In 1892, a well-intentioned Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy drafted a simple and heartfelt pledge for schoolchildren to recite in celebration of the Columbus Day quadricentennial celebration. Bellamy's simple approach to the issue read: "I swear allegiance to my flag and to the Republic which it represents, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". Minor changes were made during the first half of the 20th century, but none were controversial until the addition of the word "under God" in 1954. This meaningful phrase was added as a result of a widespread fear of communism, usually including state-sponsored atheism. In the United States, this fear had led to the McCarthy era, better known as the “Second Red Scare.” During this period, Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy led the practice of identifying Communist Party members, who were then prosecuted. These "members", however, were rarely supporters of communism: in fact, none of the 205 State Department employees indicted by McCarthy were members of the despised party, making McCarthy's widely publicized attempt to crush communism a failure. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Therefore, “under God” was added to the pledge in a half-hearted attempt to challenge the growing support of communism around the world. Despite popular belief to the contrary, the phrase “under God” was not added during the time of our Founding Fathers' creation of the United States Constitution. The phrase "under God" was added as a result of pure and unadulterated fear of the spread of atheism, in an attempt to control the people of the United States and convert the population to the "correct" religion in the eyes of many politicians - Christianity. American citizens have responded, but the Supreme Court has yet to remedy this violation of the Constitution. In order to form a more perfect union, with a clear separation of church and state, it is necessary to correct this blatant ignorance of the rights of the American people. According to a survey conducted by the US Census Bureau, 151,225 of the 175,440 adults surveyed consider themselves Christian. In a country that is 86.2% Christian and is based on a democracy with a system of majoritarian rules, it seems that in this case majoritarian rules and Christianity can be introduced into our daily lives, right? Wrong. The United States was founded with a strong foundation: the Constitution. The amendments within this Constitution outline the fundamental rights of the American people, which include the rights to free speech, expression and the press, the right to bear arms and to a fair and speedy trial, the right to remain silent and , most importantly, —the right to freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution contains a provision known as the Establishment Clause. This clause proclaims that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The reference to the Christian God in the promise openly challenges this, promoting Christianity over other frequently practiced religions. The majority rule system works when it comes to elections or voting on budgetary issues, but when it comes to rights, the Constitution prevails. For example, in 1967 the state of Virginia maintained a law banning interracial marriages. Although most citizens did not support interracial marriage, the interracial couple Mr. and Mrs. Richard Perry Loving fought back; with the case Loving v. Virginia, the CourtSuprema ruled that state bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional. Constitution aside, some believe that since this country was founded primarily by Christians, it seems that state-sponsored Christianity would make perfect sense. However, those who hold this opinion have not considered the correct mindset of our founding fathers. In a nation full of immigrants seeking to escape government-imposed religion, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, two of the best-known Founding Fathers, were active political leaders of a group that fought against the Anglican Church to establish the separation of church and state in Virginia. Madison even went so far as to ask George Mason, who had drafted a religion clause for the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776, to change a phrase from “the utmost toleration in the free exercise of their religion” to “equal right to the full and free exercise of one's religion". Madison later commented on this request, stating that “every man's right is liberty, not toleration.” Jefferson supported his ideas through the Virginia bill for the establishment of religious freedom. In 1782 he wrote that "the government had no authority in the matter of religion except to prevent 'only such acts as were injurious to others.'" Charles Pinckney, the South Carolina delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, added another influential clause to the Constitution. His motion, which became Article VI, Clause 3, prohibits “the use of religious tests to qualify persons for public office.” Clearly, the Founding Fathers worked to create a country where individuals could take pride in their religion, or lack thereof, without pressure from the government. In the United States today, many take pride in the clear dividing line between church and state; the United States is a place where anyone can practice any religion. Essential to maintaining this is a clear boundary created by the Establishment Clause and supported by multiple Supreme Court cases. Religion should be separated from the state, and especially from the state education system. Of course, there are those who think differently, like Mark A. Noll, author of Christianity in America: A Handbook. Noll believes that Christianity is essential to governing, writing that in a republican system of government “the whole people embody authority, legitimacy, and power,” but in a Christian community “the whole people are the potential seedbed of the Kingdom of God and society, theater of the struggle between the forces of darkness and light”. Although some believe state-sponsored religion is a legitimate way to promote their beliefs, the government has stated otherwise in multiple cases. From 1965 to 1990 in Schuylerville, New York, high school students who frequented the school auditorium also carried a clear message: a ten-by-twelve-foot mural painted along the wall showing a scene from the Crucifixion. In 1988 the parents spoke out asking for the mural to be removed. The parents argued that the mural violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, while the school board countered that the mural showed "man's inhumanity to man" and that the other two scenes in the mural, one depicting two men fighting with swords and another depicting a man in chains, were not inherently religious. In August 1990, a federal judge ruled against the school board, agreeing that the mural showed “a message of government support for Christianity.” A similar case had occurred almost half a century earlier. In 1945, James Terry McCollum had just entered fourth gradeelementary. James and his classmates at an elementary school in Champaign, Illinois, were given the opportunity to enroll in a religious class sponsored by their elementary school. James' parents enrolled him, but soon realized that the lessons did not align with the family's beliefs. The following year, James' parents decided not to enroll him. As a result, James spent the next year in the hall or in a room near the teacher's bathroom during religion class. After being teased by other students for not taking part in religion classes, James' parents sued. In 1948, in the Illinois case ex. Rel. Justices McCollum v. Board of Education ruled that the lessons were “an unconstitutional establishment of religion in schools.” Justice Hugo Black noted that the State provided religious groups with “invaluable assistance in that it [helped] provide pupils for their religious classes through the use of the State's compulsory public school apparatus.” Following this case, “the McCollum family has experienced harassing phone calls, malicious letters, physical attacks on their home, and even death threats.” Because history usually repeats itself, it is likely that if and when an individual in the United States claims violation of the Establishment Clause of the Pledge of Allegiance, that person will suffer many similar inappropriate consequences. Therefore, broad support is essential to upholding the Pledge of Allegiance. Just a decade after the former Illinois. Rel. McCollum v. Board of Education case, another case involving religion was brought to the United States Supreme Court. This case, which reached the Supreme Court in 1962, was caused by a short prayer written by the New York State Board of Regents. A school on Long Island began mandating this prayer, and a group of parents were furious. The school board defended the prayer, saying it was not mandatory and that a student could choose to stand in the room while it was performed. However, the parents sued, leading to the case Engel v. Vital. In favor of the parents, the Supreme Court ruled that the prayer was a form of government-sponsored religion and could not take place. Regarding this case, Justice Hugo Black used similar reasoning as to why the phrase “under God” should be removed from the undertaking, stating that “it is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that any separate government in this country should remain out of this business." to write to sanction official prayers". Historically, religion has been separated from schools; religion distracts from the learning environment that schools strive to maintain and creates an aura of discomfort for the millions of Americans who are not Christians. Since 1892, the public school system has supported the recitation of the pledge, which previously functioned as a successful patriotic initiative. an American's declaration of love for his country of origin. However, the addition of “under God” in 1954 added a distraction from the true purpose of the promise. Since then, citizens have spoken out. In 2010, a mother and father sued after a ruling that New Hampshire schools had to allow time each day for students to recite The Pledge of Allegiance. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals unfairly ruled that the law does not violate the First Amendment because students are not required to recite the pledge. This is inconsistent with previous rulings, including both Engel v. Vital that Illinois ex. Rel. McCollum v. Board of Education Cases. These cases had established that although government-sponsored religious events were not,.