Banning The Pledge Of Allegiance Essay

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.

I think the Pledge of Allegiance is unnecessary and I do not feel that we should have to say it. In this country freedom of speech is considered more as a right than a privilege, and if this is true then the Pledge should not be such a “must”. It has lost its significance and what it stood for. It also violates the law of the separation of church and state and should be altered for that. There are some traditions that are out-dated and not needed any more and saying the Pledge of Allegiance is one of them. In this day in age must we really continue to repeat the same short verse every day? I feel we need to evaluate the reciting of

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,

Why the pledge of allegiance should be revised, by Gwen Wilde, is a very well written essay that the reader would most likely deem convincing. Gwen Wilde states that the Pledge in its latest from simply requires all Americans to say the phrase “one nation, under God,” when many Americans do not believe in God. She uses many different writing strategies to get her point across in a very precise and appropriate manner. Although there are some minor problems, this analysis will explain how Gwen Wilde uses certain writing strategies that are able to back her argument with a very convincing approach.

In the first amendment, it is stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof.”. From this, it made clear that the founding fathers’ original intent was for the Government to take a neutral position with respect to religion; the Government was not to favor any one religion over another. “Almighty God we acknowledge our independence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parent, our teachers and our Country. Amen.” In 1951, that prayer was conducted in class every morning in all New York public schools as ordered by New York State Board of Regents; it was called a “nondenominational prayer”. The short prayer was created with the intent of developing students’ moral

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

I do not believe that the expression “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance changes over its presentation into a religious activity. Instead, it is an announcement of confidence in faithfulness and unwaveringness to the United States banner and the Republic that it speaks to. The expression “under God” is in no sense a supplication, nor support of any religion. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or listening to others recount it, is an enthusiastic activity, not a religious one; members guarantee devotion to our banner and our Nation, not to a specific God, confidence, or

Summary: The division between church and state is a gray line that is often crossed and argued about. For example, Gwen Wilde, the author, argues that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance requires people who do not believe in God to recite something they do not necessarily believe in. If a person chose not to say the full Pledge, including to utter the words “under God” they run the risk of being called unpatriotic. The author continually argues that the words “under God” add a religious doctrine that not all Americans believe in.

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.

(Harrison, Maureen. Gilbert, Steve. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court II.) The public schools systems are not trying to offend anyone. They are trying to uphold the system of educating American students. The views of a few people should not influence the greater good of the Pledge of Allegiance. It has been recited for many years and for many years people have fought against it. People are not fighting against the statement “In God We Trust” that is imprinted on each and every coin in the United States. There is no need to change the Pledge it is there for Americans to recite to show their appreciation to a grateful nation and as a way of saluting the American Flag. Mudhillun Muqaribu wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times titled God and the Pledge: My Brother’s Quest. Mudhillun writes that he is a Muslim who grew up in America. When he was younger, other students made it clear to him and his siblings that “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance did not apply to them. He says that he began sitting out of the Pledge in the sixth grade. The main point of his letter was to applaud Michael Newdow for upholding religious diversity in America. (Muqaribu, Mudhillun. Letter. New York Times). Mudhillun was not persecuted by anyone for his decision in sitting out in the Pledge; it was his decision and he was respected for that. Michael Newdow and the others who argue against “Under God” in the Pledge have the right

President Obama sat down with the President of Turkey and told him “We have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values” (White House Press Release). Although the United States has a large Christian following we also have many religions within our culture; with an ongoing conflict against citizens that are nonreligious, Atheist, Agnostic, etcetera. The two words that were added to the Pledge of Allegiance proves the favoring of religion in a secular government. Even though the pledge does have a loyalty amongst the majority of citizens, we should remove the

Every morning over 75 million students around the nation recite the Pledge of Allegiance verbatim (Digest of Education Statistics). If one walks up to one of these students and asks them about the meaning and the origin of this pledge, what would they say? Nothing. However, even though more than a million students recite these words every day, not more than half probably know the true meaning behind these words. One cannot deny the fact that most of these children just want to get this pledge “over with” to continue talking to their peers. The Pledge of Allegiance has gone through several changes since Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, wrote it in 1892. The pledge acts as a source of patriotism, national pride and controversy. The

Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance originated from the hand of a social minister and chairman of the National Education Association, Francis Bellamy. Bellamy’s goal with the initial 23 word pledge was to impress it upon receptive, youthful minds, and convey the compassion and the patriotic duty deserving of the Republic. As a result, “more than 12 million public school children in every state in the Union” spoke the Pledge of Allegiance that day (Moss 2006). Since then, it has been a catalyst for tradition turned into mandatory law.

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).