In Gwen Wilde's essay titled "Why the Oath Should be Revised", the author uses a critical tone to persuade the audience that the Oath should not include the words “under God”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Wilde begins with the argument that the words “under God” were not always a pledge of allegiance. She bolsters this argument with historical facts, saying the pledge did not contain the words "under God" until 1954, when President Eisenhower decided to include them. According to Wilde, the words “under God” juxtapose the idea that the nation is “indivisible.” By including the words “under God” in a pledge required by all citizens, those who do not believe in God are divided from those who do. This is what makes the sentence contradictory. Wilde then begins his main argument based on this idea. She says requiring people to recite the pledge is unfair because not all Americans believe in God. While some might argue that the law does not require people to recite this pledge, Wilde counters that there is a sense of peer pressure that makes almost everyone feel like they are required to recite it . Even if people don't believe in God, the pressure of patriotism pushes them to do so. This observation allows Wilde to introduce the following argument. She claims that several million Americans do not believe in God or follow a religion other than Christianity. Wilde makes clear that this commitment is actually anti-American and divisive. By connecting religion to patriotism, it creates the idea that all Americans are Christian. This idea is false and exclusive, which makes this commitment un-American. She then adds that the assertion of religious doctrine contradicts the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that no law concerning the practice of religion may be passed. Wilde adds that she doesn't think the whole pledge is unconstitutional, just the words "under God." Many people also make the argument that the phrase "In God We Trust" is on our money and therefore the phrase "under God." » should remain in the commitment. This argument is based on the idea that if having a phrase about something that Americans see and handle on a daily basis is acceptable, then it should be allowed to remain in a commitment that most Americans do not say on a daily basis. Wilde counters this argument with the fact that people do not pay attention to the sentence about money, because the exchange of money is rapid and most people do not take the time to read the sentence each time they exchange money. In comparison, reciting the pledge requires people to really think about what they are saying and the meaning it conveys. After discussing the difference between the phrase about money and the phrase in commitment, Wilde presents his final argument. She argues that reciting this pledge must be taken seriously and that by including the phrase "under God" it divides the nation. While a Supreme Court justice argued that the words are not meant 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 they separate people of different religions and are unfair to American citizens. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized document from our expert writers now. Get a Custom EssayIn conclusion, Gwen Wilde believes that..