Nation under God Essay

The argument regarding the implement of the word divinity fudge in the Pledge of trueness is non a new bingle. In fact, this argument stems from the long standing principle of separation among the church and the posit which is embodied in the First Amendment of the joined States constitution. Under this principle, the government and the church are to be kept separate from all(prenominal) other. The government is prohibited from encouraging or advancing any of the interests of a sensation morality. This means that the government cannot promote a iodine religion or impose upon its people which religion to follow (Clark 1965).It is a blanket prohibition that prevents the government from intervening in the religious precepts of people. The endorsement sight of this principle recognizes that the government will invariably hit to deal with religious institutions one way or the other (Clark 1965). The ism on the separation of church and invoke therefore also regulates the dealings betwixt the church and state such that there should only be a minimal and incidental stoppage from the government. This is also known as the rule on excessive entanglement between the church and the state.The chore with the use of the word god in the Pledge of homage is considered as a violation of the philosophical system on the separation of the church and state because many religious groups claim that the use of the term God favors the Christian religion which prominently uses the term God for the Supreme Being. Other groups on the other overstep argue that the word God as used in the Pledge of dedication is not an proficiency of the Christian religion but rather an acknowledgment of some higher being that is common to exclusively religions. This short discourse will seek to shed more light on the issue of the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance.The first part will cover the historical oscilloscope of the insertion of the word God in an attempt to beneathstand the original meaning of the word God as used in the Pledge of Allegiance. The next segments will cover the points of view from the perspective of the state as contrasted to the perspective of the church on the issue. Historical Background of the Insertion of the Word God in that location has been a lot of controversy surrounding the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance particularly with its mandatory recitation in the public school classrooms.Most of controversy revolves around the use of the phrase under(a) God. It was not until June 14, 1954 however that this highly contested phrase was inserted (Whitsitt 1896). The original var. of the whoop it up of subjection which was created by Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892 read as follows I whoop it up committedness to my peg and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Historical Changes of the Pledge of Allegiance 1892 I pledge allegiance to my tho lepin and the Republic for which it stands one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. 1892 to 1923 I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. 1923 to 1954 I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. 1954 to Present I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. The original tenor of the Pledge of Allegiance did not contain any filename extension to any deity whatsoever. In repartee to this, the Knights of capital of Ohio of New York City urged the assemblies to insert a reference to a deity since they felt that it was fractional without one. The deity to which the Knights of Columbus referred to was the same one that was referred to in L incolns Gettysburg Address (Whitsitt 1896). The spoken communication under God as used in Lincolns address, according to the Knights of Columbus, was the most appropriate one to add to the Pledge of Allegiance.It is important to note however that the phrase under God was never contained in the original text of the Gettysburg Address. By April 22 of the year 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus formally adopted a stop to amend the recitation of Pledge of Allegiance by the members of the Knights of Columbus at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words under God after the words one nation (Whitsitt 1896).It was not long before the whole organization had adopted the same resolution as the idea spread throughout the other Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution at its annual meeting recommendin g the that the change in the Pledge of Allegiance be made universal and soon petitions and copies of the resolution were sent to the Office of the President, the Vice President, who was the Presiding Officer of the Senate and the loudspeaker system of the House of Representatives.While the attempts of the Knights of Columbus were unsuccessful, they were able to convince a majority of the relevance of inserting such a phrase and soon the movement began to gain momentum (Whitsitt 1896). It was not until Senator Homer Ferguson who in his report to the United States Congress on March 10, 1954 that the movement had begun to make significant progress. In this privileged speech, Senator Ferguson said, The introduction of this conjunction resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev.George M. Docherty, of Washington, D. C. , who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped. By this time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. The rationale for the approval and adoption of the phrase under God was clarified by President Eisenhower in a letter which he wrote in August of 1954 (Bradley 1996). These words under God will remind Americans that in spite of our great physical strength we must remain humble.They will help us to keep perpetually in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. This was real taken from the sermon of Docherty to which President Eisenhower had taken a great interest in (Whitsitt 1896). It was eventually make by Harper & Bros. in New York in 1958 and President Eisenhower took the opportunity to write to Dr. Docherty with gratitude for the opportunity to formerly again read the fateful sermon.Finally, on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, Congress passed the legislation that add the phrase under God to the Pledge of Allegiance. At this point, it c an be argued that the insertion of the word God into the Pledge of Allegiance was actually motivated by some religious influence, particularly the Christian religion. In order to have a better understanding of the issue at hand however it is important to briefly witness the import of the doctrine of the Separation of the perform and the State. Doctrine of the Separation of Church and StateThe phrase, separation of Church and State, is actually from a letter that was written by one of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, to a group that called themselves the Danbury Baptists. In the letter, Thomas Jefferson wrote that, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free instance thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. This was of course in reference to the First Amendment of the United States Constitutio n (Whitsitt 1896). The basic precept of this doctrine is founded on a firm belief that religion and state should be separate. It covers a very wide spectrum, as mentioned in the previous sections of this discussion, ranging from the secularization or elimination of the church to theocracy wherein the state works in tandem with a religion in order to govern over the acts of people (Bradley 1996). The Secularist PerspectiveThe secularist perspective is that the state should be kept yonder from religion and that, in the same vein, the religious institutions should also be free from any governmental interferences. This follows the second aspect of the Doctrine of the Separation of Church and State that dictates that there should be no entanglement between the Church and the State (Bradley 1996). In this perspective, the government is prohibited from citing the authority or influence of a precise religious institution for the justification of its authority (Bradley 1996).While there ar e some governments that claim religious justifications for their powers such as the Muslim states, the justification for such is based on the emphasis of the relationship for ceremony and rhetorical purposes only. The acts done by the government are not meant to further the cause of any single religion but are actually for the general welfare and the benefit of the state. The state therefore does not conform to any particular religious doctrine but in fact caters to its own doctrine as mandated by the will of the people and of the Constitution (Clark 1965).Acts such as exemptions from taxation or providing bullion for education and charities, though viewed as supporting religion, are in fact welfare based or faith based according to secularists. This reflects the view that temporal authority and spiritual authority should properly expire in complimentary spheres. The spheres where they overlap such as in moral values or shoes rights are areas where neither should take authority over the other but should instead offer a framework in which society can work these issues out without subjugating a religion to the state or vice versa (Bradley 1996).