The Current Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional.

I will present my own case, then refute my opponents. I negate: The Current Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional. Justification: Maintaining Consistency within the Justice System is necessary to achieve constitutionality. I agree to his posed definitions. [Contentions] Contention I: Reasoning behind the "Under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance. This clause was added in the 1950's for a specific reason. As most people know, the 1950's was a height of the cold war. the USSR at that time was an atheist country. The US wanted to shows the world that it was a haven for all religions, and all people looking for religious freedom. 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 (Brhaman 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. Therefore, to uphold the Constitution, of protecting religious freedom of everybody, and to show that the US is the place to be free from religious persecution, the clause ought to remain in the Pledge. Contention II: Maintaining Judicial Consistency. Whenever the Supreme Court is given with this case, most of the time an appeal because of the 9th Circuit Court says it is unconstitutional, they strike it down because they maintain that it is constitutional. (Reason: contention I) They go further to say that since Atheism is not a religion, and you do not practice religion, atheism does not have a right to claim what a religious person has the right to say or not. Furthermore, they do not have a right to say that the government must remain a totally secular institution. Since the Supreme Court has claimed it constitutional, we must remain consistent within judicial limits. I'll now refute my opponents case. "As is evident, I am arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America is unconstitutional in it's sanctioning of a religion. I contend that this is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The particular part I point out as unconstitutional is the induction of the two bittersweet words, "under God". For a nation to be brought up on secular foundations, a step forward will be to remove this phrase." My Response: The Establishment Clause can interpreted in either 2 ways. I will show how both interpretations do not make the clause unconstitutional. 1)the establishment of a national religion by Congress --> The clause does not make any religion a national religion. A national religion is one sanctioned by the government, can receives greater aid from the government, i.e. from taxes. This clause does not make any religion a national religion. 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. --> As I have brought up in my contention I, the purpose of the clause was to encompass all religions, not just one. It does not support any specific religion at all. Just because my opponent may think ti does, does not make that an inherent truth. Furthermore, it claims "with no identifiable secular purpose." As was the foremost reason: To make a distinction between us and the USSR and any other Communist, who were atheist. The secular purpose was, to uphold religious freedom, and to show the international community that the US is indeed a nation that has all religions. It does not support just one, and it is not an atheist country, like those of communism. For my presented case, and rebuttal, I urge a negation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.