"Under God" Should be Removed from the Pledge of Alegiance

First, I will begin by responding to my opponent's arguments. 1. Saying "Under God" is not forced. I believe I acknowledged this in the previous round. People are not legally forced to say "under God," but they are expected to. This is especially relevant to children, who hardly have the ability to understand the argument of "a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. " (quoted from my opponent's third contention). As quoted from a list of arguments made in favor of the Proposition on the website of the Secular Coalition for America, "Beginning each public school day with the Pledge of Allegiance forces non-theistic children to either acknowledge God or stand out as a protester. " Maybe with adults this may not be a problem, but children recite the pledge every day, and are faced with these two unfavorable options. And as we all know, children are not the most. .accepting of those who stand out. It's wrong to put any child in this type of awkward position. David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association says it best by stating, "No child should go to school each day to have the class declare that her religious beliefs are wrong in an exercise that portrays her and her family as less patriotic than believers. " 2. Phrase has overwhelming public support. I would like to respond to the different portions of this contention individually. First, my opponent cites a Fox News survey as part of his evidence. However, Fox news is infamous for its conservative bias (see the study conducted by FAIR. org, and the one conducted by media critic Eric Wemple). As even these statistics show that conservatives are by far the most supportive of keeping "under God" in the POA, it's not unreasonable to rule these statistics out as clearly biased. The same can be said for the SurveyUSA poll. SurveyUSA operates using over-the-phone automated surveys, so there is no way to be sure that any respondents are actually within the stated demographics, or that a balanced poll was taken. Over-the-phone surveys rely heavily on luck; whether or not the numbers being called actually pick up an unrecognized number. We also must remember that children, the ones most affected by this issue, are not eligible to participate in surveys. We are essentially sampling a group on which the topic has little effect. Even if these statistics are reliable, we have to remember to protect the rights of the minority. As stated in the Niose quote "NO' child should have to endure this type of pressure. These statistics simply reinforce the notion that peer pressure can lead to America being a monotheistic place for those with a separate or no faith. 3. Phrase does not endorse specific Religion and only identifies Heritage and Religion in Public Life. My opponent states that the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention had roots in various religions, but he then contradicts himself by giving only two branches of the same religion, Christianity. The remaining signers were deists, who, while not technically Christian, were still monotheistic. This brings the grand total of religions present at the Constitutional Convention to . .. two (one, if you consider deism a set of beliefs rather than a true religion). Christianity has deep roots sunk into the law. Just because the mention of God is prevalent in our State Constitutions doesn't make it justified. It just demonstrates the urgent updating we need to keep America a society without an official religion. Besides, because no-one I know of reads their state constitution aloud in class every day, there isn't any peer pressure to conform to beliefs that aren't your own. The same can be said for the right to pray at the beginning of political meetings and ceremonies. Of course, you have the right to pray wherever and whenever you want. But that praying isn't always an official, legal part of the aforementioned meetings and ceremonies, and when it is, rarely are people actively encouraged to pray by a teacher or by peers. (Many people can just switch off their televisions). In addition, "under God" is clearly a reference to an established religion. Grammarist. com establishes that in commonly used phrases, "God" is capitalized because it references the biblical God, and the word God is treated as a name. "God" is rarely capitalized in polytheistic religions, and as "God" is capitalized in the POA, it is a clear reference to the Judeo-Christian deity. Saying that "under God" references "who we were and are" is partly true. It definitely references who we were, but not who we are. We are a nation of already huge religious diversity; diversity that's only climbing. The Hindu American foundation shows an increase in Hindus by 1,000,000 people in 8 years (1997-2004), and reports currently that 3.29 million Hindus live in the US, approximately 1 million of which are not of Indian origin. In total, Christians and Jews make up only 83.1% of our population, meaning that "under God" disregards the beliefs (or lack thereof) of 16.9% of our population. (US Religious Landscape Survey). Taking "under God" out of the POA won't hurt anybody. Any religious monotheists can feel free to continue to say it. However, those two words put unneeded pressure on minority individuals of our society, especially children, to conform with beliefs that aren't theirs for the sake of fully pledging their loyalty to their country. 17% is a significant chunk of our population. In response to my opponent's refutations: 1. Reference my refutation to contention 3, in which I say the mention of God in certain ceremonies and meetings is in no way official, and that the appearance of "God" in parts (many of which are quite old) of the US code does not justify retaining the words "under God", but rather demonstrates how we need to work on abolishing mention of religion. Also, reference my first contention, in which I quote straight out of the Constitution, a phrase with the obvious intent of preventing the institution of any religion in any way. Finally, reference my refutation to contention 1, in which I state that saying "under God" is not legally enforced, but is rather enforced by peer and teacher pressure, and the want to not be an outsider from the group. 2. This is a case in which the letter of the law, not the intent of the law, is being considered. As congress did not write the POA, no law is technically being violated with "under God"'s inclusion. However, this clause demonstrates everything within the Constitution's jurisdiction (if that's the right word) to prevent the official establishment of any religion in any way by the government. 3. I apologize for the lack of inclusion of the source from which I took that information. It's link [1]. 4. Reference my refutation to contention 3. All sources are posted in the comments section.