Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised By Gwen Wilde
The pledge of allegiance was published by the Youth’s companion magazine and the original work was written by Francis Bellamy. Arguments have always come up necessitating the revision of this pledge. In 1923 in a National flag conference held in Washington DC, an argument arose that the words “my flag” could confuse some of the immigrants and this led to the proposal that let the words to be specified as “the flag of the United States” and later changed to “the flag of the United States of America.” The other reason was that the pledge did not include the words “under God” and this was included in 1942 by the United States Congress and was approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954 and since then, the pledge has been containing the words “under God” (Wilde, 1). It is basing on these changes that Gwen Wilde gives reasons why the pledge should be revised.
In her view, it was inappropriate to add the words “under God” since they sound divisive. According to President Eisenhower, the adding of the words “under God” was to reaffirm the transcendence of religious faith in America and for the future and to strengthen the nation’s spiritual weapons as a country’s powerful source of peace (Wilde, 2). Therefore, according to the writer, this does not have any impact to American faith after all Americans have always been religious ever since and President’s words imply that many Americans have not believed in spiritual weapons hence arising this argument by the writer. Additionally, the writer claims that many Americans do not utter the words “under God” in good faith simply because of the differences in faith. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans have a religious affiliation, there are a number of them who do not believe in God hence creating divisibility (Wilde, 2). The writer states that this can make some members who do not believe in God keep silent while others are reciting the pledge or keep silent while other mention the word “under God and this can make the pledge unpatriotic hence creating a gap of divisiveness.
The writer argues that even the members of the Supreme Court urge people not to take the words “under God” with seriousness. The Chief Justice referred the words as to a descriptive phrase where to many Americans the phrase does not describe reality (Wilde, 3). This therefore means that the words even if mentioned, they may not add anything or have any impact to Americans. This therefore can tell how millions of people in America do not believe in God. Furthermore, the Chief Justice stated that the pledge is recommended to observe patriotism in a nation and therefore it should not have any connection with religion (Wilde, 3). The writer states that to be loyal Americans, there should be no aspect of showing hold of a particular religious belief.
The writer argues about the scenario where the words “under God” are normally compared with “in God we trust” as written on the money. According to her, the two scenarios are so different because with money, it is normally a business transaction without any affirmation being made (Wilde, 3). This case is different with reciting the pledge because the pledge is always to be taken with serious awareness not like that of handing over money. The phrase is neither tepid nor diluted but has a significant meaning when being uttered and since many Americans avoid uttering it, then it should be removed (Wilde, 4).
Work cited
Wilde Gwen, why the pledge of allegiance should be revised, Nov 17, 2010
