Gwen Wilde Why The Pledge Should Be Revised Summary

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.

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.

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

In American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, Jon Meacham explores the dynamic relationship between religion and government in America in the hope that contemporary America can learn from the past. The period covered by the book spans from 1620 until Reagan’s presidency in the late 1980s. However, Meacham focuses on the Founding Fathers stances and their continued impact on American politics. More specifically, the book details the conflict over the separation of private religious expression and the more neutral ‘public religion’.

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.

In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment 's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

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

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

This paper is a book critique of The Godless Constitution. The first chapter of the book is titled “Is America a Christian Nation?” and it is an introduction for the rest of the book. In this chapter, the main idea is to open the reader’s mind about that the constitution was created with the idea that religious believes will not influence in the politics of the nation. The authors state that “The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics” (Kramnick and Moore, 23). Actually, the creation of a constitution without influence of religion was not an act of irreverence. The authors believe that the creation of the constitution was a support to the idea that religion can preserve the civil morality necessary for democracy, without an influence on any political party. The end of the chapter is the description of the following chapters and with a disguise warning that both authors were raise in religious families and they wrote the book with high respect for America’s religious traditions (Kramnick and Moore, 25). The second chapter, called “The Godless Constitution” explains how the different terms to talk about God were taken out and a “no religious test” clause was adopted with little discussion. This clause was a “veritable firestorm” during the ratification debates in several states (Kramnick and Moore, 32). For many people the “no religious test” clause was considered as the gravest defect of the Constitution (Kramnick

However, to overturn this saying, one can simply point out that this official motto is the result of the law approved in 1957, therefore, it has no influence on the national foundation. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” As John Adams mentioned in the Address to the Military, no matter what people’s religious beliefs are, government would not be based on religion, include

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).