5] - Under God was placed within the pledge (By the President and Congress) to combat atheism due to its malignant nature rather than its benign nature as cited in round 1 [Ibid] In our history, we have never viewed atheism to be benign. My opponent also made a reference to the crimes of religion. Whether I concur or not, my opponent needs to establish - these crimes with some basis - needs to show this is a result of Theism to warrant removal under God- that somehow these individual crimes perpetrated in the name of religion outweigh its benefit. - Then conclude by citing why the courts uphold an irreligious interpretation currently are wrong and that a pledge devoid of God is better. Opponent’s complaint 3: Separation of Church and state. My opponent asked for Clarity here. Supreme court Held the actual meaning of Jefferson’s Danbury letter was that the Government should never make a law ‘about’ religion or restricting religion unless it was against good and public order. The Court found that indeed, religion could be and was expected by Jefferson to be involved in the government of the nation. The Supreme Court found this to be the interpretation in 1887 of the Establishment clause. This was the Precedent ignored by the 1947 Supreme Court, which was a violation of our judicial system. [1] Please read through the sources as they bring clarity. Opponent’s complaint 4: “What group of citizens would be negatively affected by removing all theistic references from the Pledge? ” This very question from my opponent upholds part of my first contention. The purpose of the pledge is to elicit the maximum loyalty of the population. My opponent suggests here that entirety can be achieved by removing ‘Under God’ from the pledge, but can it? How will say for example the largest portion of Americans… Christians feel if America is NOT a nation under God? We see just two examples of internet searching where teachings are on the fact that our Ultimate Loyalty is to God first, then family, then nation. [6] [7] We even see Sarah Palin cite the Christian Motto: “ As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order. ”[8] In fact, the founding of America is rife with the fact that Christians left their previous nation to be able to come to a place to freely serve God. From the Puritans to the Quakers. [9] [10] If in fact, my nation claimed to no longer be led by God or to be blessed by God or that we do not trust in God, then my own loyalty would be uncertain. We can see that removing this motto would have the opposite effect of the VERY INTENTION of the pledge to illicit the loyalty of the maximum number of people. Again, 3% of the population being disloyal is a marginal issue. Better than half the population being disloyal, emmigrating and worse in riot (proverbially speaking) is a HUGE issue and brings instability. I look forward to my opponent’s next round. [1] . http://www.wallbuilders.com... [2] . http://www.christianindex.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] Richard Wurmbrand - Atheist Handbook [5]. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com... [6] . http://www.internetmonk.com... [7] . http://christiananswers.net... [8] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [9] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] . http://www.favimp.com...