In Gwen Wilde's essay entitled "Why the Pledge Should Be Revised", the author uses a critical tone to persuade the audience that the Pledge should not include words “under God”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayWilde begins with the argument that the words “under God” were not always a guarantee of faithfulness. She reinforces this argument with historical facts, stating that the promise did not contain the words “under God” until 1954, when President Eisenhower decided they should be included. According to Wilde, the expression “under God” juxtaposes the idea that the nation is “indivisible”. By including the words “under God” in a promise required of all citizens, people who do not believe in God are separated from those who do. This is what makes the sentence contradictory. Wilde then begins his main argument based on this idea. She argues that requiring people to recite the pledge is unfair because not all Americans believe in God. While some might argue that people are not required by law to recite the pledge, Wilde counters that there is a sense of peer pressure which makes almost everyone feel obliged to recite it. Even if people don't believe in God, the pressure of patriotism makes them do. This observation allows Wilde to introduce the next topic. You argue that several million Americans do not believe in God or follow a religion other than Christianity. Wilde explains that the pledge is actually un-American and divisive. By linking religion to patriotism, it creates the idea that all Americans are Christians. This idea is false and exclusionary, thus making the promise un-American. He adds that the affirmation of a religious doctrine contradicts the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that no law may be made regarding the practice of religion. Wilde adds that he doesn't think the entire promise is unconstitutional, just the words "under God." Many people also raise the argument that the phrase "In God We Trust" is on our money and therefore the phrase "under God" should remain in the escrow. This argument is based on the idea that if it's okay to have the phrase about something that Americans see and handle every day, then it should be allowed to keep a promise that most Americans don't say on a daily basis. Wilde counters this argument by stating that people do not pay attention to the phrase about money, since the exchange of money is rapid and most people do not take the time to read the phrase every time they exchange money. By comparison, the act of reciting the pledge requires people to really think about what they are saying and the meaning it carries. After discussing the difference between the money sentence and the promise sentence, Wilde presents his final argument. He argues that reciting the promise must be taken seriously and that including the phrase “under God” divides the nation. While a Supreme Court justice argued that the words are not to be taken seriously and are “diluted,” Wilde counters that they are clear and mean exactly what they say. According to Wilde, the words "under God" should not be included because it separates people of different religions and is unfair to American citizens. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom EssayIn conclusion, Gwen Wilde believes that the promise should not contain the words “under God.” He believes this divides the nation and is unfair to.