Under God Research Paper
Under God: Lawfulness of the Pledge
I.
In this paper, I shall discuss the lawfulness of ‘under God’ in the pledge of allegiance. First, I will outline the argument that states it is legitimate to keep the term. Secondly, the side arguing its legality will be stated. Third, I will critique the side that supports its legitimacy in the pledge. Finally, I will argue that it is unlawful to reference God in our pledge of allegiance.
II.
The legitimacy of referencing religion in the pledge of allegiance is argued for in three arguments. They are as follows: it’s civil religion, reflects Godly rights, and is not coerced. Civil religion is referred to as a “symbolic system”, that “binds members” through “historical narratives.” (Copulsky, 125). Similarly, …show more content…
Firstly, the claim that it represents America’s civil religion does not encompass society itself. It “implies…the existence of a God” in a “subordinate relationship” with our country (Kao 186). By using a singular term, it establishes itself as monotheistic, secluding many major religions. Take for example Hinduism, which has many gods in its culture. If an umbrella term such as ‘God’ exists in legal documents, it is secluding Hinduism. It also isolates Buddhism, Shinto, and other Eastern religions. Additionally, the term ‘God’ itself segregates other disbeliefs such as atheism, agnosticism, and more. However, there are counters to this. It’s said it was conceived during a time “when religious diversity was not as robust” (Nussbaum). Though America wasn’t as diverse, it isn’t an excuse for the majority to decide the religion. Immigration back then was also very decisive; not as many people got in. There needs to be religious neutrality. The second argument claims that using a deity allows for the government to be grounded morally. Society will see that the government is under the same scrutiny of God. However, this implies that these rights are “incoherent…insecure” when God isn’t mentioned (Kao 191). If God needs to be mentioned in order to moralize our government, it is weak. Also, the “law of the land” is not reflected on any “transcendental basis.” Meaning that the word of God shouldn’t be the basis of morality-society’s rules should be. Others may claim that the Declaration of Independence proclaims godly rights. That “we received our rights from God” (Kao 191). That if stated in the Declaration, it should be in the pledge. Critically looking at the declaration, however, depicts a different reality. If our “inalienable rights” are self-evident, it doesn’t make sense to include God. God-given rights are assumed only. The basic rights the Declaration gives us are
I.
In this paper, I shall discuss the lawfulness of ‘under God’ in the pledge of allegiance. First, I will outline the argument that states it is legitimate to keep the term. Secondly, the side arguing its legality will be stated. Third, I will critique the side that supports its legitimacy in the pledge. Finally, I will argue that it is unlawful to reference God in our pledge of allegiance.
II.
The legitimacy of referencing religion in the pledge of allegiance is argued for in three arguments. They are as follows: it’s civil religion, reflects Godly rights, and is not coerced. Civil religion is referred to as a “symbolic system”, that “binds members” through “historical narratives.” (Copulsky, 125). Similarly, …show more content…
Firstly, the claim that it represents America’s civil religion does not encompass society itself. It “implies…the existence of a God” in a “subordinate relationship” with our country (Kao 186). By using a singular term, it establishes itself as monotheistic, secluding many major religions. Take for example Hinduism, which has many gods in its culture. If an umbrella term such as ‘God’ exists in legal documents, it is secluding Hinduism. It also isolates Buddhism, Shinto, and other Eastern religions. Additionally, the term ‘God’ itself segregates other disbeliefs such as atheism, agnosticism, and more. However, there are counters to this. It’s said it was conceived during a time “when religious diversity was not as robust” (Nussbaum). Though America wasn’t as diverse, it isn’t an excuse for the majority to decide the religion. Immigration back then was also very decisive; not as many people got in. There needs to be religious neutrality. The second argument claims that using a deity allows for the government to be grounded morally. Society will see that the government is under the same scrutiny of God. However, this implies that these rights are “incoherent…insecure” when God isn’t mentioned (Kao 191). If God needs to be mentioned in order to moralize our government, it is weak. Also, the “law of the land” is not reflected on any “transcendental basis.” Meaning that the word of God shouldn’t be the basis of morality-society’s rules should be. Others may claim that the Declaration of Independence proclaims godly rights. That “we received our rights from God” (Kao 191). That if stated in the Declaration, it should be in the pledge. Critically looking at the declaration, however, depicts a different reality. If our “inalienable rights” are self-evident, it doesn’t make sense to include God. God-given rights are assumed only. The basic rights the Declaration gives us are