Analysis Of The Controversy 'Under God'

To Remain Under God Controversy spreads widely on a topic that has yet to be settled: the appropriateness of the expression “under God” in America’s national Pledge. Supporters of the saying believe that it instills a sense of safety, humbleness, and morality. They approve of the phrase whereas critics condemn it for its hostility. Contestants argue that the saying imposes a monotheistic conviction, a religious declaration, and the fear of out casting on an entire nation whose people are not all the same. Advocates of the phrase “under God” assert that it gives them a sense of safety without violence. They use it to reaffirm their faith in lieu of weaponry. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States, stated that although war …show more content…
They believe that the phrase tells of the conviction held by America’s founders that their power comes from God alone. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a nonprofit legal center specializing in constitutional law, believes that Congress introduced this saying not only to express America’s understanding of this truth, but also to set them apart from atheistic nations who believe that there is no higher power than themselves (par. 1). Advocates of the phrase “under God” also assert that the Pledge as a whole does not undermine the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. They consider it to be what distinguishes them from a nation with a God-complex. On the contrary, challengers of the expression claim that it only gratifies political and religious interests, turning an irreligious declaration into a pious vow. Austin Cline, MA, Agnosticism/Atheism guide for About.com, says that if it were changed to “under no God” or “under Allah”, supporters would be in an uproar (par. 1). Thus, critics of the phrase consider it to be partial, therefore, incapable of satisfying the conditions of the First