In The Pledge Of Allegiance

The future of our country recites these words every day before starting class, in many countries among the nation. There is a reason why these words are recited. They express the deeply rooted values and patriotism of American people. In 1954, the phrase “under God” was added to the American Pledge of Allegiance, and it became the main source of many court cases throughout the years. Nowadays, these two simple but controversial word have caused a legal tangle with many court cases that mostly end up at the Supreme Court. For the most part, the debates revolve around the constitutionality of these words. The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" Many people seem to think that the addition of the phrase to the American Pledge of Allegiance is counteracting the Establishment Clause. Nowadays, there have been many cases where it has been requested for these two words to be removed from the Pledge. The Pledge was made to unite all Americans together, in order to fight

"Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere found in the Constitution or any other founding legislation. Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today." -- Bill Flax, Forbes, 2011

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 case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

The father, a nonbeliever, fought that the words "under God" in the Pledge abused the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and that the school region's recitation arrangement was

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

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.

(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

“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.” The Pledge of Allegiance can be heard in classrooms all around the country at the beginning of the day. However, many people question if the pledge can be applied to all aspects of the daily life of an American. Does everyone have the liberty and justice the pledge states all people have? Is America, as a country, indivisible?

In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to

It’s the Supreme Court’s responsibility to make sure there is an equal chance for fairness. Only the Supreme Court can override the decision to not remove “under God” from the pledge. The Supreme Court also controls the opportunity for this case to even appear before them in court. It’s their responsibility to see that the pledge is without alienation and controversy

Take a moment to recall some of the patriotic symbols that help embody the spirit of our nation: the bald eagle, the Statue of Liberty, or even the national anthem. Among others promoting the civic duties and democratic virtues prized by our American society, nothing has caused as much controversy as the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. At the start of a new school day, every classroom of a government run school would be ringing with the chorus of America’s youth delivering the pledge in an almost autonomous way. The reason why this is such a big deal is due to the fact that to some, including myself, believe the words “under God” suggests a breach of the first amendment. As of late, our country has been in the

Each morning, millions of students across America recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the thirty-one words that essentially summarize the meaning of being an American. The pledge was intended to bring Americans together and unite them. However, two out of these thirty-one words, “under God,” contradict the United States Constitution, which protects the freedoms of Americans. There are many different religious beliefs in America. Religion for many people is seen as a sensitive subject, and it may cause a breakdown within the people. Therefore, the Pledge of Allegiance should be interdicted so that we, Americans, can have our rights that we deserve.

"The notion that religion and political authority, church and state, are different and that they can or should be separated is, in a profound sense, Christian. Its origins may be traced to the teachings of Christ, notably in the famous passage in Matthew 22:21, in which Christ is quoted as saying: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are

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).