God should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

By that logic, anything that doesn’t include “under God” is atheistic, then! Certain legal documents, my birth certificate…Even the backs of cereal boxes, for that matter. In reality, not mentioning a higher power certainly does not make it atheistic. Not mentioning it makes all references nonexistent; therefore they can be neither theistic nor atheistic. If anything, it would be considered more agnostic. Complaint 1: To my knowledge, there have been far more sacrifices done in the name of a higher power than there have been in the name of “lack thereof.” There has thus far been NO documented religion condoning the sacrificing of children, and any such deed has either been carried out for personal reasons or due to misinterpretation of religious text. You’ve provided no means of backing up your statement about “sacrificing children on an alter of fire,” however even if your claims were legitimate, such an ideology should still possess an equal voice to that of, say, Christianity. The clearest and most fair solution is to consider all religions as equal, because as I have stated… A) There has thus far been no documented religion to condemn the killing of children, and even if there were, there are plenty of non-monotheistic religions that have very similar morals to, say, Christianity. Why should they be considered less? B) There is no concrete set of morals that has not been derived from religion, so on what basis should a religion’s morals be judged? Now, keep in mind I am not stating that morals would not exist without religion. I believe exactly the opposite. I am speaking in terms of written, official moral codes that validate certain acts and invalidate others. C) Who should be delegated the authority to judge religions in this manner? Anyone religiously biased would obviously not qualify, and even an atheist would have biases for or against particular religions/moral sets. As you can see, my opponent has both a distorted and inaccurate bias against certain religions that cannot be factually backed up. There is no fair way to judge which religions are more morally sound than others, so the only reasonable solution would be to consider all religions and ideologies equal. Who has the authority to say that pedophilia is wrong? While the majority of America would agree that this act is morally flawed, there is still a percentage that doesn’t; and that voice should be heard no matter what and considered equal to the voice of its counterparts. The same goes for religion. Complaint 2: You stated that “This issue is, if the religious ideology or atheistic ideology was root cause.” This is exactly my point. You’re the one who is claiming that, due to atheism’s past correlation with Communism, it should still be combated today. There are very few crimes committed that can be backed up with a statement such as “I did it because I want more people to become atheists,” or “I did it because there is no God.” The above argument brings us back into the issue of what classifies something as atheistic. Would a crime committed, say, out of sheer hatred (not religiously influenced whatsoever) be considered atheistic just because there was no higher power involved? Certainly not! The same goes for God being in the Pledge; if it’s void of religious reference, it’s not atheistic. Since we are nearing the end of our debate, there is no point in debating the facts of these crimes. I would like to address your ending statement for complaint 2, though. You stated the following: “All of these examples do nothing to theism, even if religion was completely guilty! Not one of these examples was motivated by a belief in a Divine creator, judge and perfect moral agent.” How do these examples do nothing to theism? The religions we are speaking of are monotheistic—a form of theism. If we’re going by this logic, then the millions of people killed by Communists you are speaking of wouldn’t have any effect on atheism either! Complaint 3: My point is that religion should not be involved in governing, because it is a personal and purely theoretical topic. Should we involve the possibility of unicorns existing in the way America is governed? Because we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of unicorns, it is best just to leave them out of official Pledges and laws. Allow the citizens to believe in them if they so desire, but do not mix them with the state—because some citizens do not believe in unicorns, but rather fairies or Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Complaint 4: “Who cares if 3% of the population who holds to an evil malignant destructive ideology becomes disloyal?” I must say, it is statements such as these that truly test my patience and composure. Not only is this statement biased and misinformed, it is also disrespectful and should not even be an issue in this debate. The terms “evil,” “malignant,” and “destructive” are ALL ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. You may believe Satan is evil, but someone else may seek the same things in Him that you do in God. You may think certain forms of music are destructive, while the same music may have kept a teenager from committing suicide. You may disbelieve in unicorns, but others may pray to them nightly and want them to be added to America’s Pledge, too. You then dared to assume the following: “Do you care if pedophiles become disloyal and act on their predatory ideology? Do you care if a religion that sacrifices children becomes disloyal to America? Of course not!” Are you kidding me? While I may have a personal opposition to pedophilia, and may object to your nonexistent, purely theoretical religion of sacrificing children, I still care that both have an equal voice to their counterparts. Everyone deserves a voice, just like every ideology and religion and thought deserves a voice. Whether it’s morally correct or not is irrelevant—it still deserves to be heard. Now, you then stated: “Especially as stated before the fact that Christians clearly will leave a country that does not serve God!”America wouldn’t NOT serve Yaweh, but it also wouldn’t NOT serve any other God or lack thereof. I believe I addressed this in one of my previous arguments, and because I have already had to pare down my characters, I will move on. Closing So we have seen that all four of my opponent’s claims are untrue: “Under God was placed into the Pledge to affirm our historical tradition, affirm our denial of atheism, elicit the maximum loyalty of the population and meets an irreligious definition.”1. Affirm our historical tradition? What about traditions of the Bible, where animals were sacrificed in a similar manner to your theoretical, child-slaughtering church? 2. Affirm our denial of atheism? You’re not just denying atheism, you’re denying any atheistic, pantheistic, or polytheistic religion as well. Why not just accept all religions rather than denying the ones you don’t agree with? 3. Elicit the maximum loyalty of the population? Ridding the Pledge of “under God” altogether would allow complete loyalty of the population and return religion to the personal lives of citizens4. Meets an irreligious definition? This is nonsense. Nothing can get much more religious than the word “God,” now can it? I could continue to debate this topic for days on end, but in short, God has no place in the Pledge of Allegiance…And one can only hope that, in the near future, America will come to see the truth.Before I end, I would like to once again thank my opponent for debating this topic with me. It has been very enjoyable debating with you, Gileandos, and I hope to engage in further debates with you in the future. Thank you for being so thorough in your responses and keeping me on my toes with every point; it truly has been a pleasure. I’d like to end my argument with a quote by Christopher Hitchens:“I am a strict constructionist and firm believer in original intent. This is why I believe that the Pledge of Allegiance, in its current phrasing, is two words too long."