The phrase "One Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has been a subject of debate for many years, with arguments both for and against its inclusion. To form an opinion on whether it should stay or go, it is important to consider the historical context, legal aspects, and the principles of inclusivity.

One argument in favor of keeping "One Nation under God" is the historical significance of religion in the United States. The phrase was added to the Pledge in 1954 during the Cold War era, as a way to distinguish the United States from the officially atheist Soviet Union. Supporters argue that it reflects the country's religious heritage and the values upon which it was founded. They believe that removing the phrase would be erasing an important part of American history and identity.

On the other hand, opponents argue that the inclusion of "One Nation under God" violates the principle of separation of church and state. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state religion and guarantees the freedom of religion. By including a religious reference in a national pledge, some argue that it promotes a specific religious belief and excludes those who do not share that belief. They believe that the phrase undermines the secular nature of the government and alienates individuals who have different religious or non-religious views.

Moreover, the inclusion of "One Nation under God" can create a sense of exclusion for atheists, agnostics, and individuals of non-Abrahamic faiths. It implies that being a patriotic American requires belief in a higher power, which can be seen as discriminatory. In a diverse and multicultural society like the United States, it is essential to foster inclusivity and respect for all beliefs.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of "One Nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Court ruled that compelling students to recite the Pledge, including the words "under God," violated their First Amendment rights. However, in 2004, the Court dismissed a case challenging the constitutionality of the phrase, stating that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue.

In conclusion, the debate over whether "One Nation under God" should stay or go in the Pledge of Allegiance is complex and multifaceted. While it is important to respect the historical significance of religion in the United States, it is equally important to uphold the principles of separation of church and state and inclusivity. Ultimately, the decision should prioritize the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Lacey Scanlan

Lacey Scanlan

There are no posts to show