The author is someone who loves his country and respects God. The love for his country and God has prompted the author to write the article we “Are one nation under God”. This implies that without God, the Nation will not be the way it is. The author talks about the United States constitution and it 1st amendment that states; there should be separation between the state and the church. This means that the church should not tie up the state despite the phrase that says the word ‘God’ should be used in various public formats. The author thinks that it is important for the word ‘God’ to be used in Government formats. The author believes that without God, the US state will not be in existence.
The article is about the use of the word ‘God’ in public formats. It also talks about the separation of the church and the state according to the first amendment of the constitution. The article talks about the importance of following the law, and not letting the law dictate. The author talks about how the amendment should not be used to bar the word ‘God’ from being used in public formats. The 1st amendment states that there should be separation of the church from the state. This helps in preventing people who are in different religions from using the church to defraud the government. This was done basically to make these two bodies independent. If this was not done, the government will be under the church; and selfish individuals will use this opportunity to misuse public funds in the name of the church.
The article talks about a man who files a case in court to prevent the word ‘God’ from being used in public formats. Michael Newdow uses his daughter as a rallying point. He is an atheist and divorced. He sees no reason for the word ‘God’ to be used in public formats; yet the church and government are two separate independent bodies. He implies that the government is not following the law as per the 1st amendment of the constitution. Michael Newdow says that the use of the word ‘God ‘in The Pledge of Allegiance is irrelevant.
Michael Newdow’s daughter is enrolled in Elk Grove Unified School District where the recitation of the Pledge has been sanctioned. Despite Michael’s augments, students in any school are not forced to use the word ‘God’. The student can keep quiet when it comes reciting the pledge. It is not the first time for Michael Newdow to file a law suit against the government in the use of the word ‘God’. He is a selfish person who loves his name appearing in newspapers, magazines, and court dockets. The author sees this man as a selfish freak. The man loves doing things the opposite way and practices aristocracy. He wants to dictate the government and wants to abuse the 1st amendment of the constitution.
The author seems biased about Michael Newdow because he is a minority, and most minorities are overruled by the majority. The author uses emotionally charged language when he calls Michal Newdow an immature, attention loving freak who finds satisfaction every time his name appears in print or on a court docket .The author becomes personal and he is pissed off by the actions of Michael Newdow. He sees him a selfish person who thinks of himself, and cares less about other people. Ambiguous statement used in the article for example, immature and attention loving freak. These statements are used by the author to draw attention to the readers.
The author believes that his use of these words will enable readers to understand the point he is trying to drive home. The author uses Michael Newdow to pass a message to all those who tend to use religion for their selfish needs. This is seen when Michael says that the 1st amendment of the US constitution separates the church from the state and that Michael’s opinions should not be used as facts to dictate the government’s use of the word ‘God’. The author uses stereotypes by concluding that Michael Newdow is an immature, attention loving freak. The author does not give him an opportunity to air his views. There is no room for him to argue why he wants the use of the word ‘God’ removed from government formats in the United States.
Ethnocentrism is seen whereby Michael Newdow being an atheist sees his religion as very important, and that his views should be listened and acted upon. The author is seen to appeal to tradition when he says that the word ‘God’ has been used traditionally in the American currency. Therefore, being a tradition it should also apply to all other institutions. The author sees this as of great importance. The analogy seen in this article is that since the 1st amendment states that the church and state are separate then ‘God’ is to church and the state to itself. This is seen when Michael Newdow’s argument is viewed closely. If the author’s conclusion is taken seriously, then the word ‘God’ will be used without bias, and people like Michael will not be given a chance to protest. Therefore, the voice of the minority will be eliminated, and the majority will always dictate.
The author presents a rational, convincing argument that despite the 1st amendment of the constitution reading that the church and the state should be separate; does not mean that the word God should not be used in government formats, and in reciting the pledge. Therefore, people should be made aware of the importance of God to the state. People like Michael Newdow should not be eliminated, but guided on the importance of separating the church and state.