Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised - Literature review Example

of the of the Article Analysis: “Why the Pledge of Allegiance should be revised” The author of the article entitled Why the Pledge of Allegiance should be revised is making salient points about why there is a need to revise or “reword” the Pledge of Allegiance. In the article, the author mentions about the inclusion of the phrase “under God” as ironical to the Pledge of Allegiance itself, contending that while there is no constitutional violation to the fact that under God does subtly carry out an “establishment of religion” – an act that is prohibited by the First Amendment – it is divisible in a sense that not all Americans believe in God. Also, the author points out the similarity of the case to the inclusion of the phrase “In God we trust” in the United States dollar; however, Wilde distinguishes this similarity as inverted as she contends that the focus is absolutely different: the In God we trust in US dollar is employed for business undertakings while under God in the Pledge of Allegiance is used in recitation of loyalty. While the author makes manifold convincing points in her article, there are three most salient points that should not be overlooked: (1) the phrase “under God” is descriptive of something; and that description, while does not attempt to establish a religion, creates a link to the deeply-embedded Christian heritage of America; (2) that “under God” and “In God do we trust” are phrases that are used distinctively for very different purposes; (3) Many Americans do not believe in God; as a matter of fact, “70 or 80% of the Americans are atheist” (Wilde 2). Therefore, there is more reason for the rewording of the Pledge of Allegiance as not everyone is willing to identify themselves with the included phrase. “Under God” is descriptive of something and it is divisive Since 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance reads: “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” (Djupe 329). Wilde is persuasive in the fact that the phrase “under God” is descriptive of something; and that description is something ironical to the intention of the pledge: notice the phrases “with Liberty and Justice for all” – the First Amendment of the United States constitution strongly prohibits the establishment of religion in any law that the Congress would intend to create. In this regard, it can be observed every American citizen, whether an permanent resident or a citizen, should be given complete justice and liberty, including religious liberty and the right to exercise their religious freedom; nevertheless, the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance is for every American citizen to recite, whether they are willing to do it or not, it breaks the intention of the pledge that there is justice and liberty for all considering that not everyone believes in God and yet everyone are deemed to recite it. Even if they choose to be silent in the phrase when reciting the pledge, why should they be silent in the first place? While Chief Justice Rehnquist calls the phrase “under God” as a “descriptive phrase”, he was not able to specify what the phrase is describing. Granting that the Chief Justice was right, for the sake of argument, it could then be inferred that the phrase is descriptive of monotheism - something that denies many non-Christian Americans to conform to the law; and thus, a political harassment of some sort. Since it is a pledge intended for the people of the United States of America, then no one is exempted from it, including atheists. By and large, the wordings have fallen short of the real character of America: a land that is free. How can a country that claims to be free, with “Justice and Liberty for all” would make an act that is discordant for its people? The solution may be just be a revision of the pledge itself and nothing more. “In God we Trust” vs. “Under God” There is an argument that can be created from the fact that the United States dollar has a phrase “In God We Trust” written on it. Oftentimes, there are contentions heard about this phrase and “Under God” as comparable; therefore, the phrase “under God” in the pledge should not bear anything so serious that would make a lot of Americans think that it is divisive. Wilde contends that “the situation really is very different” (3). Indeed, the situation is really very different considering the fact that the focus of is inversely proportional: the focus of the United States Dollar is business while the focus of the Pledge is a recitation of loyalty. The problem the argument that the two phrases are analogous is that in business, the phrase “In God We Trust” does not mean so much for the businessmen, investors, or bankers: what they are more concerned about is how their business is profiteering and the rate of the influx of money that comes in is the measure. Also, they do not tend to cling on certain emotional content that is embedded in the dollar as it does not contribute to their objectives. On the other hand, the Pledge of Allegiance is in a form of recitation. The focus now is bent on the significance of every word and the entire pledge altogether. Apparently, it is very difficult to suppress one’s understanding on the implications of the words and phrases that the person reciting it would not think about his personal feelings about the pledge. In other words, it would really form a provocative sentiment on the part of the person who is not a believer of God because the phrase “under God” is contrary to his personal belief, which is supposed to be respected, protected, and uphold by the constitution claiming to offer justice and liberty for all. Atheism and “under God” As aforementioned, Wilde states that “70 or 80% of the Americans are atheist” (2): this is probably the most important argument there is. The phrase “under God” is divisive in that fact that not all Americans believe in God i.e. Americans who are atheist. Although, there is a sense of generic content in the way the phrase is being used such that it is also used in other things such as money or slogans, public signage, etc. still it is contrary to “liberty and justice for all”. Not all Americans are fond of adopting spiritual weapons as a way to uphold and celebrate the religious heritage of the United States; therefore, “under God” does not totally work for atheists and non believers (Merriman 111). Also, with the inclusion of the phrase, the pledge presents a thematic significance of monotheism, which is direly prohibited by the First Amendment. In a nutshell, the article contains bold arguments that should not be discounted by the Congress. The pledge should be aligned with the real characteristic of America, that is, a land that is free; a land that gives liberty and justice for all. The claim of the United States as a land of free with justice and liberty for all will remain incomplete unless they finally revise the Pledge of Allegiance. Works Cited Djupe, Paul A. “Pledge of Allegiance.” Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics. Ed. Paul A. Djupe and Laura R. Olson. New York: Facts on File, 2003. Merriman, Scott. Religion and the Law in America: An Encyclopedia of Personal Belief and Public Policy, Volume 1. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2007. Print. Wilde, Gwen (n.d.). Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should be Revised [DOC]. Web. 11 December 2013 from Rickover Naval Academy Website. Read More