Friday, October 12, 2007

What the Experts Say

The experts for my side of the argument have a lot to say about 'Under God' in the pledge.

Mary E. Williams, a writer for Religion In America says, "[Elk Grove Unified School District]'s policy pressures schoolchildren to profess religious belief and affirm religious ideals. Indeed, the policy pressures schoolchildern to profess a particular religious docterine, monothiesm, thereby violating the [Establishment] Clause's command of neutrality among religions. And my yoking patriotism to religion, EGUSD's policy exerts an even greater coercive pressure than the school- prayer policies, forcing schoolchildren to choose between declaring religious belief and being branded religious and political outsiders."

Dr. Michael Newdow, the athiest responsible for the controversy over the phrase 'under God' (because he didnt want his daughter to hear there was a god, or to express she believed in one) said, "'Under God' assumes upfront that God exists, and it's unaccpetable for a country with a secular government to ask people to say it."

However, not all experts opinions are from the non-believing side. Elisabeth Sifton, a baptist minister in the south said, "Giving lip service to God does not advance faith, it cheapens it."

Also, in a letter to the editor in USA Today, Thomas B. Moore of Elk Grove, California, a United States Navy veteran, said, "I...pray. And I've never thought of adding "Our Republic" to any personal prayer to God. There is a difference between a pledge and a prayer."

From experts to concerned citizens, the evidence that Under God does not belong in our nation's pledge is strong.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It is very good to get different types of people that oppose having "under god" in the pledge. It shows that it isn't just atheists wanting the phrase out of the pledge, other people want it out also. Another person to have for an opinion would be some type of an elected official.