The Pledge Of Allegiance Pros And Cons

"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." Sounds familiar right? A typical weekday morning for an elementary or middle school child most likely begins with him or her reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge was created to convey America’s constitutional power and loyalty. Congress included the phrase "under God" to the pledge in the early 1950s.
Afterward, the pledge has been put up for debate on whether or not the phrase belongs in the pledge. The pledge is no longer thought of as a form of glorification, but an invasion on citizen’s morals or lack there of. “Under God” should not be removed

from the United States Pledge of Allegiance because the phrase is more of a statement of patriotism than a statement of religion. The pledge of allegiance has provided Americans with great gratification in our country, and to change the pledge now would be unnecessary. Here is why.
Atheists feel “Under God” Does Not Belong in the United States Pledge of Allegiance because they see the phrase as offensive, unconstitutional, and exclusive. Tony Mauro, a correspondent for the Supreme Court’s American Lawyer Media and Legal Times, wrote an article in 2003 about his view on the phrase. He said “When you are saying the pledge, you are not just reciting a nursery rhyme or passively handling a coin that has "In God We Trust" on it. You are actively promising belief in and loyalty to a set of values that include, thanks to those two words, monotheism. Not everyone believes in that value. If the First Amendment means anything, those who don't should not feel compelled to state that they do.” (20a).
According to "What's The Big Deal? The Unconstitutionality Of God In The Pledge Of Allegiance, an article written by John E. Thompson, the court ruling to remove the phrase stimulated an abrupt comeback from sponsors of the pledge (3).
Michael Newdow, an atheist man, sued his daughter’s school district and the United States Congress in the Supreme Court in early 2004. He basically argued that “under God” is a religious defense that defies the pact of the first amendment (freedom of religion). According to an article from Church & State, Newdow was highly victorious at first when a different panel of the court circuit agreed with him. Newdow said that his daughter's class saying the pledge has impaired her. He also said that he is an atheist and he feels that his daughter should not be forced to say the pledge of allegiance. (20b).
Unfortunately, according to Joan Biskupic’s article in USA Today, Five of the justices said Newdow did not have the right to legally to ban the pledge of allegiance in his daughter's school because he does not have custody of her, and Terrence Cassidy, lawyer for the Elk Grove school district, said "under God" is not unconstitutional. "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." (01a).
Atheists views on the why the phrase should be removed are understandable In The Battle Over the Pledge, Talise D. Moorer said “Bellamy's Pledge offended various groups from the start: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mennonites, among others, objected, as any of us might, to the idolatrous worship of the symbols of state power, and believed, as any religious person might, that saluting the flag contradicted their declared fidelity to God alone, a spiritual commitment that the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause protects.” (8).
However, “Under God” is not in any way unconstitutional. The phrase declares and promotes loyalty and unity in the United States. In the article Byrd Voted To Include ‘Under God’ In Pledge of Allegiance In 1954, Robert C. Byrd, the junior House lawmaker uses stern and dramatic tone when speaking to the judge and the jury of the Supreme Court. He said, “What are we coming to when we cannot speak God's name? Let them put me in jail. I recited the Pledge of Allegiance, and so has every other member of this body, time and time again. Come, judge, put us in jail!” He urged his fellow lawmakers to “waste no time in throwing this decision back in the face of these stupid judges.” (1-2).
In other words, he is saying that at some point everyone has recited the pledge knowing how he or she feels about it. If a person is condemned for saying “under God”, then everybody in the entire nation should be condemned as well, including the atheists. In addition, just like the first amendment promises freedom of religion, it also promises that citizens have freedom of speech meaning a person is allowed to choose what he or she can and cannot say. So, just because a Christian chooses to say recite the pledge with “under God” does not mean that an atheist has to say it also. Just like Newdow said, nobody should be forced to say something they feel uncomfortable saying.
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic delivers a plethora of supporters who want the pledge to stay as is in her article 'Under God' stays in Pledge. According to the article, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the child's mother, Sandra Banning, who has custody of their daughter, said that her daughter "believes in God and has no objection" (2).
In Lance Marrow’s essay God Knows What The Court Was Thinking, Marrow uses personal experience along with historical evidence to refute the opposing argument. The article basically ties everything together and explains why the phrase is not offensive. The article also explains why it would be foolish to remove the phrase seeing that children in school are told that the pledge is all about patriotism and loyalty to the United States.
In his essay, Marrow wrote, “The pledge became one of those gestures of an innocent and anodyne "ceremonial deism," like "In God We Trust." It's no big deal--not an organized religious agenda or otherwise a threat to the Constitution but rather a vague reassurance of collective goodwill. If you challenge the pledge, however, it becomes a big deal indeed, sacred, indispensable and not to be messed with.” (1).
The phrase “under God” has been in the pledge of allegiance since the early 1950s. Since then, people have been fighting over whether or not the phrase belongs in the pledge. Those who are opposed, atheists in particular, say that the phrase defies the first amendment because it forces people who do not believe in a God to feel excluded and uncomfortable.
The phrase is not unconstitutional and should stay in the pledge. The first reason is because the pledge is a word of honor, not a prayer. By reciting the pledge, Americans are simply saying words of agreement, not worship. Secondly, everyone in America has said the pledge at some point in his or her life. Whether they were a child, an adolescent, or an adult, the pledge has been recited. If someone had a problem with the way the pledge was written, someone should have spoken up a long time ago.
Thirdly, if it is okay to remove “under God” from the pledge because it is offensive to atheists, why not vote to remove words like “slut” because it is offensive to women or the “N-word” because it is offensive to African-Americans or the word “vegetable” because it is offensive to people with Rhett Syndrome or the “F-word” because it is offensive to people in general?
While an outnumbered group of citizens (atheists) are fighting against the pledge, they are still easily using the same money that has God written all over it. Some would call that hypercriticism. Why is it that atheists have no problem with God being on money, but when God is included in the pledge, suddenly God is offensive? What about the songs that citizens listen to? If "under God" is excluded from the pledge, then will the nation have to modify every single song with God in the lyrics?
Fourthly, as stated in the previous paragraphs, the pledge is an exercise of patriotism not religion.

Lastly, the words “under God” do not encourage any religion in particular. It does not encourage Christianity in general. The phrase can acknowledge any religion because “under God” is not specifying a particular God. If the phrase favored Christianity then the phrase would say “under Jesus Christ”.
As far as children are concerned, children are taught that the pledge means loyalty and honor. Children were not worried about the words "under God" because they were never taught to be concerned. Children also did not think that one phrase, meant that everyone in America needs to worship a particular God. Children are taught that words in the pledge stand for unity and justice.
In the case of Newdow, even if “under God” was removed from the pledge, his daughter would find God written or spoken somewhere else. In America, God is everywhere. God is written on the money people spend, in the songs people sing, etc. To take God out of just one thing would be

absurd.
The pledge was written to express America’s legal dominance as well as integrity. Congress included the phrase "under God" to the pledge in the early 1950s.
Eventually, citizens (atheists in particular) debated on whether or not the phrase should be removed from the pledge.

The pledge is no longer thought to be an honorary oath to the country, but and violation on citizen’s rights to speech and religion. “Under God” should not be removed from the pledge because there is nothing unconstitutional or biased about the phrase.
If atheists are so concerned about the pledge offending them, why not create their own pledge. If they created their own pledge, they do not have to include God and they would be allowed to say whatever they would like without faulting the entire United States for reciting something that they believe is offensive and demeaning. If the phrase were to be taken out the pledge, then everything that has God written on it such as money, song lyrics, etc. would need to be removed as well. That is a lot of work for an entire nation. Taking the phrase out the pledge would not be a good idea.

Works Cited
"Appeals Court Upholds Use Of 'Under God' In Classroom Pledge." Church & State 1
Apr. 2010: 1. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
"Byrd Voted To Include 'Under God' In Pledge Of Allegiance In
1954." CongressDaily 27 June 2002: 14.Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Joan, Biskupic. "'Under God' stays in Pledge." USA Today n.d.: Academic Search
Complete. Web. 4 Nov.

2014.
Mauro, Tony. "'Under God' Doesn't Belong In The Pledge." Church & State 56.6 (2003):
20. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Morrow, Lance. "God Knows What The Court Was Thinking." Time 160.2
(2002): 96. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Russo, Charles J. "The Supreme Court And Pledge Of Allegiance: Does God Still Have A Place In American Schools?."Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal 2 (2004): 301-330. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Sifton, Elisabeth. "The Battle Over The Pledge." Nation 278.13 (2004): 11-16. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Thompson, John E. "What's The Big Deal? The Unconstitutionality Of God In The Pledge Of Allegiance."Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 38.2 (2003): 563-597. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.