God Should Remain in the Pledge of Allegiance Essay -- Argumentative P

God Should Remain in the Pledge of Allegiance One of the most controversial issues, if â€Å"Under God† should remain in the pledge, and if children should be required to say it, went to court a few weeks ago. The argument was brought to court by Michael Newdow, the father to the girl on whose behalf the lawsuit was brought forward. Newdow argued in court and on many different public speaking occasions that knowing his child is being led to say â€Å"One nation under God† on a daily basis makes him feel â€Å"Disenfranchised†. (Hamilton, Marci A. CNN Special). He points out that â€Å"The Pledge, which has â€Å"liberty for all† is being used to inculcate his daughter in a religious worldview he cannot accept†. (Hamilton, Marci A. CNN Special). This means that the state is trying to educate his daughter on religion, and therefore â€Å"Under God† is unconstitutional. Michael Newdow does not have custody of his daughter; he is an atheist who feels his daughter is not being treated fairly because she is of the minority belief in religion. His wife a born again Christian, says their daughter has no trouble including God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Their daughter is in the second grade, she has informed her mother that she is comfortable reciting the pledge, her father made this claim based on his own feelings. As long as the statement â€Å"Under God† is not offending anyone it should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited by all willing students and teachers. The constitution assures immunity to anyone who offends any other human being in practicing their own religious beliefs or if they were to offend the religious views of others, if they are the majority or minority. The constitution does not however guarantee an exemption from doing what socie... ... opinion. The words â€Å"Under God† is not meant to directly offend anyone. It should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance for those willing participants to recite. Bibliography Ager, Susan. â€Å"Pledge of Allegiance Deserves Attention†. Monterey Country The Herald. 2 April 2004 Hamilton, Marci A. â€Å" Why the Department of Justice is wrong to support ‘Under God’†. Posted 2:10 PM EST. 26 March 2004. Harrison, Maureen. Gilbert, Steve. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court II. La Jolla, California. Copyright 1992. By Excellent Books. Muqaribu, Mudhillun. Letter. New York Times. Published 3/29/2004. Late Edition. Final Section A. Column 6. Page 20. Taylor, Bonnie B. Education and the Law. Contemporary Legal Issues. Santa Barbara, California. Copyright 1996. Pg. 252-253 God Should Remain in the Pledge of Allegiance Essay -- Argumentative P God Should Remain in the Pledge of Allegiance One of the most controversial issues, if â€Å"Under God† should remain in the pledge, and if children should be required to say it, went to court a few weeks ago. The argument was brought to court by Michael Newdow, the father to the girl on whose behalf the lawsuit was brought forward. Newdow argued in court and on many different public speaking occasions that knowing his child is being led to say â€Å"One nation under God† on a daily basis makes him feel â€Å"Disenfranchised†. (Hamilton, Marci A. CNN Special). He points out that â€Å"The Pledge, which has â€Å"liberty for all† is being used to inculcate his daughter in a religious worldview he cannot accept†. (Hamilton, Marci A. CNN Special). This means that the state is trying to educate his daughter on religion, and therefore â€Å"Under God† is unconstitutional. Michael Newdow does not have custody of his daughter; he is an atheist who feels his daughter is not being treated fairly because she is of the minority belief in religion. His wife a born again Christian, says their daughter has no trouble including God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Their daughter is in the second grade, she has informed her mother that she is comfortable reciting the pledge, her father made this claim based on his own feelings. As long as the statement â€Å"Under God† is not offending anyone it should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited by all willing students and teachers. The constitution assures immunity to anyone who offends any other human being in practicing their own religious beliefs or if they were to offend the religious views of others, if they are the majority or minority. The constitution does not however guarantee an exemption from doing what socie... ... opinion. The words â€Å"Under God† is not meant to directly offend anyone. It should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance for those willing participants to recite. Bibliography Ager, Susan. â€Å"Pledge of Allegiance Deserves Attention†. Monterey Country The Herald. 2 April 2004 Hamilton, Marci A. â€Å" Why the Department of Justice is wrong to support ‘Under God’†. Posted 2:10 PM EST. 26 March 2004. Harrison, Maureen. Gilbert, Steve. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court II. La Jolla, California. Copyright 1992. By Excellent Books. Muqaribu, Mudhillun. Letter. New York Times. Published 3/29/2004. Late Edition. Final Section A. Column 6. Page 20. Taylor, Bonnie B. Education and the Law. Contemporary Legal Issues. Santa Barbara, California. Copyright 1996. Pg. 252-253