Why the pledge should be revised
In Gwen Wilde’s essay, “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised,” the author strongly believes that the pledge of allegiance should only be used for the sole purpose of patriotism. She includes in the essay the original pledge of allegiance, which was published in 1892 and did not include the words “under God. ” In 1923, the pledge was revised for the first time replacing the original words, “my flag” with “the flag of the united states,” only to be revised the following year to “the flag of the United States of America. ” In 1942 the US congress officially sanctioned the pledge. Finally, In 1954 President Dwight D.
Eisenhower approved the addition of the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance, which brings us to the authors argument of why the pledge should be revised. Gwen Wilde, says “In my view, the addition of the words “under God” is inappropriate and they are needlessly divisive –an odd addition indeed to a Nation that is said to be “indivisible.
Only $13.90 / page
” I agree with the author and believe that the words “under God” can cause hostility or disagreement between fellow Americans. I believe the pledge should be revised. I know that when I recite the pledge I do exactly what I am saying and feel proud to say it.
I believe in God, so really I have never had a problem saying the entire pledge of allegiance. I do remember though, when I was in grade school a boy in my class did not recite the pledge of allegiance because of his religion. As Gwen said, “In short, the pledge which ought to unite us all, is indeed divisive. ” Therefore, by revising the pledge of allegiance and omitting the words “under God,” many patriotic Americans, new citizens, and school children will be able to pledge allegiance to our flag aloud and proud instead of having to remain silent. “On Racist Speech”
In the essay “On Racist Speech,” by Charles R. Lawrence III he states that he has spent the better part of his life as a dissenter. A dissenter is a person in opposition to the official party. He avoids discussions especially if they deal with the freedom of speech our first amendment right. Charles has a deeply felt apprehension about racial violence and verbal assault that minorities receive and believes it to be a matter that cannot forever be avoided. He feels that many people have abandoned those who for one reason or another make up the second class society.
In the essay he gives examples like “Brown v. Board of Education” where Brown held that segregated schools gave the message that black children where unequal citizens and not worthy of attending the same school as white children. The author feels that the policies put in place to avoid segregation have vast consequences equivalent to a slap on the hand. He also feels that racial insults are undeserving of the first amendment right, since their real purpose is to hurt the helpless victims.
The only regulation against such speech is only enforced when it is public, but there is no regulation to prevent it when it invades the victim’s privacy. Being second class citizen myself, I know that most victims of racist speech are skeptical of any policy that would be implemented to protect us. I feel that we need to do whatever we can to help the crisis and show those who are guilty of racist speech that minorities are just like them and the only thing that makes us different is our color, heritage, and speech.