The words "under God" should not be taken out of the Pledge.

R1: This is a response to your first rebuttal. I understand the importance of God to Christians, but that wasn't my point. This isn't a matter of faith in God, its a matter of how much that faith will play into our government, if at all. R2: Well here we have a definite contradiction in your argument. In your first paragraph you talk of the importance that God has on Christians, not in general. You obviously assumed, as did I, that God means the Christian one. And even if you did mean for this to apply to all religions (though it could only apply to monotheistic ones as it is "under capital G-o-d, and it can't be Buddhism because Buddhism doesn't require a belief in a god) it still wouldn't be right, as it assumes some religion or belief in a god. Which, by the way, is unconstitutional, as it restricts the freedom to religion, and the freedom from.R3: Okay, I could have worded that better, I apologize. I mean to say that the Constitution was neat, but these guys, not the Constitution, aren't infallible prophets for writing it. The Constitution doesn't say anything about being based on Christianity, so it doesn't exactly help your case. In fact, I use both the Constitution and quotes from the first presidents in my later arguments, though the latter isn't that important. Because their dead. Lastly, it does apply. The pledge is for America, and America's law system is based on the Constitution, so the pledge must be, at the very least, not unconstitutional.R4: Oh my god we had a debate about that and I think I showed you wrong. Up until very recently gay people were prosecuted and that changed when the majority of the public realized being homophobic was wrong. The majority of Americans decided to change laws to protect those minorities. R5: Yeah I don't doubt that these people were Christians and they believed in the Christian god. My point in bringing up these quotes was too show that the opinion of these people were irrelevant. R6: To be fair, you only brought up this defense because it was brought to your attention. Nowhere in the first round did you bring up that argument, and I find its inclusion to be a little cheap. However, George Washington's quote just says God, yet I would bet my life's saving that you don't doubt his Christianity. Also, I don't believe the Constitution to say anything about a god, either. Oh wait, there was that part about the freedom to choose, which I would assume means the choice to not choose as well, a religion and that no religious test is necessary for holders of public office. R7: It doesn't have to do with the Pledge, I give you, but I think they're in the same ball park. I mean if we got God off the pledge, I think getting him off money is the next step. But if you only want to talk about one and only one instance of which religion is being forced onto people by the government, then I will oblige.R8: Then it's also a choice to say them, now isn't it? If kids want to say God they can but let's not pretend they're not expected to. Especially little kids. They're given a script and told to repeat it. R9: Whoa whoa whoa, I think a little bit of a history lesson is required here. We weren't an "early country" when this was implemented. Oh no, I'm talking the late 1950's. You know, when we were afraid of the Communists? I even gave a link about this!R10: You implied it was a Christian country by not specifying it wasn't, and even in this round by talking about specifically the Christian religion. When you say capital G-o-d in the Western world people assume Christianity, especially since the only other plausible competitor, Islam, usually calls their god Allah. Even Muslims in English speaking countries.You wanna talk to me about getting off topic, when you casually throw in the completely innocent and not loaded question "Do you think the president believes in God? I don't." Please, at least my digressions, which some I don't even believe to be digressions, were in the same ball park.