The Controversial Issue of Religion in Schools Essay

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

There have been several versions of The Pledge and the one that we currently recite today was revised back in 1954 when president Eisenhower reacted to the communist threat. The original version was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, who had hoped that countries around the world would recreate their own versions. Now, in most states reciting The Pledge at school is a state law. The Pledge consist of students standing up, facing the American flag, placing their right hand over their heart, and saying the words “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.” In other places when The Pledge is being recited its considered

(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

The traces of the Civil War’s impact on the pledge can be noticed while examining the pledge closely, the quote “one nation indivisible” represents the outcome of the Civil War. An outcome, which proves that the United States, which has many differences in opinion, will not divide for any reason. Although many researchers have doubts about the true author and question whether Francis Bellamy or James Upham wrote the pledge, most people give Francis Bellamy the credit for writing it. According to some sources, Bellamy decided to create the Pledge of Allegiance rather than a salute like many people suggested “because it was a stronger expression of loyalty--something particularly significant even 27 years after the Civil War ended” (Pledge of Allegiance). The Bellamy salute or also known as the Flag salute originally consisted of your “hand resting fist outward from the chest, then the arm extending out from the body” , but later as Hitler came into power in Germany, the salute began raising concerns among many Americans (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs). The Bellamy salute seemed to resemble the famous Nazi salute, so to deal with the problem, Congress, in 1942, decided to officially replace it with the known hand-over heart gesture that Americans do every day. As the pledge began to change, many people began to forget Bellamy’s original intentions for creating the pledge

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

The debate on religion in the public school is complicated by the fact that there are two clauses dealing with religion in the First Amendment (Warnick, 2012). The Establishment Clause, which disallows the establishment by the government of any particular religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits the state from proscribing the practice of religion, are a source of