Under God Should Stay In The Pledge Of Allegiance Essay

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.

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.

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

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.

(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

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.

A controversial issue I’ve seen pop up within the past few years, is that of the pledge of allegiance being said in classes. As with prayer in schools, the issue that people have is that they claim it is unconstitutional as the phrase “under god” violates the first amendment right to freedom of religion. The opposing view point argues that it is disrespectful and unpatriotic to not say the pledge, as people have died to protect us. Another point made against the view that it violates the first amendment, is that it only states “under god” not pointing to one specific religion. This debate has been going on since the early 2000’s. several appeals have been filed to the supreme court as seen in Newdow v. U.S. congress. Where Michael Newdow tried

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.

Newdow there have been four other cases filed against the pledge either fighting against it or for it. The words “under God”, stated within the Pledge of Allegiance creates a moral conflict because it has an influence on every American’s freedom of speech, freedom of religion, it defines the core values of our founding fathers and should not be removed from American’s daily lives.

The First Amendment is about the freedom of religion and being able for anyone to express what they believe if the government was forced to remove ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance it would violate the freedom of religion of those who do believe in God. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (“First”). If congress did make a law restricting the use of ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance it would be a breach in the rights of American citizens. Included in that is the complication of the fact of freedom of speech which in addition to freedom of religion is a part in the Amendment. “It [the First Amendment] guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely” (“First”). By not allowing citizens to say the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance would be breaking the inalienable rights of all American

“I pledge allegiance to my flag and for the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” This was the original pledge, it should also be the current pledge. When President Eisenhower was in office in 1954, he made it law that “under God” was to be put in the pledge. It was not until Judge Alfred T. Goodwin argued that those two words violated one of the most important parts of the first amendment to many American citizens. Many people come to America to seek religious freedom. It is evident that “Under God” should be taken out of the pledge by showing that it goes against the first amendment, it has had an affect on our history, and it can confuse young kids in school.

Before examining both sides of the issue, the phrase, “under God” should not be in the Pledge of Allegiance. Including the term, “under God”, violates the idea of separation of church and state, which is deeply rooted in the U.S Constitution. Now after analyzing both sides of the debate, I still support removing the phrase, “under God”, but the reasons for doing so has changed. For example, despite opposing viewpoints claiming that the U.S federal government and documents have many allusions to religion and God, Founding Father Thomas Jefferson firmly believed that religion should not be involved with politics (ProCon). The term “under God” originally did not exist in the Pledge of Allegiance; it was only in 1954 when President Dwight Eisenhower

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).