Under God Should Remain In The Pledge Of Allegiance

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.

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,

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

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

Every morning over 75 million students around the nation recite the Pledge of Allegiance verbatim (Digest of Education Statistics). If one walks up to one of these students and asks them about the meaning and the origin of this pledge, what would they say? Nothing. However, even though more than a million students recite these words every day, not more than half probably know the true meaning behind these words. One cannot deny the fact that most of these children just want to get this pledge “over with” to continue talking to their peers. The Pledge of Allegiance has gone through several changes since Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, wrote it in 1892. The pledge acts as a source of patriotism, national pride and controversy. The

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

Originally the Pledge of Allegiance did not carry the words “under God”. “The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an oath of loyalty to the national flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954” (Wikipedia). Additions to any thing are always made to make things better. No one makes an addition to something so important that it is stated everyday at every school, before every sports event, even before some ceremonies with the intent of defiling it; they make an addition only to perfect and complete it.

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).