Religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Dadaism and many more were already gaining multiple supported reasons to object to the words “Under God” being added to the pledge. The words had become one of the biggest controversies to date. The controversy was basically a lose-lose situation too. Many changes were made to the Pledge of Allegiance throughout the years, but when the words “Under God” were added to the pledge in 1954, the whole situation became so much worse.
Lose-Lose Situation
America was put in a horrible situation due to the “Under God” controversy. Either the nation will be put into a frenzy or religions would still be offended by the words.
One solution would be for the Supreme Court to say the words “Under God” in the pledge was unconstitutional, but it would put the entire country in a nation-wide crisis. Then, the other solution would be to not change the pledge’s words, but the religions being offended by the words, in the first place, would have to live with the pledge. Both of the solutions are not really “solutions” in the end.
Justice O’Connor’s Four Criteria
Sandra Day O’Connor is a retired Supreme Court member. Before she retired in 2006, she gave her opinions on situations in multiple instances. This included the “Under God” controversy. She argued that the pledge was all right under her criteria.
The first thing that Justice O’Connor mentions is about the history and ubiquity. She stated that it seems right to forgive something that is a historic relic. While the words “Under God” have been in the Pledge of Allegiance since 1954, things like “In God We Trust” on the dollar have been added more recently, yet this is accepted by many more people than “Under God” says Sandy.
Justice O’Connor also mentions how there is absence of worship or prayer. She said in her speech, “There is a difference in asking someone to join in a ritual observance and simply making a statement that doesn’t ask people to affirm anything." After this was said she went into how we pass around dollar bills every day with the words “In God We Trust”, yet when it is said in the pledge, it is an entirely different story.
Her third point was “absence of reference to particular religion." Then she starts to talk about the other side of the argument. “When our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now.” She talked about the excluded religions, including, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others. O’Connor then starts to talk about “In God We Trust” on the dollar bill again, repeating some facts from previous points.
The final point Justice O’Connor made was about minimal religious content. This part of her speech was about students in school who object to the words. She stated that if they object, they cannot just drop “Under God” and recite the rest. She says, “She will have to ask for an excuse, or stay seated, and this will make the pledge every bit as onerous as the prayers that were rejected in the whole string of school prayers.” As she said it would not be as easy as to just drop the two words. It would have to take more than that to make a large enough impact on the controversy.
The People’s Choice
It really comes down to what the people’s opinions are. They have their choice to say the pledge, not to say the pledge, or just to cut out parts of the pledge that are mainly about any one religion. Many think that the words should be reconsidered, but since it has been used since 1954, the words being taken out would make a larger problem then there is now.
Sources
Nussbaum, Martha C. ""Under God:" The Pledge, Present and Future." "Under God:" The Pledge, Present and Future. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.
"The Pledge of Allegiance." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, July-Aug. 1995. Web. 19 Jan. 2017.
Lose-Lose Situation
America was put in a horrible situation due to the “Under God” controversy. Either the nation will be put into a frenzy or religions would still be offended by the words.
One solution would be for the Supreme Court to say the words “Under God” in the pledge was unconstitutional, but it would put the entire country in a nation-wide crisis. Then, the other solution would be to not change the pledge’s words, but the religions being offended by the words, in the first place, would have to live with the pledge. Both of the solutions are not really “solutions” in the end.
Justice O’Connor’s Four Criteria
Sandra Day O’Connor is a retired Supreme Court member. Before she retired in 2006, she gave her opinions on situations in multiple instances. This included the “Under God” controversy. She argued that the pledge was all right under her criteria.
The first thing that Justice O’Connor mentions is about the history and ubiquity. She stated that it seems right to forgive something that is a historic relic. While the words “Under God” have been in the Pledge of Allegiance since 1954, things like “In God We Trust” on the dollar have been added more recently, yet this is accepted by many more people than “Under God” says Sandy.
Justice O’Connor also mentions how there is absence of worship or prayer. She said in her speech, “There is a difference in asking someone to join in a ritual observance and simply making a statement that doesn’t ask people to affirm anything." After this was said she went into how we pass around dollar bills every day with the words “In God We Trust”, yet when it is said in the pledge, it is an entirely different story.
Her third point was “absence of reference to particular religion." Then she starts to talk about the other side of the argument. “When our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now.” She talked about the excluded religions, including, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others. O’Connor then starts to talk about “In God We Trust” on the dollar bill again, repeating some facts from previous points.
The final point Justice O’Connor made was about minimal religious content. This part of her speech was about students in school who object to the words. She stated that if they object, they cannot just drop “Under God” and recite the rest. She says, “She will have to ask for an excuse, or stay seated, and this will make the pledge every bit as onerous as the prayers that were rejected in the whole string of school prayers.” As she said it would not be as easy as to just drop the two words. It would have to take more than that to make a large enough impact on the controversy.
The People’s Choice
It really comes down to what the people’s opinions are. They have their choice to say the pledge, not to say the pledge, or just to cut out parts of the pledge that are mainly about any one religion. Many think that the words should be reconsidered, but since it has been used since 1954, the words being taken out would make a larger problem then there is now.
Sources
Nussbaum, Martha C. ""Under God:" The Pledge, Present and Future." "Under God:" The Pledge, Present and Future. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.
"The Pledge of Allegiance." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, July-Aug. 1995. Web. 19 Jan. 2017.