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…
God” creates between religion and patriotism. For students who feel uncomfortable with the personal affirmation and remain silent during the Pledge, it is as if they “can’t pledge their loyalty to the nation without pledging their belief in the existence of God” (Rourke, p.42). Laycock also sheds light on the context of God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
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
religion. One aspect that Laycock failed to mention was one of Sekulow’s strongest arguments, that “no one can be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance” (Rourke, p.41). The fact that students are not required to say the Pledge does alleviate some of the pressure to conform, however, it does not negate the fact that they must hear their fellow peers recite the controversial phrase “under God” in synchronized unison each and every morning. Sekulow agrees that students shouldn’t be forced to say the Pledge but further explains that “acknowledging the historical significance of how our rights are derived in the the foundation of America is correct” (Rourke, p.49) implying that the Pledge of Allegiance has no religious context, rather a historical context. Sekulow justifies the phrase “under God” by associating it to the Lockean concept of unalienable, God-given rights. Although this idea gave birth to the foundation of our Constitution and ultimately the country which we live in, it does not override the establishment clause of the first amendment. Thus it is unsuitable for the government to make a historical reference with religious implications with no regard to their constituents whom adhere to monotheistic religions or are atheist and will feel out casted and uncomfortable by the government’s preference for a religion which is not theirs.
The daughter of an atheist, Michael A. Newdow, attended public school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California, where teachers started school days by leading students in a voluntary narration of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge included the phrase “under God”, which was added to it in 1994 through a Congressional act. The atheist sued the school district in federal district court in the state on the basis that making students listen to the phrase even if they were not willing to participate was an infringement on the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He had argued that his right to influence the religious views of his daugh...
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 ...
In a modern civilization, all three—religion, democracy and international good faith—complement and support each other” (Franklin D. Roosevelt: State of the Union message). This statement supported the idea that religion is associated with a well-functioning government. However, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education it was stated that, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach” (Hugo Black).
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 statement, “under God” has caused much controversy and has created a distinct line between the supporters and non supporters of the pledge. America, which famously provides one with true equality, ironically has a pledge that goes against its doctrine and foundations. The changes that occur throughout the years to the pledge that results in its undeniable controversy and losing value. The adjustments lead to the pledge’s undeniable ambiguity and the nation should revert to its previous 1924 pledge.
Many students all across America stand and salute to the flag every morning and repeat these words, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, To the republic for which it stands, one nation, Under God, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” There are controversy behind these words of historical allegiance, and that is why many people are refusing to stand for the pledge. This nation was founded upon freedom and liberties, and with those liberties comes with the freedom to choose your religion. The words “Under God”
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.
I’d like you to all stand up and recite the pledge of allegiance along with me please. I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America. To the nation, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Now I ask you, how many of you do not believe in a God? You see, the pledge of allegiance has been indoctrinated into us since elementary school. We are blindly following an oath of loyalty to our country, expected to recite what we may or may not believe in. We come from many different backgrounds and many different religions, and who has the right to tell us what we believe in and what we don’t? No one. The pledge of allegiance should not be forced on anyone because it violates key first amendment rights, is a form of brainwashing, and a feature of a totalitarian state.
In almost every American school, students are required to say the Pledge of Allegiance. By doing this, they are forced to utter the two words that confess the authority that an ultimate being has over the nation they live in. Children are being taught every day that America is a country centered on God and a Christian nation. By making them say the pledge, the questio...
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
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.
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.
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