When America was founded, it was built on the premise to be a free nation for men to live a life they saw fit to lead as long as it did not bring harm to their fellow man of course. Part of this agreement was to include freedom from religious persecution or intolerance. The state was to be separate from the church and a man had the right to his own religious choice without it affecting his standing with the government. While this is true in theory and even in the constitution of our nation, the actual separation of church and state is blurred. The tolerance of religious freedom afforded to people of this country was and still is carried with stipulations and judgments. These objections are not just from other people but can come from the state itself at times. Religion and state are suppose to be separate but you can see its influence in everyday American life, both the good and the bad. Let’s look at the issue of same sex marriage for example. The laws against same sex marriage and the objections from people come mainly from a religious point of view. You talk to people who are against it and their main reasoning for most is that because, “God says it’s wrong, an abomination”. There is no scientific reason behind the objection. There is no evidence of it being harmful to the persons involved or those surrounding them. Input of religion when it comes to state matters can be intrusive and offensive to some people. We have to hold accountable that this country was not built on religion but the freedom to pursue a life of value for each individual. Religious beliefs or lack thereof have sparked many a war and caused unnecessary conflict just off what someone chooses to believe in from a religious and spiritual standpoint. In America, our pledge of allegiance which is supposed to be a statement of patriotism uniting all Americans has fallen to the blurred lines of state and religion being commingled This adds unnecessary strife than can be resolved if the revision is made to exclude any religious or spiritual connotations.
In Gwen Wilde’s student essay, “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised”, she argues that the “under god” segment of the pledge of allegiance is “inappropriate and . . . needlessly divisive”. The pledge of allegiance is about acknowledging patriotism and not any religious or spiritual affiliation or feelings. In her essay, Gwen Wilde shares how throughout the history of the United States, that the pledge of allegiance has been altered more than once to accommodate the needs of the times. Therefore, a revision of the pledge of allegiance today should not be seen as a controversial subject but a necessity. It would end an issue that should not be there to begin with since the state should have no affiliation with any matters of religion on a national level. Gwen speaks on how there are many extremely patriotic citizens in the country who are great examples of what it means to be an American who may not believe in any god. Yet, with the inclusion of the words, “under god” there is neglect to respect the feelings and choices of Americans such as these. Their lack of religious or spiritual preference is taken as a lack of patriotism to their country. This is something Gwen Wilde believes should be stopped and a revision of the pledge of allegiance removing “under god” is a step in the right direction of being a truly, “indivisible” country.
I agree with Gwen’s sentiments in her essay. The words, “under god” should be removed from the pledge of allegiance. We have seen throughout history all over the world and in our own country how the division of religious beliefs or lack of them can do harm. For some, religion can make a person irrational and it can cause an unhealthy group think in individuals to lash out and hurt other because someone believes differently than them. In America, inclusiveness is reaching a peak in many areas of life and the pledge of allegiance needs to be revised to reflect this.
One main points Gwen uses to support the revision of the pledge of allegiance is that is has been changed more than once in the past to reflect the state of affairs within the country at the time. In the essay, Gwen shares why in 1923, the original words, “my Flag” in the pledge of allegiance were changed to “the Flag of the United States” and finally “the Flag of the United States of America”. These changes were done to accommodate the influx of immigrants at the time to cut down on confusion when it came to expressing their patriotism for their newfound country. Why now is it seen as a problem to do the same when in its own new way, the pledge of allegiance is causing a conflict based on the words contained therein?
Through Gwen’s essay, it is learned that the introduction of the words, “under god” were added under the permission of President Eisenhower in 1954. His reasoning involved, “[R]eaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; . . . strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our most powerful resource in peace and war”. Gwen admits that she does not fully comprehend President’s Eisenhower’s words on his reason for adding “under god” to the pledge of allegiance. I think I can understand, at least somewhat the meaning behind his words. and the addition of “under god”. I think it is in human nature for most to feel an innate need for some type of governance to be their guidance and support in life. This can be from a higher spiritual power or from the leaders of the state in which they reside. Sometimes we lose faith in our fellow man. The leaders we elect can be flawed and makes mistakes based off their own personal consciousness. When a higher, infallible authority is introduced, like god, this helps provide to some, a righteous compass to follow. This compass will always steer them in the right direction always, no matter how far they or any other man falls short on being exemplary.
In Gwen’s essay offering her views on why the pledge of allegiance should be revised, she introduces the point of the word “indivisible” is a broken sentiment because of the phrase before it. Including, “one nation under god” excludes a portion of Americans who may be some of the most patriotic Americans ever but don not ascribe to religious or spiritual beliefs. God, religion, spirituality should be a personal thing with and individual and not a part of the state. History and the present shows us humans are not the most mature when it comes to matters such as religious/spiritual preference. It causes more problems than it solves and causes divisions whether on purpose or inadvertently. Taking out the word, “god” in the pledge of allegiance will not crumble the United States of America. It will not create an up rise of immorality and injustice in society. Whether god is present or not, people do horrible things. Many times these horrible things are done in the name of god. America’s pledge of patriotism should reflect all American and not just some. The pledge of allegiance should be revised to reflect the people of our nation’s patriotic attitude towards the country and not their religious preference