Religious references should be removed from national obligations.

In response to contention 1A, my argument has nothing to do with the morality or the immorality of the words "under God." My argument lies predominantly in the idea of the political correctness of the term being present in the Pledge of Allegiance. One of the ways in which Americans can show their patriotism and love of country is through reciting the Pledge, and a bias toward the Christian religion with the term "under God" could limit non-Christian Americans from showing their patriotism through this method. I have shown that Protestants are rapidly losing their majority status in the US. Additionally, the amount of Americans that self-identify as Christian has steadily been decreasing since 1990, from 86.2% to 76.0% of all Americans in 2009 (1). This is why "under God" should be removed from the Pledge, not because of the immorality of the phrase. The only mention of morality that was present in my argument was that saying the Pledge of Allegiance was an American citizen's moral obligation. It has been found that America is the most patriotic of all countries in the world, as 90% of Americans would rather be a citizen of the United States than any other country (2). Therefore, most Americans would agree that showing their patriotism was the right thing to do, as we are the most patriotic country in the world. Using your definition of moral, "Of or relating to the principles of right and wrong in behavior," showing your love of country by saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a moral obligation, as it is a right behavior of an American to be patriotic. In response to contention 1B, as I mentioned and you then pointed out, there is no legal obligation to say the Pledge. Again, as I mentioned and you then pointed out, saying the Pledge is no longer required in public school systems. However, with the issue of money, there is a national obligation to use the United States currency. Yes, there are other methods of transaction, such as bartering. But unless you are living completely off the grid, you are obligated to use money to pay for things such as electricity and water, not to mention the house in which you are living. It is estimated that only 180,000 households live off the grid (3). Using the Census Bureau's 2008 household estimates, that is 0.14% of American households (4). Even for these 0.14% of households, they are able to live off of the grid because of their possession of solar panels or windmills. Off-grid.net estimates that an advanced solar system will cost you $25,000 in United States currency (3). It is a legal obligation to use our national currency. In response to contention 2, I never stated that the phrases "under God" and "In God we Trust" referred to the government. I agree with you that it is a reflection of society and the American people. I have shown multiple times that the amount of Christians in America has consistently decreased, particularly since the time when these phrases were added to their respective documents. Your reference stated that 62% of Americans view Christianity as the official religion, but it also stated that this number is down from 69% in 2008 (5). This is yet another trend that shows the decline of Christianity in America. Since these phrases are a reflection of the society, and the society no longer has a significant majority of people agreeing with Christianity and the number is ever declining, the Christian-supporting phrases should be removed. In response to contention 3, promoting a particular religion in and of itself does not inhibit the practice of another religion. The issue comes into play when a particular religion, in this case Christianity, is promoted by such prevalent, essentially American items such as the Pledge and the national currency. You are correct when you say that if a person disagrees with the words "under God" in the Pledge, they can opt to remain silent. However, this restricts them from demonstrating their patriotism. They are put in a dilemma where they must choose between their country and their religion. Religion should not limit a person's patriotism. Additionally, being constantly reminded that your religion, or lack thereof, is not nationally endorsed is bound to be discouraging. Being faced with the endorsement of God every time something is paid for does not inherently limit someone from disbelieving in the Christian God, but it is publicity for the Christian religion. By advertising Christianity but not other religions or the atheist viewpoint, freedom of religion is being stifled by reducing the choices that are present. Essentially, a forced dichotomy is created. With only the mention of God present, you must choose whether or not to believe in Christianity. This is opposed to a true freedom of religion, in which you may choose to believe in Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Wicca, et cetera. To make my point clearer, if I asked you "Do you like the color blue?", your response can only be yes or no. If I asked you "What's your favorite color?", you have a limitless amount of options. By removing references to God in the Pledge and in US currency, the false dilemma of Christianity is removed and true choice with regards to religion can occur. As a side note, in your third contention, you employed the reductio ad absurdum argument, committing the fallacy of reducing a claim to absurdity. My argument does not deal with the words Christmas and Easter, does not refer to closing churches, and certainly does not deal with abolishing the Declaration of Independence. Let's try to stay topical. Finally, in response to contention 4, I never suggested outlawing or suppressing Christian views. This contention has already been partially addressed toward the end of my response to contention 3. Removing God will not sacrifice the freedom of religion of Christians or damage their right to their beliefs in any way. It will simply no longer promote Christianity, and will therefore lead to a higher degree of freedom of religion in the United States. You have attempted to argue the point that the endorsement of Christianity in the Pledge and on currency does not stifle the freedom to practice other religions. Although I disagree with this statement, let's pretend that I accept it. If Christianity being present does not hurt any other religion, then certainly by Christianity being absent, Christianity itself will not be damaged. Whichever reasoning you choose, all evidence supports removing the phrases from the Pledge and US currency. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www-news.uchicago.edu... (3) http://www.off-grid.net... (4) http://www.census.gov... (5) http://www.dakotavoice.com... Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I look forward to the next round.