Why The Pledge Should Be Revised By Gwen Wilde Analysis

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.)

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.

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

In the first amendment, it is stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof.”. From this, it made clear that the founding fathers’ original intent was for the Government to take a neutral position with respect to religion; the Government was not to favor any one religion over another. “Almighty God we acknowledge our independence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parent, our teachers and our Country. Amen.” In 1951, that prayer was conducted in class every morning in all New York public schools as ordered by New York State Board of Regents; it was called a “nondenominational prayer”. The short prayer was created with the intent of developing students’ moral

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

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

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.

In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment 's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

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

However, to overturn this saying, one can simply point out that this official motto is the result of the law approved in 1957, therefore, it has no influence on the national foundation. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” As John Adams mentioned in the Address to the Military, no matter what people’s religious beliefs are, government would not be based on religion, include