Thanks Romanii, this has been an entertaining debate.
Final rebuttal:
Con interprets the part my argument that “Under God” was added in response to communism to presume originalism. Rather, I was only providing historical context. Demonstrating that the justification used for adding the phrase is no longer a current concern. This was purely to provide context.
The historical background provided as to what the phrase “Under God” means is essential to this debate as it is providing proper context. I have demonstrated thoroughly that the phrase was intended and still implies theism. Con wants to reject this context stating “that textual meanings are subjective and can therefore change over time.” This is unfortunately an incomplete contention.
…show more content…
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. Even if you buy that the meaning of phrases change over time, he has not argued for or justified a different interpretation.
Con’s second contention is entirely off topic of the debate and is a fallacy. Rather than address this topic head on my opponent attempted to argue it unimportant.
My contentions stand.
The phrase “Under God” imposes theism. As many are coerced into reciting the pledge this is a violation of the SCS and personal rights. The result of removing this phrase would allow the pledge to fill its purpose as a unifying demonstration of patriotism, and support the Constitutional value that church and state should be separate.
Thus,
"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of allegiance.
Thanks for reading,
Vote Pro.
Sources:
(1) http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000074
(2)