Religious references should be removed from national obligations.

"One last note--I am female. Be careful of your gendered language. " --Sorry for that. I thought your name was Mr. Spenc (short for Spencer. ) I didn't consider it being Mrs. Penc. ==================== The Pledge is not an Obligation ==================== "I have adequately shown why an American citizen would be morally bound to say the Pledge" --No she hasn't. I attacked the issue of morality in my 1st rebuttal. She defended herself by strongly asserting that her arguments had nothing at all to do with morality. She can't come back now and say "Just kidding! " Even so, her original argument was simply that Pledging is a sign of patriotism and most Americans are patriotic. 1. We aren't morally obligated to be patriots. 2. Just extend my original argument (that she didn't rebut) that we can't be 'morally bound' to do something immoral. With that out of the way, my previous syllogism still applies: 1. The resolution is: - - - - Religious references should be removed from national obligations. 2. My opponent stated: - - an obligation is "an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound. " 3. My opponent stated: - - my argument has nothing to do with the morality or the immorality of the words "under God. " 4. My opponent stated: - - there is no legal obligation to say the Pledge. 5. Thus, from 3 & 4: - - - -The Pledge of Allegiance is not an obligation. 6. Thus, from 1 & 5: - - - -Altering the Pledge of Allegiance does not affirm the resolution. ==================== US Coinage is not an Obligation ==================== My opponent seems to have misunderstood my point. She points out that check/debit/credit are still forms of currency. She forgets that none of them are emblazoned with 'In God We Trust. ' This means we can still use US currency without ever having to come in contact with such dread (though, in reality, innocuous) words. More importantly, my opponent has given no law saying 'American citizens must use dollar bills. ' There is not any sort of 'legal obligation' in any sense of the term. She has argued that because most people use these bills every day that they are somehow required in order to be an American. Almost all Americans own houses. Does that make having a roof over your head a legal obligation? Does that make the homeless less than American? It stands that there is no law, no legal obligation, to use US coinage or paper money. This should be sufficient in and of itself. But further, my opponent and I agree that there are other forms of paper money that can be used, such as debit cards, checks, or credit cards. That's just icing on the cake. ========= Majority Rule ========= My opponent conceded that the phrases we are debating refer to society as a whole. PRO has also conceded that the majority of Americans (78.4% according to her source) are Christian. This seems enough for you to vote CON right there, but she makes the claim: "Christians no longer have a large enough majority for references to God to be warranted" Um, a LARGE ENOUGH majority? She hasn't said: 1. What 'a large enough majority' is. 2. Why we need 'a large enough majority' as opposed to 50.1%. 3. Where she gets this idea of 'a large enough majority. ' It's not like Christians are 50.000001% of the population. According to PRO 78/100 Americans are Christians. That's 3/4. Look at presidency, the House, the Senate, a jury, anywhere people vote in general. How rare is it that actions need a 'majority' of over 3/4 to be justified? This is just her unwarranted, illogical assertion, which has no empirical justification whatsoever. ======== Double Bind ======== 1. My opponent says: "I am advocating you reject that endorsing a religion won't harm others" Again, my opponent has specifically said: "I agree with you that it is a reflection of society and the American people. " America is primarily composed of Christians. Did the above sentence offend you? Does it warrant me being banned? No, it doesn't. It's a fact that my opponent and I agree on. It's what these phrases we are debating over say. They profess America's belief in Christianity. I don't see how saying so harms someone else's ability to practice their religion, and PRO definitely has not proved it. 2. Even if you don't buy that, there's still my 4th argument. PRO argues: "by having no religion endorsed, no religion will be damaged. " . .. except for Christianity. Christianity is no longer 'allowed' to be advocated publicly. It is deemed illegitimate, not worthy of being displayed in public. Seems to me like banning Christianity from making public appearances is bad, no matter what spin PRO tries to put on it. This means PRO still has this contradictory logic: We should suppress Christianity to allow other religions to be practiced. We should suppress freedom of religion to allow more religious freedom. ========== False Dilemma ========== Is your favorite color blue? Oh my goodness, I'm such a terrible person. I've created a false dilemma! Apparently asking that question forces you to either have the favorite color blue or no favorite color at all. That's obviously not true, but PRO would have you believe it. Simply asking whether someone is Christian does not in any way preclude them from practising any religion at all. ====== Summary ====== Easiest way for you to vote: Neither of my opponent's only 2 examples are national obligations. She hasn't met her burden of proof at all. If you don't buy that, then look at my 2nd contention: PRO conceded these phrases represent our society, as well as that the phrases are true of society. Then, if you still aren't convinced: My opponent's case hinges on the idea that promoting Christianity somehow harms other religions when it doesn't. Finally, even if you believe that that's true: My opponent is contracting herself by stifling religion in an attempt to maintain religious freedom.