Jacob Aronovich

G Band

9/21/13
Mr. Ryan Gov

Pledge of Allegiance
During every morning in American public schools, every major sporting event, every
major public assembly, and every oath for political office, we Americans recite the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. When you say the pledge, you are
exhibiting your patriotism and loyalty to the flag, in which the flag is a symbol of our nation and
everything we were built on. Symbols are very powerful, as they can illustrate the history and
origins of a concept or tangible item much more vividly than any combination of a few words.
Essentially, the pledge is about paying homage to the flag, a symbol of those same American
traditions and values that allow us to live in a free nation. It should continue to be a part of
American life because it was devised in order to promote solidarity, strength, and loyalty; three
factors that are crucial to the success of a nation.
The Pledge of Allegiance, interestingly enough, was first written by a Christian minister
and socialist named Francis Bellamy. In 1892, Bellamys original pledge read: "I pledge
allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all." Today, we know that this phrase has been altered, and in a span of a hundred and
twenty years or so, under God and the United States of America were added to the pledge. In
modern times, America has become much more tolerant of beliefs that conflict with the status
quo, and so many people (religious/non-religious/atheist) have showed disdain for the insertion
of a perceived religious and/or spiritual reference in a patriotic pledge of allegiance to the
symbol of our country. Another portion of the pledge which emphasizes liberty and justice for all
Americans, has also fallen under scrutiny because its adversaries actually believe that these two
core American ideas do not actually manifest themselves within the bounds of our borders.
The inclusion of the Pledge of Allegiance into our daily lives was best described by
social psychologist Michael Billig, who coined the term banal nationalism. In Billigs own
words from his book entitled Banal Nationalism, he states: The established nations are those
states that have confidence in their own continuity, and that, particularly, are part of what is
conventionally described as the West. The political leaders of such nations whether France,
the USA, the United Kingdom or New Zealand are not typically termed nationalists.

However, as will be suggested, nationhood provides a continual background for their political
discourses, for cultural products, and even for the structuring of newspapers. In so many little
ways, the citizenry are daily reminded of their national place in a world of nations. However, this
reminding is so familiar, so continual, that it is not consciously registered as reminding. The
metonymic image of banal nationalism is not a flag which is being consciously waved with
fervent passion; it is the flag hanging unnoticed on the public building. In other words, reciting
the pledge which includes words such as under God should not be taken at face value. It
should simply be viewed as a daily exercise that contributes to the success and continuity of our
nation. If an individual does not want to partake in the recitation of the pledge, the freedom of
America dictates that it is not mandatory. The people who oppose keeping the pledge in our
culture have an option not to say it; however it becomes deliberately unpatriotic of them to try to
take it away from other Americans who want to profess their loyalty to this country.
It seems absurd that there are still people who reject the Pledge of Allegiance for its
inclusion of certain phrases that they perceive to be false or unnecessary. The pledge we say on a
daily basis; in school, at sporting events, and other assemblies, is a representation of loyalty,
patriotism, nationalism, and frankly, the ultimate convictions of our Founding Fathers. The
phrase under God is not purposely meant to perpetuate any sort of religious propaganda; it is
also used in government oaths, in courts, and in state constitutions. The belief in a supreme being
is a core value of American heritage and ideology. Reciting the pledge should not be taken as a
religious exercise, but rather an individuals commitment to being a loyal citizen and respecting
our countrys tradition. In response to the popular objection against liberty and justice for all
being included in the pledge, if you wholeheartedly believe that you do not have enough liberty
or justice living in the United States, I shall advise you to move elsewhere. You should probably
look into authoritarian China, or openly anti-gay Russia, or quite possibly India or certain
countries in Africa, where people live in extreme poverty with no hope of government
intervention.
It seems that the ever increasing opposition of our Pledge of Allegiance is doing just the
opposite of what the pledge was intended for; the oppositions cause is a divisive one that
accomplishes nothing but desecrating American values. These same values have allowed us to
live in a country free from all types of open persecution. The pledge is not mandatory for a
reason, because a person should not be forced to demonstrate a love for his/her country. Those

who say that it should not be kept in American tradition are doing a disservice to America, and
are only making us weaker as a whole.

Works Cited
Baer, John W., Dr. "The Pledge of AllegianceA Short History." The Pledge of Allegiance. N.p.,
1992. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

Billig, Michael. "The Nationalism Project: "Banal Nationalism"" The Nationalism Project:
"Banal Nationalism" N.p., 1995. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

Nussbaum, Martha C. ""Under God:" The Pledge, Present and Future." University of Chicago
Law School. N.p., 2008. Web. 21 Sept. 2013.

"Top 10 Pros and Cons - Under God in the Pledge - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2013. <http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000063>.