I Pledge Allegiance to a Monotheistic God Essay Example

did refer to the flag as "my flag". In an effort to prevent the confusion of immigrant children of their true homeland, the words changed to "the Flag of the United States of America" in 1924 (The U. S. Pledge).

The phrase, "under God", was not added until 1954 during the height of the Cold War between the U. S. and the Soviet Union (The U. S.

Pledge). The United States added the phrase to differentiate itself from the "godless atheistic communistic Soviets" (The U. S. Pledge).Even the original body language of the pledge changed, due to the original "stiff, uplifted right hand salute" comparing to the gesture of Nazi Germany in the time of Hitler (The U. S.

Pledge). The Pledge has adapted as the United States has adapted and has begun to distinguish itself as a nation. Moreover, it has become a representation of its nationalism and loyalty to the country, clearly shown in the current gesture of the pledge with the right hand held over the heart, similar to a promise. Eventually, it would be said in every school nationwide as token to the country's bravery and devotion.In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that students had the obligation to say the pledge (Johnson).

Only three years later in 1943 would the pledge be questioned, eventually becoming not mandatory in schools due to the phrase "under God" (Johnson). In 2002, the controversy of the Pledge of Allegiance would again bring up an effort to declare the Pledge of Allegiance as "unconstitutional" (The U. S Pledge). The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals believed that the pledge violated the First Amendment's notion that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (The U. S. Pledge).

In the First Amendment it shows that the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question. The Court gradually abandoned its strict belief-conduct distinction, and became more lenient in determining when a uniform, nondiscriminatory requirement needed a government mandate for citizens or when they allowed exceptions for citizens whose religious scruples forbid compliance (Free Exercise).The practice of teachers leading students in the pledge which acknowledges God seems to promote religion, in fact a monotheistic religion (The U. S. Pledge).

However, the phrase which acknowledges God pertains differently to every individual. It does refer to the existence of a single deity, who is omnipotent and omniscient (Johnson). It also assumes that the majority of Americans believe in the existence of a God and that the United States predominantly believes in Christ (Johnson).However, the numbers of the Christian community continue to plummet. In a survey conducted by researchers at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, the percentage dropped from 88% in 1954 to 76% in 2008 (Johnson).

In contrast, other non-Christian religious groups steadily increase. Data has shown that 27% of Americans do not wish to have a religious funeral which shows a general lack of attachment to religion (Johnson). Other groups such as Deists, Buddhists, and Jews oppose the phrase "under God" in the pledge (Johnson).Deists believe that God created the universe and then left and no longer remains here, therefore, the phrase does not agree (Johnson). Buddhists do not believe in a "personal God" and many Jews

oppose any government involvement in religion (Johnson).

The three member panel of the 9th Circuit of Appeals drew to question this separation between church and state. This court covers most of the West Coast including: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Organ and Washington (Flap after Court).This case and conflict began by a California man who objected to his daughter being compelled to listen to her second grade classmates recite the pledge in her elementary school in Elk Grove United School District (Flap after Court). The decision, passed by a majority vote of 2-1, ruled that the pledge did not agree with the First Amendment (Flap after Court). They noted that students cannot be forced to recite the pledge, but they emphasized that, even when the pledge is voluntary, the school participates in state endorsement of religion because it requires the teachers, who advise the students, to recite the pledge (The U.

S. Pledge).The father, Michael Newdow, believed that the practice appeared "coercive" and that children view the pledge as a prayer and the practice of it appears as a harmful bribe to children and parents of children whose beliefs and values conflict with the article (The U. S. Pledge).

Naturally pleased with the decision and agreeing that the Pledge went against the First Amendment, he wanted to keep fighting to support the Constitution ('Under God'). However, the founders of our country and constitution would not likely agree with the court's decision and probably would roll in their grave at the notion of diminishing traditional patriotism.The court also found it unacceptable because it leads those that do not believe in a "God" to think

they do not belong and do not act as true members of the community politically and socially ('Under God'). Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt consisted of the majority vote stating that the pledge enforced religion by the state (Nieves). They emphasized the age of the schoolchildren and their manipulability in their classroom environment (Nieves).

He wrote that "leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is 'one nation under God' is as objectionable as making them say 'we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation under Vishnu', a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion" (Flap after Court). This provides exactly a reason why the Pledge exercises freedom of religion! "God" means many different things to many different people and when a person reciting the pledge reaches that point, they should fill in their own personal blank.The 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned appellate court because it forms many liberal and activist opinions, which over exaggerate areas such as civil and environmental rights (Flap after Court). This is not Michael Newdow's first attempt to declare the pledge unconstitutional. Newdow's first lawsuit in 2000 was dismissed where he called the pledge "a religious idea that certain people don't agree with", and he sued the school district, Congress, and President Clinton (Flap after Court).The ruling in 2002, although it passed in majority vote, had responses that were just as against the decision.

President Bush, according to the press secretary, had called the ruling "ridiculous" (Flap after Court). From the White House's standpoint, the decision had no support and

did not "sit well" to the President and presumably most of the American people ('Under God'). Politicians of all political stripes faxed to reporters their reasons for condemning the decision and it was called "the worst ruling of any federal appellate court in history" (Nieves).Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle in 2002 called it "just nuts" (Flap after Court). Missouri's own representative Richard Gephardt said "the decision does not make good sense to me.

.. I think the decision is poorly thought out. That's why we have other courts to look at decisions like that. I hope it gets changed" ('Under God'). Christopher Landau, an appellate lawyer and former clerk for Supreme Justices, believed that the Supreme Court would reverse the decision (Nieves).

In their heart of hearts, I don't think the justices would ever think that this kind of practice is unconstitutional ... this is a tradition and that it is primarily ceremonial" (Nieves). Senator Charles Grassley called the decision "crazy" and "outrageous" ('Under God'). He also said that the decision lacked "so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election" ('Under God').

This was obviously shown in both the House and the U. S. Senate. The Senate, at the time debating a military defense bill, took time to pass a unanimous resolution, condemning the court decision to show support for the Pledge of Allegiance ('Under God'). The House members (100 of the 150) gathered at the steps of the Capitol to say the

pledge defiantly, the same place many of them had stood to sing "God Bless America" after the September 11th terrorist attacks ('Under God').

However, the case was not a unanimous ruling.The opposing judge, Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, had plenty to say and disagreed with the overall opinion and decision. "God Bless America" had once been a song that congressmen had sung in honor of those dead in a national tragedy, but now according to Fernandez, "'God Bless America and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware! ('Under God') The phrase "In God We Trust" even calls into question the use of our current currency ('Under God). But Fernandez emphasizes that these phrases have no tendency to form a distinct religion for the country, except those who want all semblance of religion out of the public life entirely. He believed that based on the ruling of the pledge that even the album of all our patriotic songs will be prohibited (Flap after Court).

Traditional references of patriotism establish everything within our nation.In Ohio, the federal appeals court found that Ohio's motto, "With God, all things are possible" proved constitutional and did not endorse Christianity when the motto are the words of Jesus Christ himself (Flap after Court). The Supreme Court begins each session with the phrase "God save the United States and this honorable court" (Flap after Court). The Declaration of Independence refers to God at least four times and even now Congress begins their sessions with

a prayer each day (Flap after Court).

Let us not forget the use of the phrase "So help me God" when judges and the president swear into office (Flap after Court).Kit Bond, a local Senator for Missouri, wrote after the ruling, "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents? " (Flap after Court) Everyone in the country concluded that immediate action had to be taken. After the decision, U. S. Attorney John J Vincent said his office revisited the decision, agreeing to consult with the Department of Justice in Washington to overturn the decision and eventually the decision ruled for an appeal in the Supreme Court ('Under God').On March 24, 2004, the Justices had finally heard the argument over the Pledge of Allegiance case and they ruled that Dr.

Newdow did not have standing and the case closed without questioning its content (The U. S Pledge). The Elk Grove Independent School District claimed that saying the pledge appeared voluntary, however saying "under God" does not express a religious statement in the first place and it does no harm. It merely exemplifies a patriotic expression and a "reference to God in the utterance in the vein of a 'ceremonial deism'" (The U.

S. Pledge).However, increasingly school districts become similar to Elk Grove Independent. After the 911 terrorist attacks multiple states passed bills to make the oath mandatory, including Missouri, but due to recent issues of religion, schools steadily increase to become more lenient to original policies (Nieves). As of October 2009, 26 states let the students have the option of opting out to say the pledge

and more states allow this and even the possibility to leave the room (State Requirements). Missouri currently allows students to have the option (State Requirements).

However, politicians, superintendents, teachers, parents, even students forget the true birth of the pledge and its origins even with the phrase "under God". Francis Bellamy originally wrote it for schoolchildren to celebrate and honor the anniversary of this great nation and Eisenhower only kept the tradition strong by adding the words "under God". He differentiated us from the chaotic global world around us and focused the pledge entirely on the pride of our country, making sure children understood this. Under God" followed the words "one nation" and further completed the thought of nationalism. Eisenhower proclaimed, "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedicated of our Nation and our people to the Almighty" ('Under God') This Almighty for every child represents something different, and that shows why our nation is not only diverse, but strong.

Not one ideology, but many, that unify America as a nation of patriotism and belief. Under God" does not have to mean anything in particular, but just belief and faith: to our nation as a whole, to the leaders of our country, to the promise of the American dream, or even to the workings of a higher being that promote freedom. By swearing allegiance to the flag, one swears to the values which the flag stands: unity, liberty, justice and faith. Reciting the Pledge may appear to enforce religious beliefs, and it may create a risk for public schools with different beliefs

and values, but imagine the loss of patriotism for those children who cannot experience the benefits of Pledge.These thirty-one words symbolize much of this country. Only two words create controversy, which prevent many of our schools from saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

In a Massachusetts town, Arlington High School not only did not say the pledge, but they did not posses any American Flags (Starnes). Educators worried that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it, although plenty supported saying it at the school (Starnes). Even students formed petitions and had them signed by popular lawmakers such as Senator John Kerry and Senator Joe Lieberman (Starnes).However, the instillation of the recitation of the pledge failed due to a tie between the committee voting on the issue (Starnes). Many of the students and members of the community could not believe that something so traditional in American society received so much disrespect (Starnes). The school district failed to see past the words "under God" and should have focused on the great detail of patriotism in the oath.

They have "basically cast aside what our country is founded on" (Starnes).All in all, the Pledge of Allegiance should be taught to all students and memorized as part of American history and civics (Bonavita). For expressing patriotism and using our rights, citizens and students should, at least, have the option to say the pledge every morning. Similar to having the option to vote, Americans have the right to make these gestures as free people, freely expressing allegiance to their country and support for its symbols (Bonavita). Government works toward allowing religious freedoms and options, but only to

a certain extent.

In recent years, in the case of the United States v. Lee, the Court denied the Amish exemption from compulsory participation in the Social Security system and taxes. They objected the notion that payment of taxes by Amish employers and employees were exempt because of their religious beliefs. Accepting their belief as true, the Court nonetheless held that the governmental interest compelled the people and therefore had justification for the burdening of religious beliefs. The vitality of the system of the United States of America requires a compulsory payment of taxes (Free Exercise).

Although this decision did not allow paying taxes as an option, it had similarities to the decision for the recitation of the Pledge. For a citizen to be a citizen they have to follow the Constitution. Citizens have rights, but the reasoning behind their rights comes from their loyalty to their country and their duties, such as paying taxes to receive liberties like freedom of religion. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is symbolic speech and declining to speak it, exercises freedom of speech, another right of citizens in the United States.However, with everything given in our country, it should at least allow an option for those who can see past the unneeded controversy.

Symbolic patriotism and true meaning flows through its text and beyond its words. Richard W. Riley, the Secretary of Education in 1998, once wrote, "Public schools can neither foster religion nor preclude it. Our public schools must treat religion with fairness and respect and vigorously protect religious expression as well as the freedom of conscience of all other students.

In so doing our public schools reaffirm the First

Amendment and enrich the lives of their students" (Religion in U. S. ). Allowing the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance allows a fair option for all students because there is a choice presented for them: those who believe that it goes against their beliefs can choose not to recite it, and those who wish to participate in the patriotic action may do so.

As with anything in the United States, an option should be given, and the conscious of all students should be represented.The entire demographic should be considered. Therefore, the Pledge of Allegiance allows the freedom of both speech and religion because all groups have just treatment as citizens with obligations and rights. Regardless of the facade that "under God" has contrived through controversy, the Pledge of Allegiance exercises freedom of religion because its content symbolizes our national patriotism, and students in public schools have the right to choose to speak it or not.