The establishment clause
Introduction
In 1953, the government of United States became involved in the Pledge of Allegiance. A democrat known as Michigan got involved too and sponsored a resolution to add the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. This paper seeks to analyze a case study and discuss the question “How would you expect the court to rule on the issue of inclusion of “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance based on the information given form the case study?. Below is a discussion on how I would expect the court to rule on the issue of continued usage of the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of allegiance.
The Court could use the United States Congress in the Act 542(2004) to quote the words form the 34th president of United States Dwight D. Eisenhower during the Flag Day speech on 14th, June 1954. He said that inclusion of the phrase Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance is a symbol of dedicating the nation and the people of America to the Almighty God. The court should give out the advantages of connecting the Pledge of allegiances spiritually and involving God in it. The court should also drive their point home by being supportive of their statement which made them conclude that the phrase Under God should be included in the National Anthem. For, example the court can say that during the ruling of Eisenhower, the American experienced the highest prosperity ever known in the world economically. One reason for the rampant increase in American economy during this period was due to President Eisenhower who believed and trusted in God when undertaking the country’s activities. The president told the nation during his speech that involving God in the Pledge of Allegiance has the impact of resolving wars, reducing violence and conflict and eventually bringing peace.
The court should also apply the Patterson’s discussion on the guidelines to apply in the Pledge of Allegiance. Patterson argues that when the government acknowledges that it is only Under God that human rights cannot be denied it is easy to prosper. It indicates that any government that involves God in its national activity shows humility and this type of government are safer compared to the one that imagines itself to be a source of all the citizens’ freedom. The court should discuss these ideas could the issue be brought again.
In conclusion, some people are against the inclusion of the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States. The court should rule the issue by having supportive arguments on the benefits of using the Phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. Some of the reasons that the court should use to rule the issue and conclude to continue using the phrase are discussed above.