The Current Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional.

"Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion." I strongly disagree, I shall quote the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." --> The only part of the constitution that guarantees freedom from religion is in terms of a national religion. One clause does not establish a national rleigion. Extend my definition of a national religion from round 1. Furthermore, your statement has no constitutional warrant, in the way you are addressing, "freedom from religion." "The word's "under God" create a conflict with atheists/agnostics/etc. Anyone who does not profess a monotheistic religion are obviously not addressed under this term. What if the pledge put "under Allah" or "under Brahma"? There would be a religious uproar amongst the Christian and other religious denominations across the country. Yet this phrase is so blatantly endorsing any monotheistic religion and not those who are not monotheistic." --> I'm guessing my opponent skipped half of what I said. I will quote from my first round. "The clause "Under God" was intended, by the administration, and the Supreme Court to be a general clause including all religions. E.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism (In some sects of Buddhism Buddha is considered their God), Hindu (Braham is their universal main God, the creator). Essentially all religions have one main deity, that they see as their main God. "Under God" is an umbrella of all these religions, setting up a haven in the US of religious freedom." As you can see, my opponent missed what I said. The word God encompasses all main deities of religions. Furthermore he brings up atheists and agnostics. From what the 1st Amendment claims, you are protected if you have a religion. Atheism is the way of no religion and no deity. Essentially, by claiming that it violates their 1st Amendment rights, they are indirectly violating the rights of people who do practice religious beliefs. "Everyone knows of the famous case brought by the atheist Michael Newdow. He challenged the court that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional in its endorsement of monotheistic religions. It passed in the 9th Circuit Court, but the Supreme Court struck this down because Michael Newdow was not the custodial parent of his 2nd grade daughter. This obviously doesn't address the merit of whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional or not, they just dodged the bullet." --> Ok, I agree this is the most famous. However to maintain consistency we must remain with the decision. However, according to the Supreme Court the clause is indeed constitutional. It was not stated during the case, but was of outside. I.e. when asked by the press, etc. Thus, to maintain judicial consistency, the clause should remain. "The political principle of separation of church and state obviously conflict with the phrase "under God", as it is clearly endorsing monotheism." --> This is my opponents unwarranted opinion. It should be left up to the Supreme to decide. Furthermore, it does not only endorse monotheism, as proven by my first contention. W"hat could the indentifiable secular purpose be of endorsing monotheistic religions against the views of nonreligious/polytheistic/deistic denominations?" --> Again, my opponent hasn't truly read what I written. The secular purpose is to show that the US is indeed a place of religious freedom. The government is making a stamp that this is a haven for religious tolerance. This goes against the teachings of communism, forced upon members of societies brought down with a fist against religion. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. **[Aff. Burden] I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to make a warranted substantial case affirming the resolution. He looks to me to disprove, however he has the aff. burden. This is a drastic reason for a negation if he doesn't meet his burden.