Kw-logo-smaller

Pledge of Allegiance Debate

Every morning across the United States of America, over 60 million teachers and students recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But, in 2002, a California man named Dr. Michael Newdow, sued the federal and state governments and his daughter's local school board because the words "under God" in the Pledge offended him, as he and his family are atheists (do not believe in God). The California court agreed, saying the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.

Two years later, on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court over-ruled the California courts decision - leaving the words "under God" in the constitution for now. The ruling comes on the 50th anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge.

The Issues - Pros and Cons of "under God"

Because it is law for religion and government to be separate, Dr. Michael Newdow took his case to court, and won. Judge Alfred T. Goodwin declared the Pledge to be unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court thought otherwise. Because Dr. Michael Newdow does not have "sufficient custody" of his daughter (Dr. Newdow and his wife are separated, so for now his daughter doesn't live with him full time), the Supreme Court says that Dr. Newdow doesn't have the legal right to sue on his daughter's behalf. Michael Newdow says he will still continue his fight to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge.

Pledge of Allegiance 101

If you're unfamiliar with the Pledge of Allegiance, here's what it says:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

What Does It All Mean?

Children across the United States will continue to say the Pledge of Allegiance as it is written. However, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court does leave things open for others to still challenge the Pledge. If, for instance, Michael Newdow had full custody of his daughter, the result of this court case may have been different.

"Under God" - The History

Many argued that removing the words "under God" would be tampering with American tradition, but the truth is, the phrase "under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. During the Cold War, the words were added to separate the United States from the "godless Communists".

What do you think about the Pledge of Allegiance debate? !

  • To find out what Kidzworld members have to say about the Pledge of Allegiance case, click here.

    Related Stories:

  • Flag Day
  • Controversial Religious Art
  • Pokemon Banned
  • More On Religion and Controversy
  • 7 Comments

    latest videos

    F1025291062546

    Is God In Or Out?

    • I think the words "under God" should be removed.
    • I want the Pledge to stay just the way it is.
    • I'll wait to see what the court decides.
    • I don't really know what to think.

    related stories

    Random in the forums

    Boysrock50
    Boysrock50 posted in Debating:
    "-Karpov-" wrote: "Boysrock50" wrote: I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'. As it is now do you think it's ok to continue doing it?   I'm not sure how it is done right now, give me some time to read about it, not really a topic I've bothered about before. All you tend to hear is protests against how horrible it is, but people seem to be fine with it on a whole tbh >>hmm it's unpleasant but I think most of it is necessary. I would say it's acceptable at the moment but we should try to find alternatives, e.g. testing on lab-grown tissues. And only test on animals for the things that have no alternatives
    reply 17 minutes
    -Karpov-
    -Karpov- posted in Debating:
    "Boysrock50" wrote:I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'. As it is now do you think it's ok to continue doing it?  
    reply 19 minutes
    Armygirlfriend
    North America. 
    reply 21 minutes
    Armygirlfriend
    When you truly love someone, no distance or amount of time can tear you apart. Sure it would be easier to move on, but being with anyone else would just be settling. The days are lonely and the nights are worse but when you have a love this strong never let it go. It may be hard, but God knows it'll be worth in the end. It's my favorite quote because I'm dating a soldier. I live in the state and town we met in but we've been together for four months and he's away at bootcamp right now but I love him. And this quote truly speaks about what we're going through. 
    reply 23 minutes
    Boysrock50
    Boysrock50 posted in Debating:
    I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'.
    reply 30 minutes

    play online games