Study of Gwen Wilde's Essay on the Need to Revise the Pledge of Allegiance

In Gwen Wilde’s essay titled “Why the Pledge Ought to Be Revised”, the author uses a essential tone to persuade the audience that the pledge must not consist of the words “under God”.

Wilde starts with the argument that the words “under God” have been not often in pledge of allegiance. She enforces this argument with historical information, stating that the pledge did not include the words “under God” till 1954 when President Eisenhower decided that they need to be incorporated. In Wilde’s opinion, the words “under God” juxtapose the idea that the nation is “indivisible”. By like the words “under God” in a pledge required by all citizens, men and women who do not think in God are divided from these who do. This is what tends to make the phrase contradictory.

Wilde then begins her major argument primarily based on this concept. She argues that requiring folks to recite the pledge is unfair because not every American believes in God. While some might argue that people are not needed by law to recite the pledge, Wilde counters that there is a sense of peer stress that tends to make almost everybody feel like they are needed to recite it. Even if individuals do not think in God, the stress of patriotism tends to make them.

This observation enables Wilde to introduce the subsequent argument. She argues that several million Americans do not think in God or comply with a distinct religion than Christianity. Wilde elaborates that the pledge is in fact un-American and divisive. By connecting religion with patriotism, it creates the concept that all Americans are Christian. This thought is untrue and exclusive, for that reason producing the pledge un-American. She goes on to add that the assertion of a religious doctrine contradicts the First Amendment of the constitution, which states that no law relating to the practice of religion shall be made. Wilde does add that she does not feel that the whole pledge is unconstitutional, just the words “under God”.

Several people also bring up the argument that the phrase “In God We Trust” is on our cash and as a result the phrase “under God” need to remain in the pledge. This argument is primarily based off of the concept that if possessing the phrase on some thing that Americans see and deal with each day is okay, then it need to be permitted to remain in a pledge that most Americans don’t say on a daily basis. Wilde counters this argument with the fact that folks do not spend interest to the phrase on the funds, as the exchange of cash is fast and most men and women will not take the time to read the phrase every single time they exchange funds. In comparison, the act of reciting the pledge calls for people to in fact feel about what they are saying and the which means that it carries.

After discussing the difference in between the phrase on income and the phrase in the pledge, Wilde presents her last argument. She argues that reciting the pledge is meant to be taken seriously, and that by such as the phrase “under God” it divides the nation. Although a supreme court justice has argued that the words aren’t meant to be taken seriously and are “diluted”, Wilde counters that they are clear and imply exactly what they say. According to Wilde, the words “under God” ought to not be integrated because it separates folks of various religions and is unfair to the citizens of America.

In conclusion, Gwen Wilde believes that the pledge should not include the words “under God”. She believes that this divides the nation and is unfair to numerous million Americans since not everyone believes in God.