if u don't mind reading this essay, please tell me what do u think needs improvement.thanks.

The recent verdict that allowed the removal of “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance has ignited a debate for the citizens of the United States of America. The removal isn’t just between those who do not believe in God and those who do. The controversy is about the opinions and the values between the non-religious, religious, moral and the political groups of people.
For many atheists and agnostics who question the existence of God, they find it difficult to say the Pledge of Allegiance since it has a phrase saying: “Under God”. Although they declare themselves loyal Americans who believe the United States is one nation and is indivisible, they do not understand the country being, “Under God”. Before the removal of the phrase which was added to the pledge in 1954, many omitted the reference and remained silent as they listened to others finish the pledge.
The religious citizens of America insist the phrase should be kept in. Although “Under God” was inserted by the Congress in 1954 by Judeo- Christians, many religious groups believe the two words can be applied to the beliefs of many different religions. “Under God” applies to the same God of Abraham which Muslims, Christians and Jews worship. Other religious sects such as Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs display no problem because the word applies to the Supreme Being that they worship. Other religious groups insist the words should be kept in because it offers the belief in God whenever the pledge is recited.
The moral perspectives state the removal of “Under God” makes the American citizens forget that they are part of something bigger than themselves. It also does nothing to promote the principles that Americans claim to represent to the world. The citizens who display morality are also concerned how liberty and justice can exist when everyone is concerned with themselves. They debate that by being concerned about individual rights; corruption of corporations occurs and the principle of good over evil and compassion for fellow human beings does not exist.
Politically, people have begun to debate that the removal of the infamous phrase from the pledge will occur in several documents such as currency. Some report that the judges who passed the verdict finally made it clear that the alteration that occurred in 1954 violated the separation of church and state.
Since the verdict has been passed, several solutions to the heated debate have come to surface. The removal of “Under God” undermines the belief of the majority of American citizens who believe their nation is under divine influence. An example of a solution is that by leaving the phrase in the pledge, the majority maintain their tradition and the minority who contain disbelief in God should skip the two words. The best example of a solution to the problem is that the Pledge of Allegiance which had strong meaning should be strengthened more with the removal of “Under God”.

I'm kinda indifferent. If it's in cool, but it actually shouldn't be. It's not the governments job to teach yo kids. It's not the government's job to instill beliefs of God either. That duty falls on the parents. Those who say it should remain are being lazy.

Furthermore, if church and state are not seperate, then WHICH church will the gov. 'give' you? It was the whole reason why the country was founded. To get away from those European nations that forced a certain God, and if He wasn't yo God, then you were persecuted.


With all that said, I'd rather it stay in...wha?

youngworld said:

thanks. u are right about the country being founded to get away from the european nations. it is kind of confusing, though.

My opinion?
You didn't write this at all. You should post the author's name, give them credit, and not pretend or imply that this is your essay or opinion, then maybe i'll read the rest of it.

mrchristian said:

IT IS MINE.
IF IT WAS OTHERS, I WOULD NEVER ASKED WHAT IMPROVEMENTS CAN U MAKE TO THE ARTICLE???!!! I DIDN'T ASK FOR OPINION.

I AM WRITNG THIS TO SEND TO A NEWSPAPER. I HOPE THEY CAN POST ANOTHER ARTICLE FROM ME SO I MAY RECEIVE $50.

subyduby said:

It's well written, but it offers no new ideas or perspectives into the debate, which has already been beaten to death.

teller said:

oh.thanks.
my father said that my eassy offer no opinion from me.

Well, it's hard to say without seeing the original assignment suby.

What research did you do other than reading the threads here on the Org? Cause let me tell you, that doesn't pass even the minimum requirements for academic responsibility.

2the9s said:

9s? Thats why you're my Knucka! Love you man, tell these mafuckas whats the bitness!

Overall, it's a pretty well-rounded potrayal of what's been happening. Your conclusion derived from the facts is the last sentence I presume:

"The best example of a solution to the problem is that the Pledge of Allegiance which had strong meaning should be strengthened more with the removal of “Under God”."

I'm not sure why you find this the best solution of the problem of a minority, who will never be realistically happy anyway. That's right, time to get real -- sometimes we can't have everything we want. Are we to throw out all material possessions just because certain fringe groups (Amish) are "forced" to see them everyday? Why should the minority dictate to everyone else? Is that fair? How about some tolerance?

There is no utopia. You can't please everyone, that includes a small athiest minority, pure and simple. Again, are we to stop butchering cows out of respect of the Hindu's here? Unless the country completely changes and rejects all the founding documents, all basis of our law, and the general belief of a Creator which gave us inalieable rights which this country was founded upon, it's not going to happen. And if it does, we've already seen the result haven't we?

The communist Soviet Union.

Keep in mind the 9th CIRCUS court's decision is a very extreme viewpoint from the most liberal court in America, and the most overturned court in America. The Supreme Court has overturned the 9th CIRCUS court 28 times to my knowledge, 17 times UNANIMOUSLY. That's right, both sides of the political spectrum thought they're rulings were ludicrous. No surprise that the 9th Circus court's chief, Justice Rhinehardt is in fact married to a bigwig in the ACLU. Don't take my words for it, do the research.

Hope you get the $50! Wish my paper paid that kind of dough.