God should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you for your response, and I apologize for the briefness of my argument. I would be more than happy to offer clarification and evidence wherever is needed upon request. My opponent has stated that: “I was also clear to define via the court system and documentation that “Under God” clearly meets a secular definition NOT an atheistic one. A secular definition again is irreligious, making no preference of religion. Secularism is not defined as without God, which is proper atheism. Taking God out is atheistic.” Removing God from the Pledge will not make it an atheistic state. If the Pledge were to contain something to the effect of “one nation under no God,” this change would most certainly be considered atheistic. However removing it altogether would make it void of all religious reference, therefore it would not be atheistic, but merely secular (even by my opponent’s definition of secular, which I will agree to settle upon for the sake of time). I will now go on to address the “complaints” refuted by my opponent. Complaint 1: My opponent made the following claim: “Again as cited before, secular is not devoid of God, but irreligious, neither confirming nor denying a religion.” I’d like to point out that “under God” certainly rides the verge of confirming monotheism—or at least affirming it as a national “normalcy.” If “under God” neither confirms nor denies a religion, “under no God” must not, either? “Under God” denies every atheistic religion there is—from Buddhism to Satanism to flat out atheism. Complaint 2: Again, I am not denying that atheism may have been the cause of historical conflict—what I am denying is that any monotheistic religion is any more “peaceful” than atheism. My opponent seems to be implying that atheism is an evil, immoral religious mindset and ignoring the numerous acts of violence committed by monotheistic religions. He also made the statement that: “my opponent is suggesting that every voice be heard, but does not give warrant as to why the atheist voice merits the same favor.” Are you indicating that the voices of atheists weigh less than those of monotheists? Please explain your reasoning. The acts you are attributing to atheism were not definitively committed in the name of atheism, but by proclaimed atheists who had entirely separate motives in their crimes. The monotheistic killings I will mention were, for the most part, carried out either in the name of a God or for the purpose of converting people of other religions into a different religion. I am not stating that these crimes are the reason God should be removed from the Pledge; I am refuting my opponent’s claim that atheism has caused more uproar than monotheism and that God should therefore remain to combat atheism. The following historical conflicts can be partially or entirely attributed to monotheism—Christianity, specifically: The Crusades took place in the Middle Ages for a variety of religious reasons, primarily for the purpose of reclaiming the Holy Land from the Muslims. It is unknown exactly how many people were killed in this series of “Holy Wars,” but considering the time span and number of wars involved, one could assume the numbers to be quite great. (1) and (2) The Taiping Rebellion began in the 1850s and was led by Hong Xiuquan, a Christian convert who aimed to implement his newly-created political creed into the Chinese government. The creed was partially influenced by elements of Christianity, as was Xiuquan’s claim to be the brother of Jesus Christ. While the goal of Xiuquan was not entirely Christian-based, he used religious claims to persuade (or brainwash) citizens into trusting and following him. Christianity empowered him, giving him a tool to use in convincing citizens to join him in his plan. Approximately 20 million people died during the Taiping Rebellion. (3) Christopher Columbus led a mass killing of approximately one-half of the Native American population in the early 1490s. The purpose of Columbus’ genocide was to take advantage of the Native American resources as well as to convert them to Christianity (which was the main motive for the genocide). Over half of the Native American population was wiped out in the name of Christianity. (4) European Witch-Hunts took place from the 1400s to the 1700s. Led mainly by Christians, the accusers claimed that witches rejected Christianity and made a conscious decision to worship Satan instead of the Christian God. The European witch-hunters used Christianity as an excuse to kill all citizens who did not conform to their religion, and succeeded in killing hundreds of innocent witches and non-witches. (5) There has been far less bloodshed as a result of, say, Wicca than there has been in the name of most known monotheistic religions. Does this mean we should implement Wiccan beliefs into the Pledge of Allegiance in effort to oppose the “evil” committed in the name of monotheism? Opponent’s complaint 3: I appreciate the clarification, however this is specifically what I am arguing against: the legal “permission” for a monotheistic reference to be included in the Pledge. It is discriminatory to make such exceptions for certain belief systems rather than others. If the reference was used to “combat atheistic influence,” why not include “under many Gods” (I am certainly not implying that this would be right, either)? Opponent’s complaint 4: “How will say for example the largest portion of Americans… Christians feel if America is NOT a nation under God?” This is my point exactly—how do non-Christians feel if America IS a nation under God? Removing theistic reference from the Pledge does not mean America is not a nation under God—but it also doesn’t mean it’s not a nation under Allah, Zeus, Baal, Odin, Pan, or any other deity…And it certainly doesn’t mean it IS a nation under any higher power at all. It leaves religion entirely open to the citizen, and allows people of every religion (or lack thereof) to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in full without having to leave two words out. With the growing diversity of America, the possibility exists that, in the distant future, America may not consist of mostly Christians. It could consist of, for example, Luciferians. If this were to occur, and the Pledge was changed to read “under Lucifer,” would it be fair to the other religious groups (including Christians) in America? Thank you very much for your reply, and I await your rebuttal with the utmost eagerness. (1) http://www.middle-ages.org.uk... (2) http://www.religioustolerance.org... (3) http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu... (4) http://www.historyisaweapon.com... (5) http://www.religioustolerance.org...