Analysis of Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised

The original Pledge of Allegiance was meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith and made no mention of God. The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy. He wrote it for the popular magazine Youth's Companion on the occasion of the nation's first celebration of Columbus Day. It’s wording omitted reference not only to God but also to the United States. “Under God” should be removed from the pledge for purposes of creating equality in different beliefs and allowing each American their right laid out in the constitution. These are the original words to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Recently the mentioning of “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance has been considered very controversial. One of the prime foundations of what America is built on is the separation of church and state in all public institutions. The two words clearly violate this law. There has been much talk about just taking out the words “Under God”. I believe that if you are going to edit parts of it why not rewrite the whole thing. Since I believe the pledge is out-dated, we should create a modern variation of this verse, to honor our democracy. Better yet we can recite it only on special occasions but with the understanding that it is optional to say it.

Gwen Wilde’s essay “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised” highlights key reasons why the Pledge of Allegiance should be changed to be less divisive towards Americans who do not believe in a God. Wilde begins her essay by informing the audience of the countless alterations the pledge has gone through over the years. The earliest version of the pledge, which was published in 1892, left out the words “under God.” The words “under God” were not added until 1954 when president Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the pledge we all know today. Wilde goes into detail about the hypocrisy illustrated within the Pledge of Allegiance. She explains how the words “under God” are needlessly divisive in a nation that is said to be indivisible. However,

With sounds of youthful laughter, conversations about the students’ weekends, and the shuffling of college ruled paper; students file into their classrooms and find their seats on a typical Monday morning. As the announcements travel throughout the school’s intercoms, the usual “Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance” becomes no longer usual but rather puzzling to some students. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.” Confusion passes through some of the student’s minds. With the reoccurrence of “God” in the backdrop of American life, the relationship between church and state has become of little to no matter for American

This has become a very controversial topic these days because of one line in the pledge, “under God” This is a “questionable religious reference” (Tucker 1). “Congress and President Eisenhower add “under God” to the pledge” (Tucker 4) in 1954, this is completely unnecessary because it brings religion into the pledge of the country and some groups of people do not believe in god, yet they are being forced to say excluding California. Such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, a group of people that do not believe in serving the country, but believe in serving god. Ultimately, our counties schools should not be obliged to recite this pledge. It is “outdated and unnecessary” (Tucker 1). Using California as an example, it does not affect the performance of students, but does affect

The allegiance was originated in August, 1892 but did not include the words “Under God”, which was added in 1933. There was some concern of the change, considering separation of church and state. By forcing students and American citizens to cite the allegiance, you’re there by forcing them into a certain religion, which violates the first amendment, “Freedom of Religion”. By forcing them to stand during the allegiance they are there by betraying their own beliefs of where they come from or who they are. Some may look at it, as disrespect towards America or our war veterans, but it also shows disrespect towards those individuals. We are not only ignoring their beliefs but we are disrespecting their history, their family, and where they originally come

Question 13: Certain readers who may not agree with Wilde’s argument are those who do believe in God, not all of them, but a portion of them may be close-minded and see nothing wrong with the newly revised Pledge. For example, the type of people who believe in a divine power and are not open to listening to others spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. Readers who do not agree with Wilde’s argument are entitled to their own opinions, however, not everyone shares their same values and the addition of the words “under God” creates a division of people who believe the statement and those who do not. One might persuade the opposers of Wilde’s argument by saying there is a division in the nation because of it, or that there is no purpose for. The purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance is to show loyalty to one’s country, not to show one’s religious beliefs, since not everyone in the United States share the same religious beliefs.

As a daily routine many schools have their students start by standing up, facing the American flag, and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. This is something that most students have memorized since kindergarten and in some cases even preschool. The students recite the pledge every morning and most of them don’t know what it means or aren’t really sure why they have to say it. If students don’t know what the purpose or the history behind something is, they generally don’t take the matter seriously, which with The Pledge being a serious matter, students need to know the history in order to show respect. The Pledge of Allegiance should be said every morning by students at schools in the USA and they should be aware of its meaning.

One of the most controversial issues, if “Under God” should remain in the pledge, and if children should be required to say it, went to court a few weeks ago. The argument was brought to court by Michael Newdow, the father to the girl on whose behalf the lawsuit was brought forward. Newdow argued in court and on many different public speaking occasions that knowing his child is being led to say “One nation under God” on a daily basis makes him feel “Disenfranchised”. (Hamilton, Marci A. CNN Special). He points out that “The Pledge, which has “liberty for all” is being used to inculcate his daughter in a religious worldview he cannot accept”. (Hamilton, Marci A. CNN Special). This means

According to our texts and lectures, a good argument must be valid and strong, with evidence or premises, and a conclusion. The premises must be true and of quality, supported by reasoning or evidence of some sort. The premises must also logically support the conclusion or there would be no argument. The goal of an argument is to convince the reader to believe in something and to demonstrate that with careful reasoning and consideration, the writer 's point of view is legitimate. The key approaches of reasoning in an argument are persuasion tactics called logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos is the use of logic to persuade the reader with statements containing rational principles. Facts, such as statistics, or anything that can be proven is an appeal to logos. Ethos is a plan of action using ethics which help define credibility, reliability, and character through direct knowledge and/or experience in the situation at hand. Ethos is used by writers to build trust and to demonstrate their qualifications for the statements they make. Pathos is used to connect with the reader on an emotional level using tragedy, sadness, pity, and other sentimental specifics the reader can relate to. All three of these Greek artistic proofs are used in the readings of “Out Of Body Image,” by an assistant professor of politics at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Caroline Heldman, whom focuses her work on issues of gender and race, and “X-Large Boys,” by Allisa Quart, who is a graduate of Columbia

It’s 8:10AM in 2008r, and I’m sprinting to my class line. I make it in time, and I settle in. Boy, girl, boy, girl, my class, from the parking lot, turns to face the left side of the school building where the flag pole is. Our eyes follow the flag as it slowly rises to the top. We all become silent.  Every single day, the words, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” would come out of my mouth out of respect towards those who, day in and day out, risk their lives for me to live free in this magnificent country. This of course is joined by my hand resting over my heart. I do this, and my over five hundred and fifty classmates and teachers, do this, too.

The Pledge of Allegiance has gone through several changes since it was written over one hundred years ago, but none of these changes have had as much controversy attached to them as the addition of “under God.” Written in 1892 by a minister named Francis Bellamy, the pledge was written for a national patriotic school program, in which children throughout the country would recite his words while facing the American flag. Words have been added, phrases have been altered for clarity, and even the correct way to salute the flag has been changed. While the vast majority of these changes were important, for example the salute being changed from a Nazi-esque extended right arm to the child’s hand over their heart, “under God” does not add anything of meaning to the Pledge. This phrase is not a necessary or beneficial part of the Pledge of Allegiance and should be removed by the President.

Allowing the government to remove this part of the pledge does not only allow for everyone being able to say it but it also still allows students to say it in schools. The main reason why the “Under God” should be removed is to allow everyone in this country to be able to say the pledge. For the main reason this pledge should still be said in schools is to have the students be able to practice their patriotism in this country. Some might still say that the pledge takes up too much time or it brainwashes the students, but in reality this pledge is good for the students to say. As long as the religion aspect of the pledge is separate from the pledge itself, there should be no problems with anyone saying the pledge. This is a great compromise between the two different views on this topic. If this change is made the American people will have one less issue to worry about. This is a country made by the people, for the

America. Are we born with knowledge of the Constitution? Has our sense of this land shaped our culture and formed our laws? If we pledge allegiance to it, must it also stand for “We the people?” Have we made America and the Constitution synonymous, compatible. One. There is a need to know the Constitution for oneself that is right, wise, and beneficial. And yet there has been a revelation. Living in ignorance of the Constitution is a life of illusions and deception. And the elect pose no action to rise above this. The illusion will sweep through this nation for people embrace the mere appearance of what it means to be an American. But promise and truth remain within the Constitution because it's inspired and useful. It has revealed what was

The argument of the words ?under god? remaining in the pledge is an ongoing fight?one with many court cases, all of which have ruled the same. The ruling is that under god is still appropriate and need not be removed from the pledge. The argument is clear, saying that there are many people who are not ?under God? and do not believe in ?Him.? Some people believe this statement shows that our nation?s religious beliefs are all the same, when in fact they are not. In a recent case in California, a few chief justices spoke on their opinion about the pledge. Justice Rehnquist says ?Reciting the pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one? Participants promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, Faith or Church.? (Hendrie, 2004, paragraph 25). Judge O?Connor says that ?nearly any government action could be overturned as a violation of the establishment clause if a ?heckler?s veto? sufficed to show that its message was one of endorsement.? (Hendrie, 2004, paragraph 27).