Case Study: Respond to the following paragraph. You can either agree or disagree with it. response, should be 150 words.
I chose the "Under God: I Pledge, Present and Future, in Liberty of Conscience" reading because it was interesting to me. During this time many public schools in America were required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance but for those who do not want to can be excused. While the others are reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, the children that are excused still have to participate by standing there respectfully facing the flag until it's over. According to Nussbaum, "The whole point of the pledge, in the mind of its original supporters, was to put all Americans on record as supporting patriotism, and to inculcate the value of patriotism by a daily required exercise in the schools" (Nussbaum, 309). Even though these children are excused from the Pledge of Allegiance they can be look upon as weird, threatening and non-American even adults can fall easily into peer pressure as well.
Justice O' Connor came up with four criteria's to show that the Pledge of Allegiance is not going against constitution. The first criteria are history and ubiquity. "In God we Trust" was used for a very long time compared to the pledge which had been changed in 1954 to add "under God" and in 2006 the United States House passed the bill of removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. People remember the Pledge of Allegiance has been changed and alter compared to "In God we Trust" on money, which have never been changed. People use the currency daily without even noticing. The second criteria are the absence of worship or prayer. "In God We Trust" isn't a ritual observance it's not religious and it is just a statement. According to Justice O' Connor "The pledge is of course entirely different: impressionable children are being asked to join in a ritual observance that is an affirmation of God as well of country" (page 312). The third criteria are absence of reference of particular religion. Justice O' Conner mentions that the pledge is particular in religion, excluding Buddhist, Hindus, and others. The reason was because of the immigration law that kept the immigration quotas to the proportion of the population. The last criteria were minimal religious content for example if a child is reciting the pledge of allegiance he can simply drop the two words "under God".
I think Justice O'Connor's four criteria are not justified because there are many different religions that believe in different gods. If they are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it was place in history it does not make it right. We are not here to judge people's beliefs. It is also unfair to force children to believe one religion. Simply not reciting a few words in the pledge may give the impression on children that they have to suppress their beliefs or feelings. "In God we Trust" on U.S currency is a statement compared to "under God" which is a ritual observance that is practice in public schools daily.