The Pledge Of Allegiance Analysis

There is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism in the United States of America. In recent years, the line has become blurred as nationalistic ideologies overtake the meaning of being patriotic (Flegenheimer and Barbaro). Patriotism is the love and sense of pride one feels for their country and most Americans believe it is fundamental to the liberties granted to them; as such, many feel it is important to instill patriotism into the nation’s children. As of now, only five states do not require schools to lead a daily patriotic act (Miller), and for most schools the Pledge of Allegiance is the easiest way to obey the law. However, the indoctrination of The Pledge of Allegiance is a mere rhetoric of freedom that promotes nationalism and
should not be recited in school because it is an infringement of student rights.
One of the first things most schoolchildren learn is to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it is thought to instill patriotism into their young, impressionable minds.
In actuality, the Pledge is empty prose that was originally intended to strike at “communism, atheism, materialism, and non-conformity”, and it was essentially created as a marketing ploy (Miller). The form of the Pledge used today was largely devised in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist, in the following form: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all” (Schaefer-Jacobs). The words “of the United States of America” were added after the United States saw a steady rise of immigration during the late 1880s and through WWI (Schaefer-Jacobs). “Today’s Pledge of Allegiance is a legacy of the push for ‘Americanization’” because native-born Americans feared immigrants were not adapting quickly enough
(Schaefer-Jacobs). As such, campaigns to promote patriotism and American values began, easily making their way into schools (Schaefer-Jacobs). Companies saw this as a business opportunity, and these forces combined helped to make the enforcement of the Pledge of Allegiance incredibly popular. A rise of patriotism that coincided with the belief that America is fundamentally and formally a Christian nation began when business men recruited religious activists in their fight against Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal (Kruse). Clergymen were encouraged by corporations to attack the New Deal as a program of “pagan statism” (Kruse) and campaigns for “freedom under God” grew with the election of their close ally Dwight Eisenhower. During Eisenhower’s presidency, virtually all Americans believed that their country was truly “one nation under God”.
The phrase “under God” is considerably the most controversial part of the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2014, The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance “does not discriminate against atheists, saying that the words ‘under God’ represent a patriotic, not a religious, exercise” (Winston). Many argue that the phrase “under God” is actually a ceremonial deism and as such does not violate the First Amendment. Ceremonial deisms refer to any governmental religious expressions that defenders claim do not violate the Constitution because the references “have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content” (Niose). However, the Pledge is a violation of the Constitution, specifically of the Establishment Clause under the First Amendment, because the words “under God” were added by a Congressional statute, and they have not lost their religious meaning since. In 1954, Louis Rabaut, a Democratic congressman representing Michigan's 14th Congressional district, introduced a bill to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance (Kruse). His hope was that “the recitation of the pledge [would] bring Americans to a deeper understanding of the the real meaning of patriotism” (Kruse) and he believed that “[The United States] was born under God, and only under God will it live as a citadel of freedom” (Kruse). President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill because he envisioned that “the millions of [America’s] schoolchildren will daily proclaim . . . the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty” (Kruse). While there may be some governmental references to God that are harmless, such as in architecture or art, “a reference to a religion is not more likely to be harmless merely because it is ceremonial. In many circumstances, ceremonies are where citizens learn how to define patriotism” (Niose), such as reciting the pledge in school. The words “under God” were added for a religious meaning, and to this day hold religious connotations. In Rhode Island, a high school student named Jessica Ahlquist experienced bullying when she objected to a prayer banner in her school. Students began using the words of the pledge against her, specifically turning to face her while shouting the words “under God” during the daily recitation (Niose). It is clear that in the minds of these students, as well as the minds of many other Americans, the words “under God” have not lost their religious meaning. The American weekly magazine Newsweek received hundreds of responses to a cover story of the Pledge of Allegiance with opinions showing how divided Americans are regarding the Pledge. Kim Greening, a resident of Washington, stated, “I firmly believe in God and was raised to say ‘under God’. I will raise my children to say it also . . . don’t I have the freedom to say the pledge I believe in?” (Newsweek). While people like Kim Greening who wish to recite the Pledge are more than welcome to do so on their own time, it is not constitutional to implement it in schools due to the variance in beliefs.
Many Americans will argue that not supporting the Pledge of Allegiance shows dislike for the United States and disrespect for veterans because it is viewed as the hallmark of American patriotism.
This mindset ostracizes those who choose to opt out of saying it. Recently, a Colorado teacher of Angevine Middle School assaulted a student who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (Wootson). While this is just one instance, many school officials react violently to students who wish to opt out. While some are merely unaware that students have the right to sit out the Pledge, others are aware of the law but make it a point to bully students into participation anyway (Niose). Additionally, when used in an exercise designed to teach patriotism to children, the words “under God” send the message that true patriots believe in God. “While a God-believer can proudly say the Pledge of Allegiance, [a] [nonbeliever] must choose to: 1) absent [themselves] from the practice 2) participate in the exercise that denigrates [their] beliefs, or 3) say a different pledge by omitting ‘under God’ which exposes the student and makes [them] appear unpatriotic” (Miller). No one would seriously contend that the daily recitation of “one nation for atheists” is not discriminatory simply because it is optional, yet “under God” is deemed as
such.
The Pledge of Allegiance should not be recited in school because it teaches children to associate being a patriot with believing in God and the words “under God” were added with complete religious intent. It does not make sense that a country built on the freedom of dissent would have its citizens pledge allegiance to it. While some Americans believe it is their God-given right to recite it and others believe it is their constitutional right to opt out of it, schools should consider doing away with it completely because when it comes to the Pledge of Allegiance, America is one nation, easily divisible.