The Pledge Of Allegiance Analysis
There is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism in the United States of America. In recent years, the line has become blurred as nationalistic ideologies overtake the meaning of being patriotic (Flegenheimer and Barbaro). Patriotism is the love and sense of pride one feels for their country and most Americans believe it is fundamental to the liberties granted to them; as such, many feel it is important to instill patriotism into the nation’s children. As of now, only five states do not require schools to lead a daily patriotic act (Miller), and for most schools the Pledge of Allegiance is the easiest way to obey the law. However, the indoctrination of The Pledge of Allegiance is a mere rhetoric of freedom that promotes nationalism and
…show more content…
In actuality, the Pledge is empty prose that was originally intended to strike at “communism, atheism, materialism, and non-conformity”, and it was essentially created as a marketing ploy (Miller). The form of the Pledge used today was largely devised in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist, in the following form: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all” (Schaefer-Jacobs). The words “of the United States of America” were added after the United States saw a steady rise of immigration during the late 1880s and through WWI (Schaefer-Jacobs). “Today’s Pledge of Allegiance is a legacy of the push for ‘Americanization’” because native-born Americans feared immigrants were not adapting quickly enough …show more content…
This mindset ostracizes those who choose to opt out of saying it. Recently, a Colorado teacher of Angevine Middle School assaulted a student who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (Wootson). While this is just one instance, many school officials react violently to students who wish to opt out. While some are merely unaware that students have the right to sit out the Pledge, others are aware of the law but make it a point to bully students into participation anyway (Niose). Additionally, when used in an exercise designed to teach patriotism to children, the words “under God” send the message that true patriots believe in God. “While a God-believer can proudly say the Pledge of Allegiance, [a] [nonbeliever] must choose to: 1) absent [themselves] from the practice 2) participate in the exercise that denigrates [their] beliefs, or 3) say a different pledge by omitting ‘under God’ which exposes the student and makes [them] appear unpatriotic” (Miller). No one would seriously contend that the daily recitation of “one nation for atheists” is not discriminatory simply because it is optional, yet “under God” is deemed as
In actuality, the Pledge is empty prose that was originally intended to strike at “communism, atheism, materialism, and non-conformity”, and it was essentially created as a marketing ploy (Miller). The form of the Pledge used today was largely devised in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist, in the following form: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all” (Schaefer-Jacobs). The words “of the United States of America” were added after the United States saw a steady rise of immigration during the late 1880s and through WWI (Schaefer-Jacobs). “Today’s Pledge of Allegiance is a legacy of the push for ‘Americanization’” because native-born Americans feared immigrants were not adapting quickly enough …show more content…
This mindset ostracizes those who choose to opt out of saying it. Recently, a Colorado teacher of Angevine Middle School assaulted a student who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (Wootson). While this is just one instance, many school officials react violently to students who wish to opt out. While some are merely unaware that students have the right to sit out the Pledge, others are aware of the law but make it a point to bully students into participation anyway (Niose). Additionally, when used in an exercise designed to teach patriotism to children, the words “under God” send the message that true patriots believe in God. “While a God-believer can proudly say the Pledge of Allegiance, [a] [nonbeliever] must choose to: 1) absent [themselves] from the practice 2) participate in the exercise that denigrates [their] beliefs, or 3) say a different pledge by omitting ‘under God’ which exposes the student and makes [them] appear unpatriotic” (Miller). No one would seriously contend that the daily recitation of “one nation for atheists” is not discriminatory simply because it is optional, yet “under God” is deemed as