God Should be Kept in the Pledge of Allegiance Essay

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

Intro- about 10 ten years ago, in the year 1951,the New York Board of Regents approved a “Quote” “nondenominational prayer”. It was 22 words long and The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of parent in New Hyde Park, New York Steven Engel was a parent in New Hyde Park, New York. He and a group of other parents objected to the daily speaking of the prayer, even though it was voluntary, at the start of each school day. Steven Engel and his group of supporting parents sued William Vitale, the president of the local school board. The parents reasoning was that this optional prayer didn’t align with the views of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The establishment clause states quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Originally, the Establishment Clause was only added to the Constitution to keep the federal government from establishing a national religion.

In President Eisenhower’s own statement “FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country's true meaning. Especially is this meaningful as we regard today's world. Over the globe, mankind has been cruelly torn by violence and brutality and, by the millions, deadened in mind and soul by a materialistic philosophy of life. Man everywhere is appalled by the prospect of atomic war. In this somber setting, this law and its effects today have profound meaning. In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war”. President Bush was also quoted in saying “America is a nation that values our relationship with an almighty. Declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our

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,

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

The driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members showered Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress. The words "Under God" were inserted in the pledge for the express purpose of endorsing religion; the U.S. Supreme Court itself ruled in 1971 that this was unconstitutional. Also according to the Supreme Court's own rulings, it doesn't matter that students are allowed to refrain from saying the pledge; a 2000 high court decision said that voluntary, student-led prayers at school football games are unconstitutionally "coercive," because they force students into an unacceptable position of either proclaiming religious beliefs they don't share or publicly protesting. (http://www2law.cornell.edu.)

“Under God” The establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the American government from establishing an official religion, and furthermore, it forbids the government from favoring one religion over others or favoring religion over non-religion (and vice versa). When the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, it did not originally include the phrase “Under God.” The phrase was implemented through Congressional legislation into the pledge in 1954 at the behest of President Eisenhower, as a war against communism raged throughout the United States of America. Fast forward to the twenty-first century, and a long-standing debate concerning the constitutionality of the phrase has made its way up to the Supreme Court more than once. To date, the Supreme Court has yet to issue an official ruling on the issue, though, it is very likely that it will in the near future; if or when it

(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

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

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.

In the work “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised,” the author, Gwen Wilde expresses her feelings of why the words “under God” are inappropriate and needlessly divisive (56). Wilde begins the essay with giving the readers a history on the pledge. She begins by telling the readers that the original pledge, that was published on September 8, 1892, did not include the words “under God.” She also gives the point of how in 1923 at the first national Flag Conference, it was argued that immigrants could get confused by the wording of the pledge. The pledge was finally sanctioned in 1954 after President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words “under God” (56).

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

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).

Ernest Hemmingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” is narrated in an omniscient third-person point of view. Hemingway’s minimalistic style doesn’t discuss many characters in the story, but rather focuses on their engagements and discourse. The narrator in this story gives little to no insight into what is happening. However, with this style of writing, Hemingway is able to present many themes that are apparent throughout the short story.  One of the themes I have chosen to focus on is alcohol.  Alcohol is highlighted throughout the two-character’s serious discussion. The conversation is full of tension regarding the operation that the man wants the girl to undergo.  With all this tension, the alcohol seems to act as a distraction or escape