Anderson 1

Derek Anderson
Ms. Oberg
English 11
2/17/2014
"Under God" and the Pledge
The United States has long been a country of freedoms, religious and otherwise. This
entire country was built on these freedoms. For example the founding documents of the United
States specifically attempt to not mention any religion or religious figure. So why does the
mention of a God, with a capital G, come up in the use of the Pledge of Allegiance? The Pledge
is an important expression of loyalty to the U.S so is it constitutional for it to contain "under
God"? From the cited evidence in this paper it is shown that is not constitutional, and that it
should not be in the Pledge.
The original Pledge of Allegiance was composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and was
adopted by Congress in 1942 (Moyers). The original Pledge reads as : "I pledge allegiance to my
Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all."As can be seen, the Pledge has changed by a great amount. The Pledge did not include
"under God" until 1954, when a successful campaign by the "Knights of Columbus" had
convinced President Eisenhower that the Pledge was not distinctive enough for the United States,
that any people from a republic could say a similar Pledge (Robinson). So a bill was passed in
congress to add "under God" to the Pledge. The reasoning for adding this is incredibly
imbalanced, and clearly in favor of a specific religion. This is shown when President Eisenhower
said "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim... the
dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." From this it is easy to see that the

Anderson 3
inclusion of "under God" is an endorsement of a religion, specifically Christianity, as no other
religion refers to their religious figures as "the Almighty." Government is not allowed to endorse
a religion, as it is in violation of the establishment clause of the U.S Constitution, which prevents
the U.S Government from having a preference of one religion over another.
Recently a large number of legal battles have been fought over the requiring of students
to say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools today. Michael Newdow, an atheist from California,
confronted the legality of the Pledge in several legal battles in 2004, with some brushing him off
for weak arguments as well as others such as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor
of him. When the battle was taken to the Supreme Court, he was dismissed because he did not
have legal custody of his daughter, who he was arguing for. (One Nation Under God? A
Constitutional Question) He however, did have his daughter with him 10 days out of every

month, which makes the ruling of him not having legal custody of his daughter questionable.
From these cases it can be seen that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge, and even
several courts agree with this and other courts using any reason possible to dismiss the cases.
Opposing views as to why the Pledge should keep "under God" are many. Some of them
include, that it is not discriminatory because everyone has the right to opt out of saying the
Pledge. This however is not satisfactory as simply opting out can exclude the person opting out,
with other students saying the Pledge normally which develops a barrier between them. Others
don't see the use of "under God" as a religious exercise, and primarily as a ceremonial one. This
is not a good argument because the mention of God as a ceremonial exercise is not necessary; the
Pledge could basically have the same meaning without it and only excludes those who do not
believe in it.

Anderson 3
In conclusion, the reasoning behind the use of "under God" in the Pledge is not well
founded. The very reasoning for putting it into the Pledge is loaded in favor of Christian beliefs,
and distinctly violates the establishment clause that the Government must follow. Also many
courts believe that it is unconstitutional for the Pledge to contain "under God. " The reasoning
that it is only an option to say the Pledge and that it is not unconstitutional because of this is
flawed as well, as those who do not say it may be excluded for not saying it. From all these
reasons, it is clear to see that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Works Cited

Anderson 4
Moyers, Bill. "The Battle Over the Pledge." pbs.org. N.p., 29 Jun 2002. Web. 19 Feb
2014. <http://www.pbs.org/now/society/religionstats2.html>.

Robinson, B.A.. "Pledge of Alligiance and it's "under God" phrase." Religious Tolerance.org.
N.p., 7 Feb 2010. Web. 19 Feb 2014.
"One Nation Under God? A Constitutional Question."Pewforum.org. N.p., 19 Mar
2004. Web. 19 Feb 2014.
Moyers, Bill. "The Battle Over the Pledge." pbs.org. N.p., 29 Jun 2002. Web. 19 Feb
2014. <http://www.pbs.org/now/society/religionstats2.html>.