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. …show more content…
The Founding Fathers created this country on the concept of separation of church and state; the line “under God” is found in, however, implies that America is one nation kept together by the will of God, which does not uphold the Fathers’ principles. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prevents the government from making any laws that hold one religion over another (Procon.org). Based on this clause, the Pledge should not have been able to have “under God” added to it, so it is only rational that the phrase is removed. Though at least 80% of Americans support keeping it in the Pledge, one of the key components of American democracy is upholding the rights of the minority as well as the majority (DemocracyWeb.org). As shown, the will of 80% of Americans, who are presumably Christian, should not be able to silence the will of the other 20%, especially considering all people are supposed to recite the
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
Not to mention this was also not the first rewrite of the Pledge, but is the first rewrite of the Pledge to cause such a dilemma. It should be deemed inappropriate wording for a nation with diversity in all aspects in the view of the fact that what is supposed to unite us is actually separating us. A simple solution would be to either not say the Pledge or remain silent while others utter the words “under God”, but individuals may feel urged by peer pressure or otherwise viewed as un-American (57).
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 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.
In the essay “Why the Pledge of Allegiance should be Revised,” Gwen Wilde argues that the Pledge of Allegiance should be altered to better fit the image of Americans.Wilde states that the phrase “under God” should be removed due to the fact that only 70 to 80 percent of Americans “say they are affiliated with some form of Christianity,” and that the other 20 to 30 percent are unable to say the phrase “in good faith.” Wilde wrote her essay for a composition course at Tufts University. The following is a summary of her essay.
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
Seventy-three years ago, Congress put the United States in a difficult situation. It concerned the Pledge of Allegiance. They decided to add the phrase “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance which started a great amount of controversy among people. Some people argument that since “under God” was never a part of the original Pledge of Allegiance and many US citizens don't believe in a god at all. Any pledge they may make 'under god' would be irrational and irrelevant. But the rest have a different idea about the problem. They believe the U.S. is a nation founded by religious persons and Americans are joined by great ties to multiple religions, so there should be no separation of church and state. They want to keep the “Under God” in the pledge. Gwen Wilde, a student at Tufts University, explains this issue in her essay, “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised”. She says “the addition of the words ‘under God’ is inappropriate, and they are needlessly
“The words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 to show the world the stark contrast between the United States of America and the Communist regime.” The words show the relationship between our country and our social system. This also shows that more than half of the country approved adding in the words “under god.” “The men who created our government were men of strong faith.” The men who created the government understood the rights that we inherit from God. Although our freedom does not come from government but, being a Christian in the government must of helped America get its freedom. In 1954, 80% of the country supported having “Under God” in the pledge, so it should
Socialist minister Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in August 1892. In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. Then in 1954, President Eisenhower encourages Congress to add the words "under God." Communist threats during that time period lead to the issue of whether those words should be added. This resulted in the pledge that many American citizens know and say today: "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." This pledge states the federal government’s promises to all American citizens. Since our Founding Fathers declared the United States’ independence from Great Britain on July fourth, 1776, American politicians have hailed our country as both a beacon and leading exemplar of individual liberty and freedom. Although the pledge states “...liberty and justice for all,” the United States has not lived up to the promise of freedom and the claim in the Pledge of Allegiance because it does not apply to every citizen, even though that is what the Pledge of Allegiance promises; immigrants were, and still are, mocked and discriminated against, and certain genders, races and religions are not given the same rights as others and are treated differently.
All throughout the United States, people recite the pledge of allegiance but what they do not see is that the nation was not exactly built on religion itself. American Evangelicals hold a strong belief that the United States was formed through traditional Christian ideals and look to the invocation of God's words in pieces of government. After all, with words like "God and "our creator," one may assume that traditional Christian values were upheld in the creation of the United States political system. However, because of the Enlightenment movement, roughly most of the founding fathers were not practicing Christians. The founding fathers often dabbled in skepticism of theocratic dogma and stood for religious toleration. America's founding fathers were influenced by a kind of
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.
According to Christina Sterbenz with Business Insider, “In 1954, the words “under god” were put in the pledge by President Dwight, Eisenhower's and Congress’s urgings”(1). People Have thought those words to be unconstitutional to one's freedom of religion by promoting christianity as the United States’s one and only religion but considering there are many different types of religion this isn't the case. The words aren't taking any rights from anyone “Under God” was put into the pledge to separate america from the other surrounding country. Furthermore president Eisenhower was the one who signed the bill once give the chance to again because the first initial bill was declined.
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
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.
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).