The essay “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised” by Gwen Wilde is a thought provoking essay. The essay begins with Wilde giving us background on the Pledge of Allegiance, from the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance to final version of the Pledge of Allegiance; that includes at least two revisions that many may not have known of and the reasons for these revisions. Wilde goes on to give her reasons why she feels that the latest revision, the inclusion of the words “under God”, should not have been added into the Pledge of Allegiance and giving examples of how adding this phrase puts many American people in a position to seem un-American or un Patriotic because they cannot speak this phrase and really believe it or mean it. Even if these people are proudly American and very Patriotic, some even risking their lives for America and its people while in the military. Wilde then clarifies that she does not believe that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional (66) and she backs up this claim by stating a phrase from the First Amendment.
One thing that sets America apart from other countries is its freedom. The freedom to say, do, or practice whatever one wants. Hate speech is part of that freedom. Not allowing “hate speech” is essentially telling someone, “Hey, you shouldn’t have an opinion.” There are quotations marks around the words hate speech because there’s no real guideline on what is considered a hate speech. It’s sort of a gray line.
He off-roads his car while at the Detrital Wash, even though there are signs that say that off-roading is forbidden where he is. Krakauer says of McCandless after this occurs that, “as a latter-day adherent of Henry David Thoreau, [he] took as gospel the essay ‘On Duty of Civil Disobedience’ and thus considered it his moral responsibility to flout the laws of the state” (28). Like Thoreau, McCandless, too, thinks that government as a whole is something that truly binds and oppresses, and is a wholly unnecessary system. Government prevents Thoreau and McCandless from living the right life that is meant for everyone, so its rules must be broken. When they both decide to go against the government, it is solely because both think that government prevents the Transcendentalist lifestyle.
Everybody has a right to freedom; people all have the right also to show how they express it. John F Kennedy believed freedom should not be limited to a victory. He said “we deserve today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom”(Kennedy 1). People should not express a victory over a loss more valuable than how they express freedom. On the other hand, Patrick Henry expressed freedom in a non-similar way.
Mrs. Hopkins, I cannot bear with your euphemistic assertion of ‘I will remind them there is exceptional dignity in defending your own country’. Yes, I fervently agree that these people should be protecting their own country in some extent as it is their country. However, your prejudiced view of these people throughout the article (including the quote I just embedded) creates negative imagery of the refugee and asylum seekers. Clearly, you have not thought from refugees’ point of view from your bigoted viewpoint towards these people. Did you think these people wanted to leave their country?
he replied and then said in his opinion "but I also think that people invoke the flag because they want to endorse on some level, even secretly or subconsciously, the very rational for the Confederacy. When people say heritage not hate, they are omitting the obvious, which is heritage is hate. when someone says it 's about history well that particular history is inseparatable from hate. Because
It is less controversial removing the lines about God “a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed” and emphasis our roles as citizens; “I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”(Source B) And if people feel strongly about the racist and xenophobic origins that the Pledge was written in the context of, they can vote against it (Source D and F). As one author claims, “The pledge reveals the central, humiliating lie of American life – this country has not earned its loyalty, not from everyone, and thus demands it.” I agree that blind recitation is bad, but the Pledge reminds many people who we
All in all , Chief Red Jacket speech purpose was to confirm the Indians decision on not converting to the force religion. Chief Red Jacket uses pathos to make the reader feel sympathy to show that the Indians have been very patient to the actions of the Whites. Chief Red Jacket uses repetition to emphasize the background history of the Indians beliefs that will not change. Chief Red Jacket uses imagery to show that the Indians have received the Whites with open arms but they just wanted more and more. Imagine a world where only one religion
He also clearly thinks that there is a right and that there is a wrong. Although, Marianne only really approaches this in an absolutist way, it is important to understand how other people may view racism and issues of that nature. Racism is an extremely touchy subject and can cause a lot of emotions to be brought forth. She states in her article that racism is rooted in our history and that there is no way to deal with racism today if we do not address racism present throughout history. Whether that racism has physical or emotional effects, Marianne Williamson strongly believes that it needs to be dealt with.
The Americans were very religious people so and they were proving themselves hypocritical because the bible states, “put your soul in their soul's stead” (9). Trying to see one's perspective through another lens forces a different emotion that it would from their own perspective. Using the emotions the Americans felt with what the slaves felt forced the readers to look into a different perspective which strengthened his argument. His emotional pitch at the end lends credence to the idea that the Declaration needed to refer to all people not just some. Banneker use of logos and pathos together allowed him to strengthening his argument that the Declaration of Independence did not apply to all people.