Essay Analysis - ENglish 101 PDF

Preview

Summary

ANALYZING GWEN WILDE'S "WHY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SHOULD BE REVISED" ESSAY, ENGLISH 101, LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGE, GRADE: 92%...

Description

1 English 101 Essay 1: Final Draft September 17, 2018 Faith and Patriotism Gwen Wilde’s “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised” essay is a convincing piece of writing, but only if her readers are critical thinkers. In the essay, Wilde is arguing that the pledge of allegiance should be revised, specifically that the words “under God” should be removed from the pledge because it is “needlessly divisive” (par. 4). She argues that having the words “under God” in the pledge forces unreligious Americans to say something they don’t believe while participating in a patriotic act like reciting the pledge of allegiance. She uses evidence like the constitution, the original pledge of allegiance, and the history of the pledge to support her argument. Although Wilde does not adequately address opposing viewpoints, the evidence she presents to support her argument is enough to convince the part of her audience that is willing to read the essay objectively. First, Wilde writes about the history of the pledge in the first three paragraphs, but she does not tell us why the words “under God” were added. She takes us from 1892, when the original pledge was published, to the first revision in 1923, and all the way to the last revision in 1954. I think the point she is trying to make by writing about the history of the pledge of allegiance is that it is possible for the words to change, so that they can better reflect the citizens who recite them. It is a great piece of evidence, because she is arguing for the revision of the pledge. However, she never quite tells us why the words “under God” were added to the pledge. She mentions that President Eisenhower said “in this way, we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those

2 spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war” (quoted in Wilde, par.5) after authorizing the change. But this statement by President Eisenhower seems more like an afterthought, and not the reason why the pledge was changed in the first place. In paragraphs one and two, she writes about why the first couple of revisions were made, but in the third paragraph, she just writes “In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words ‘under God’” (par. 3). She does not tell us why it was added, or why it was even considered. There had to be some reasoning behind changing an official document like the pledge of allegiance, because I’d like to think that President Eisenhower did not just wake up one day and decide to add new words to the pledge. I think writing about why those words were added would have made her argument more balanced because it would have created an opportunity for people who agree or disagree with her argument to judge the reasoning behind the 1954 revision. It also would have answered questions like: why was “under God” added to the pledge? Was the revision in some way connected to a particular situation in the country at the time? These are valid questions. Official documents do not get altered for no reason, and if Wilde is going to tell us why “my flag” (par. 2) was changed to “the Flag of the United States” (par. 2), and then to “the Flag of the United States of America” (par. 2), she should also tell us why the words “under God” were added. Wilde does a good job approaching the topics of faith and patriotism completely logically, but the lack of valid counterarguments makes her argument seem biased. Faith and patriotism are probably the two most important things in the world to most Americans, which is why most people usually do not want to discuss them. It is difficult to approach them completely logically because for a lot of people, they are one and the same. In her essay, Wilde does not try to convince her reader with emotion, but with facts like the history of the pledge of allegiance and

3 the constitution. The only problem is, these facts can be interpreted in more than one way. For example, liberals and conservatives have not been able to agree on what the establishment clause in the first amendment of the constitution means. Conservatives do not think it means separating religious beliefs - specifically Christian beliefs - from the government, while liberals think it means just that. One can say that the reaction to reading Wilde’s essay can almost be split evenly along political party lines. Conservatives will argue that America is a Judeo-Christian country, and so the words “under God” represent those values. While Liberals will argue that while America has a Judeo-Christian history, it has evolved and Americans who are not JudeoChristian or religious should not have to say something they do not believe in. Regardless of one’s politics, I think Wilde is correct when she says that, “when we announce that we respect the flag - that we are loyal Americans - we should not also have to announce that we hold a particular religious belief” (par. 12). However, when discussing religion and/or patriotism, it is very important to adequately address viewpoints that are different from one’s own, but Wilde does not do enough of that. While I think her essay is a compelling piece of writing with adequate evidence to support her argument, I believe she should have given more thought to what respected religious leaders in America have to say about the topic. I think it would have made her essay stronger, because addressing the opinions of religious Americans would have shown her readers that she did her best to be unbiased, or at the very least, that she considered their points of view. Finally, in paragraph 13 Wilde addresses what I believe is a pretty irrelevant counterargument. She writes about how people usually bring up the words “In God We Trust” which appear on all US currency as a defense for having the words “under God” in the pledge. She writes about why it is not a worthwhile argument because “when we hand some coins over,

4 or some paper money, we are concentrating on the business transaction, and we are not making any affirmation about God or our country” (par. 13). While I agree with that assessment, I think that as far as counterarguments go, that is a pretty weak one. She’s right in saying that spending money is not the same as reciting a pledge of allegiance, because after-all non US citizens spend US currency all over the world, and that does not mean they love or hate America. If she is arguing that the words on the US currency are not as important as the words in the pledge, then one can also conclude that the words on the currency are not a valid counterargument. It is certainly not an argument that any critical thinker who disagrees with Wilde will make, and that is why I mentioned using evidence from leading and respected religious leaders in my second paragraph. If one is going to argue for the removal of “under God” from the pledge of allegiance, then one can easily conclude that the people who will be most opposed to it are religious people. Therefore, hearing their thoughts on the subject would have been invaluable and helped make Wilde’s argument stronger. Gwen Wilde makes a lot of valid points throughout her essay, points that anyone who reads the essay objectively will agree with or at least be open to discussing. However, the lack of valid counterarguments will probably make people think the writing is biased, or leaning too much to the left side of the political spectrum. Wilde says “something like 70 or even 80% of Americans say they are affiliated with some form of Christianity, and approximately another 3% say they are Jewish” (par. 6). If this were a survey, and 73 - 83% of a population were in favor of one outcome, shouldn’t that outcome be considered more than the opinions of the 17 - 27% minority? I’m not saying that the minority should be ignored. In cases like the civil rights movement and the fight for marriage equality, the majority of Americans were wrong for a long time. However, I think that their thoughts on this subject would have been invaluable, especially because for

5 most religious people, their faith is a huge part of who they are. But, nonreligious people also have a constitutional right to be nonreligious and not feel like that makes them any less American than their religious counterparts. In a nutshell, this a complicated issue. And even though Wilde does not discuss valid opposing arguments enough, I still think her argument and evidence are logical and, in my opinion, they will be considered persuasive by critical thinkers.

Works Cited

6 Wilde, Gwen. “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings, edited by Sylvan Barnet, et al., 11th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017, pp. 64-66....