Why We Are Not One Nation under God - Essay Example

“One Nation, Under God” The inclusion of a religious perspective in pledges creates an assumption that the United s is one nation under God. However, the original versions of the loyalty pledge did not include any religious affiliated quotes. The inclusion was included after the world wars. At this time, all nations had been scared on emanate attacks on them. At the time, the United States was enemies with Hitler who could do anything after the massacre of Jews. Religious leaders in the United States created an assumption that only turning to God would be the only possible way to save the nations from the evil of the world (Jacobsmeier, 343). It was from this point the notion “one nation under God” was created. Gradually, the public and the government embraced the inclusion of religious affiliated phrases in the national pledges. In addition, United States presidents included religious phrases in their speeches and public announcement. For instance, most Americans presidents include the phrase “God Bless America” in speeches. From this point, the United created the assumption that they are one great nation under God. However, is really the United States One Nation under God? In the modern century, the history of this creation is occasionally disregarded. This is based on the assumption that religious significance in the social and political system has significantly diminished. The only way religious significance is retained is from that all people have to state the phrase under God while saying the loyalty pledge. However, the occasional recitation does not depict the real perception of the United States citizens. Considering Ronald Reagan’s assumption on religion, what can be the outcome of the disregards of religion and god in the United States? This paper will analyze the depth at which the United States can be regarded to as one nation under God. In an argument by Wintrobe religion has not lost its significance in the United States (78). The author further points out that, the modern society does not display religious perception as the society a century back (Wintrobe 78). However, the lack of religious expression does not mean the end of religious practices in the nation. The same argument is supported by Greenbergwho points out that the role of religion in the United States has not been diminished (par 3). Analyzing the national pledges in the constitution, one realizes that religious affiliated phrases have not been excluded. For this reason, every time an American recites the pledge, they realize a sense of belonging in religion. This culture has been existence for centuries as all American citizens are tutored on the importance of the national pledges and all words in them. With the continuity of this culture, one may be of the assumption that the United States may be under God. In addition, this belief is created unintentionally and it is at the national level. Changing this trend would require a change in perception on all America’s generation an unattainable quest. Wald& Calhoun-Brown also point out that, the belief of America’s generations of God is not based on personal belief or assumption but on a national basis created under the social and political framework (79). In addition to this support on the United States perception of religion, one may point out that the political system has been significant in influencing the notion than the country is a great nation under God. Almost all presidents serving the United States never disregarded the inclusion of religious phrases in speeches. For instance, it is a trademark of president Obama to conclude his speeches by saying; God Bless us and God bless America. This depicts how much the political system in the United States has a great allegiance to a religion system. In an argument by Greenberg Presidents set the perception towards embracing religion in the United States (102). The author also cites that, this depicts how much significance the entire United States requires the religious based unity (Greenberg par4). Another sign of the executive perception of religion can be depicted from the United States currency. The United States currencies in note form are created with the inclusion of the phrase, In God We Trust. From these revelations, one may easily point out that the United States can be referred to as one nation under God. With no intentions to change the political approach to religion, it is an obvious assumption that the trend is likely to be carried on to other generations which make it simpler to support the assumption that the United States a positive of religion. In addition, the role of religion in political system cannot be undermined. The modern church has a major mandate in the determination of which political system rules the nation. Considering the number of followers the church has, political stakeholders are not provided with the privileged to disregard the religious factor (Greenberg par 2). One may argue that the freedom of religion in the United States makes it easier for the nation to unite under the religious umbrella. This unity can be easily witnessed in holidays such as thanksgiving and Christmas which are perceived with high regard. This unity influenced by religious affiliations is a sign of the significance of religion in the United States. However, it is an obvious assumption that the depiction of religion in the United States is diminishing. Different from previous centuries, religion in the modern day political and social system bears no significance. In an argument by Berg United States has greatly excluded religion in the social and political systems (13). For instance, the number of people in attendance of church has greatly decreased. This depicts the depletion of the church culture in the United States. Greenberg asserts that the birth of a generation is followed by more negative perception of religion (par 3). Religion in the United States has been turned into a less mandatory factor to consider for development. In providing evidence on the diminishing significance of religion, Wald & Calhoun-Brown cite the crop up of numerous religions which do not embrace the Christianity perception of religion (127). For instance, the free masonry community has grown significantly. Such religions do not obtain strength support from only social circles. The political system has a great mandate in creating and promoting such religions. This corrupts the purity of the religious affiliation in the United States. Addition, this may be defined as the exact opposite of belief created in the national pledges. The deity mentioned in the pledge only depicted the presence and significance of God. However, this cannot be said of the modern society. The definition of god has significantly changed. This may lead to the argument that, we cannot be under one God, if we do not share similar religious preferences (Jacobsmeier 343). These developments have led to a decrease in the level at which the society embrace the importance of religion. In addition, the society’s preferences have shifted as cause of influence by the political system. Political leaders do not hold religion with much significant such as the like of Ronald Reagan. Such eras could boast of a common uniting factor which was not yet corrupted. In numerous occasions, religion as the uniting factor was regarded as the reason behind the success of the United States. Christopher supports this argument by asserting that ancient political systems believed so much in religion to the point it became an agent of success (89). Such perception made the United States unite under the influence of religion. At this time, it was appropriate to point out that we are one nation under God. With negative perceptions of religion being embraced in the modern society, it is an obvious assumption that the notion that we are under God may be ignored. In addition, inclusion of religious affiliated phrases in national symbols has lost its significance. When reciting the national pledge the phrase praising the greatness of God in the United States is perceived as any other phrase contained in the pledge. This has escalated to the point that court cases are being witnessed challenging the appropriateness of religion in national symbols. One may fail to recite the national pledge with the claim that they do not share the same religious preferences as other American citizens. Such divisions are set to increase considering the differences in the modern society based on religious preferences (Berg 112). For instance, the enmity between Islam and Christianity rules out the assumption that we are under one God. From the paper, it is an obvious assumption that the depiction of religion in the United States has lost its depth. The modern religious arrangement I faced with numerous challenges that emanate from the social and political systems. These systems have created rifts in the religious system. This has led to the society disregarding the importance and relevance of religion. This leads to the conclusion that the assumption that we are one nation under God is not appropriate in the modern day United States. Works cited Berg, Thomas. "The Pledge of Allegiance and the Limited State".Texas Review of Law and Politics, 8. (2003). Christopher, Buck. Religious myths and visions of America: how minority faiths redefined Americas world role. Boston: Praeger Publishers. 2009. Print. Greenberg, David. The Pledge of Allegiance: Why we are not one nation under God. Web. 28th June, 2002. Retrieved from: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/06/the_pledge_of_allegiance.html Jacobsmeier, Matthew. "Religion and Perceptions of Candidate Ideologies in U.S. House Elections."Politics and Religion, 6.02 (2013): 342-372. Wald, Kenneth. & Calhoun-Brown, Alison.Religion and Politics in the United States. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield. 2007. Print. Wintrobe, Ronald. Rational extremism: the political economy of radicalism. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006. Print. Read More