The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment clearly reflects the Founding Father’s attempt to avoid the British practice of an intertwined state and church. It is evident that this clause was put into place to avoid government entanglement with religious affiliations. Having spent the majority of my life reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school, I never realized the government’s failure to comply with the Establishment Clause and ultimately defy the constitution. Having read both sides of the argument, I found Laycock’s assertions to be particularly convincing while Sekulow’s claims were less compelling. Laycock’s strongest argument is that the Pledge of Allegiance “asks for a personal affirmation: I pledge allegiance to one nation under God” (Rourke, p.41). Unlike “In God We Trust” which is etched onto each American coin, the Pledge of Allegiance requires children to profess their faith in God each morning. Whereas “you don’t have to read and mediate” (Rourke, p.41) the text on the coins which can easily be ignored when counting the change in your pocket, it is significantly harder to avoid the daily ritual of reciting the Pledge. Laycock furthers his claim by recognizing the link that “Under …show more content…
He recognizes that the controversial phrase only contains two words but explains that the combination of the preposition “under” implies that God holds some sort of power and authority over a whole nation. If one nation is under God, as the Pledge of Allegiance states, then that must imply that there is only one God “and if there is only one God, then the God of the pledge is the one true God” (Rourke, p.41). This conclusive reasoning entails that all other supposed gods around the world are false gods. Thus it is clear to see that the government is in definite violation of the first amendment by relaying preference for a certain God and thus a certain
The Supreme Court case in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow result in a unanimous ruling that the phrase “under God” may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as narrated in public school classrooms. The court made the decision because the atheist father did not have grounds to sue the school district on behalf of his daughter. While the ruling was made on the Flag Day, it did not meet the clear endorsement of the constitutionality of the pledge as sought by President Bush and leaders of Republican and Democratic Parties in Congress. Notably, the eight judges who participated in the case had voted to turn over a federal appeals court decision in 2003 that would have prohibited the use of the phrase in public schools as an infringement of the constitutional outlaw on state-sponsored religion. A majority of these justices i.e. five made that ruling on procedural grounds in which Michael A. Newdow, the atheist, did not have legal reasons to sue the school district (Lane, 2004).
In the 2008 the United States Census Bureau, Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population, The Christian faith proved to be the more dominating religion out of all religions. So it would seem the words “Under God” would be beneficial for the majority, the Pledge of Allegiance allures and supports the loyalty of the majority of citizens. The nonbelievers of religion have had the right to not recite the pledge since 1943 but have been asked to quietly stand while the believers recite the pledge in its entirety. Even though leaving out “Under God” is not a difficult task we can clearly see a division has now developed, opposite of bringing the people together. Another example that shows the pledge allures and supports a loyalty to the majority of citizens, the acceptance and encouragement to keep ...
Gwen Wilde wrote an essay on “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should be Revised.” In this essay, Gwen believes that the words “under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Gwen informs us that the original Pledge did not include “under God” and the words were not added until 1942, therefore, the words can easily be removed. Although some changes have been made to make it clear that the Pledge of Allegiance is for the United States Gwen believes that the words “under God” do not show any support for our country and only make those who do not believe in God feel uncomfortable. Therefore, Gwen believes that “under God” is not appropriate for the Pledge and does not show that we are a Nation that is “indivisible.”
First, I would like to talk about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. Many people today recite the Pledge of Allegiance but do not know the history that took place behind it. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written more than a century ago. The original pledge was: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all . The flag serves as a symbol of our country and its proud traditions of freedom and equal opportunity. In the 1920s, the National Flag Conferences replaced the phrase “my Flag” with “the Flag of the United States of America.” In 1954, Communist threats occurred causing Congress to add the words under God to the pledge. Then 12 years later, Congress reviewed the Pledge of Allegiance and added the words “Under God .” While reciting the Pledge of Allegiance it should be recited by standing placing your
Do you normally repeat words and phrase, without fully understanding the meaning, just because people tell you to? Well many of us growing up in the United States are guilty of this and we don’t even realize it. Ever since the first day of kindergarten students are taught to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before class, and students who refused to do so were ostracized by the rest of the students in the class. The pledge was put in place for citizens of the United States to show their patriotism towards this country, but as five year olds we were just doing what the teachers had told us to do. We didn’t understand the actually meaning of the words we were saying which completely defeats the purpose of the pledge in the first place.
Every American citizen must show loyalty to our nation, but do they have to show loyalty to “God”? When saying the pledge, one must elicit the words “one nation under God.” This not only contradicts freedom of religion, but it draws attention away from the purpose of pledging loyalty to America.
The pledge of allegiance originally did not include the words, “Under God”, until 1954. This was to combat the horrors of a godless communism. But what does our first amendment rights state? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”. By including the words “Under God”, America has recognized one or more religions over others. Doesn’t it violate the key beliefs of our country? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? All our patriots can talk about is our freedom, but they are willing to manipulate information they give to the public, therefore, controlling the beliefs of the population. Religious toleration is one of the main reasons we created this country. People of all religions came to America escaping persecution, and here we are, trying to violate their freedom of religion.
We first look to Gwen’s essay entitled “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised.” The main idea is her rejection of the words “Under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance. She adamantly believes it to be divisive, and even un-American. With this in mind, she begins her essay by providing us with a little history on the matter. It’s explained to us that the Pledge did not originally include the aforementioned phrase, and in fact contained no reference to any deity. As Gwen believes, the inclusion of the phrase is “an odd addition indeed to a Nation that is said to be ‘indivisible’.” She questions what it means to be a patriotic American. According to her, patriotic Americans aren’t all religious. An important note to her, as she then goes on mention how silence during the Pledge can lead to accusations of being unpatriotic. These accused are, as Gwen says, “somehow not fully an American, maybe even un-American.” Yet her argument is not so much about the constitutionality of the Pledge; an assumption she specifically r...
I do not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. This is a right, shown by the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette decision that students have the right to refuse to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance ("West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette"). This 1943 case remains relevant to students today, who do not stand for one reason: they will not pledge themselves to a flag and a country that claims liberty and justice for all but fails to come through. It is clear that America has not achieved and does not achieve its promises of freedom for all, as demonstrated by numerous historical continuities.
Our country’s Pledge of Allegiance is an example of people’s lack of respect for one another’s rights and beliefs. The phrase “One Nation Under God” has become a huge conflict dividing people in our country. People do not want to be singled out and be labeled “less patriotic.” They want the Pledge of Allegiance changed to be more politically
There is an impression throughout America that the Pledge is required. However, it is not mandatory for one to perform the Pledge. Davis describes a court case that dealt with this issue, “In June 1943, in West Virginia vs. Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled that schoolchildren could not be forced to recite the pledge if their religious beliefs did not allow it” (Davis 661). Although it is not required for citizens to perform the Pledge, it may be upsetting to some that the Pledge only mentions one religions deity.
Before analyzing the above described controversy, we must first examine the history of the Pledge itself. Written by Francis Bellamy, it was originally titled the “Pledge to the Flag” and was created in the late 1800’s to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America. It originally read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all” (McCarthy, 2005). Changes were later made to include the words “of the United States” and “of America” to indicate which flag was being referenced. The final changes to the Pledge came in 1954 when it officially became titled the “Pledge of Allegiance” and the words “under God” were added after “one nation.” This addition to the Pledge was meant to support the United States as a religious nation. While signing the law to put this change into effect, President Eisenhower said, “In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war” (McCarthy, 2005).
To understand why these two men are writing about The Godless Constitution, an approach on what they believe are America’s views is needed. In the first paragraph of the first chapter they state that they believe America argues over foolish things. They have come to the conclusion that Americans misinterpret the intentions of the constitution in providing a government for the people of the United States. They ask the question, “Is America a Christian Nation?”. They do not condemn religion of any sort but merely state that one God is not in the constitution. One main focus is on the founders of the document. A major point made is that even though most of the founders were Christian and lived by Christian principles, the envision was of a godless government. Their reasoning behind this idea was not of irreverence but confidence in religion too serve civil morality without intruding into politics. They believe in letting humans exercise their free will to believe in a God or to reject the idea without their decision affecting their role in government.
Why would they put religoin in the pledge if everyone does not worship the same “God”? Some people may have more then one God or may not have a god at all, so if they took religoin out of school why do we still say the pledge? The words “under God” were added long after the pledge was written in 1954. It’s true people do not have to say “under god” while saying the pledge. However, it is our right not to be required to say the pledge at all. According to Longmen “Any one who is uncomfortable with saying ‘under God’ does not have to utter the phrase.” Not saying “under God” is not invidious to God or anyone that contradict in God they just have their own belief. That is just to elucidate to the people that do not understand why people want to take the words “under God” out of the pledge. Everyone has the right to disagree with showing pride in the flag because they may have other beliefs. Kaepernick told Steve Wyche of NFL Miedia, “ To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way” (florio). Some people think the reason why people are juust laying on the cold stress id becausse of the police. Some people say “At the basketball game said that a sporting event was no place for the pledge” (Longmen). Its true because you can be patriotic, respectful and loyal without saying the pledge. However, you should try to show other people more respect by not conversing nor ambulating around while they are saying the
With the expeditious growth of the Internet, it became moderately easy for everyone to find and connect with the people who the same attentiveness, ambitions, or even ideas with them. Through that, many social networking, tribal politics, dating services are created in order to meet up those requirements. Robert Charles Wilson has illustrated this procedure of communication through his book, The Affinities. The book has a setting in the future, where technologies and science are evolved to a point that it can analyze, determine and match one person to their “appropriate” group. The main character, Adam Fisk, who paces the plot as the narrator, takes this as a life-changing-opportunity