Knights of Columbus Brief

If you think about it, you have probably been saying the Pledge of Allegiance everyday since first grade. When you initially learnt it, you didn’t even know what it meant and by the time you did understand it, you said it by pure rote. No one questioned it, but why should they? It doesn’t take much energy to stand up and recite a short verse everyday. However do you say these significant words with any sincerity? But stop and think for a second, why are we required to start each school day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Don’t you think it is about time to understand why exactly we say the Pledge? Is it to honor our country? Is it to respect our freedom? Is it to hail 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,

"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

The 14th Amendment of the United States constitution guarantees that, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S Constitution, Sec. 1). This amendment gives the citizens of the United States their basic human rights and the process that must be taken accounted for in any given court cases. No individual born in the United States should be stripped from their rights no matter the circumstances, for example the skin color, race, religious beliefs or sexuality preferences should interfere. The Constitution is a document that was signed on September 17, 1787 for the nation in order to solve any pre-occurring disagreements that were bound to happen soon (“Constitution Faqs”). The document establishes the rights that are given to all U.S citizens laying out their rights, the freedoms that they are granted, and the series of events that were to occur in the court of law. When the Constitution was signed into effect many people at that time period had a hard time adjusting to the new laws and regulations. Despite the new laws, many would still abide their own personal traditions and not follow the new established laws. This Mentality that many had would continue to happen for the next couple of decades to come. For example,

The Knights of Columbus organization has been around for over 133 years, it was founded on March 29, 1882. Michael J. McGivney, a Catholic priest, founded the Knights of Columbus in New Haven, Connecticut. He gathered a group of men from St. Mary's Parish for an organizational meeting on October 2, 1881 and the Order was accepted under the laws of the state of Connecticut on March 29, 1882. Although the first councils were all in that state, the Order spread throughout New England and the United States in later years. According to the KC website, by 1889, there were 300 councils with 40,000 knights. Twenty years later, there were 230,000 knights in 1,300 councils.

The first amendment was ratified in 1791. The first amendment gives people the rights to religion, freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition. As many things in life the first amendment has its positives and negatives. For instance people who have other beliefs can now go out and practice those beliefs. Before it wasn’t like that, you had no choice of what religion you wanted. If you were born a Christian that’s what you would have to be. Now Christian’s become Catholics or Catholics become Christians. A negative about the right to practice religions is others practice religions for the wrong things. For instance they join Islamic religions to hurt others not saying it’s always the case it has happened. What I would do to make it better would be that if you would like to change you’re religious beliefs you’d have to take an oath. With the oath being you are practicing a new religion for a good cause. It doesn’t intervene with the amendment because they are still allowed to change there religion. Although freedom of religion is not what the amendment says. Colin Kaeprnjck was hated for not standing up for the flag. He was refused the first amendment. He did not want to stand up for a country that has shown no remorse to people of color. Civil disobedience by David Thoreau was written for a reason. Rules are meant to be broken, you should be allowed to not stand up for the national anthem of you don’t want to. Now we have the right of freedom of speech, some say what’s so great about that we won’t be heard anyway. Their wrong freedom of speech has helped us pass so many laws we didn’t even know about. Freedom of speech is used to fight for change all the rights we have today wouldn’t have been without the help of free speech. Freedom of speech is not only the ability to speak but also to hear others and what they believe. A negative out come on freedom of speech would be that people will feel over powered and believe they can overcome anything. They’ll think they are always going to get it their way and when they don’t chaos will occur. It has changed over the years before speaking out would lead to you getting arrested, beat, etc. I would try and change people’s perspective on how everything we fight

“The Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati is an apostolic Catholic community of women religious that exists to carry out the Gospel of Jesus Christ through service and prayer in the world” (qtd. in “About the Sisters of Charity”). The Sisters are led by their mission statement to be “[u]rged by the love of Christ and in the spirit of [their] founder, Elizabeth Ann Seton, [the] Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati strive to live Gospel values. [They] choose to act justly, to build loving relationships, to share [their] resources with those in need, and to care for all creation” (qtd. in “Mission Statement”). Through this mission, they dedicate themselves to “the education of children, care of orphans, the poor and the sick” (qtd. in “Sisters of Charity Cincinnati”). These values are exemplified in numerous ways but specifically have been shown with the creation of educational institutions, orphanages, and their selflessness during the civil war.

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

(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

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

Though the First Amendment nationally guarantees our right to free expression, the Fourteenth Amendment also champions our cause in the states by means of the due-process clause. The due-process clause states that "no state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" (Wilson). Until 1925, it was legal for the states to pass legislation prohibiting such forms of protest as symbolic speech because the Supreme Court had previosly denied that the due-process clause made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. However, in the case Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court decided that freedom of speech and of the press implicated the "fundamental personal rights" protected by the due-process clause, and the states could no longer breach through legislation those freedoms guaranteed to each individual (Wilson). This case established the precedence that state laws involving speech violate the freedom of expression guarantees of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, no matter how offensive or repugnant some forms of expression may be, that expression has strong and definite constitutional protections that cannot be encroached by the national or state governments. To create an amendment to weaken our civil liberties constitutes a means to further destroy the representation of our national symbol - the flag.

The first Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States

America today is permeated with natural law. Our founders were subscribers to natural law and believed that man’s inner morality can lead to sustaining a civil society. The forefathers of America were from different denominations that ranged from Presbyterian to Catholism. Some were even Deists. Even though their denominations varied, they all united under the idea that their Creator was the source of their reason (Levin 2009, 26). The result of these beliefs produced a religious liberty throughout the country. That liberty still stands today. Natural law, contrary to the thoughts of its non-supporters, does not make a country into a theocracy. Since God’s laws are universal, the creed of a person does not change the fact that they entitled to their God-given rights. The founders were extremely foresighted because they acknowledged that liberty is inseparable from religious liberty (Levin 2009, 29). Another example of how natural law is in America’s founding is the right for citizens to disobey man-made laws that tyrannical in nature. All laws that are not given by the consent of the governed have the potential to be overthrown. America’s Declaration of Independence even says that the people should go as far as overthrowing the government if it becomes too powerful (Levin

The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." The court also stated that, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms," the court explained, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore, that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol when it cannot mandate the status or feeling the symbol purports to represent." The Supreme Court found that the state's first interest of preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was not made. The state had not shown that the flag was in danger of being stripped of its symbolic value, the Texas court also decided that flag's special status was not endangered by Johnson's actions.

in the statement “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” which is explained to us here by this gentleman on this video by the history channel “that parliament in London, the king himself, the courts cannot interfere and take away our rights because the state can’t take power from us” (Qtd. in History) and “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” where the founding fathers are leaving out the biblical God and constructing a more deistic God of nature. David Barton acknowledges that article 7 of the constitution directly ties to the declaration of independence stating that “the declaration of independence sets forth the principles the constitution sets forth the operation” (Qtd. in Dallas) but fails to tell his audiences