"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance.

Thanks Romanii, articulate as always. Rebuttals: Con claims That “”Under God" cannot reasonably be construed as imposing theism on anyone…” He provides 3 warrants to this claim. 1: Con claims that saying the pledge is not mandatory. 2: Con claims that “there is no intent to even vaguely 'promote' theism” 3: Con claims that “the phrase can be interpreted as being purely symbolic” Thus if I can show the converse, it follows that the phrase does impose theism on citizens and thus violates the SCS. R1: This is flatly false as shown by my sources in my opening argument. First it is important to understand that peer pressure, even considering if students' had the right to opt out, would still constitute religious coercion. Secondly and worse “43 states have laws regarding requirements for student recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.” (1) In fact, when “Under God” was added President Eisenhower stated that "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war." (2) Thus we see this “coercive element” constitutes an infringement of freedom. R2: Again, flatly false. The addition of the phrase under God to the pledge was exactly intended to distinguish theism from Godless Communism. I refer you to the quote I just presented above. The phrase is meant to “reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future…” R3: The phrase can be interpreted purely symbolically, though only if you are willing to dismiss the context in which the phrase was added. With this context we see that the phrase was intended to “the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” It necessarily implies the existence of God. We see then by con’s own standard that the phrase can reasonable be construed as imposing theism. This is because…. 1: In public settings (like public schools) reciting the pledge is often mandatory. 2: The intent of the phrase is to promote theism 3: Historical context shows the phrase not purely symbolic. As the phrase clearly imposes theism it is clear that this constitutes a violation of the SCS. This leaves Con’s only contention in his words being “who cares.” That is to say he thinks this issue not important enough to address. Let's be clear that the resolution says "should." Con is arguing that there are more pressing or important matters that Congress should attend to. That doesn't matter. The question was posed as a "should" in order to explore the need or impacts of the government taking this action. Con cannot simply argue that there are more pressing issues, otherwise we'd never get to the basic question of the debate. He has to show why the government should not remove the phrase or harm posed by doing so. He hasn't presented any such harms, merely stating “who cares.” He'll need to do more than that to win on this point. Aside from this we see through this debate that it is an important issue, and that there is real harm to religious freedom and constitutional values. Conclusion: Con’s arguments though well written, have been soundly refuted. The phrase “Under God” imposes theism and is thus a violation of the SCS. Con’s contention of “who cares” misses the mark and side steps the issue of this debate. The resolution is affirmed. "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance Sources: (1) http://undergod.procon.org... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org...