For my ENG 150 class we are required to study an article out of the "Perspectives on Religion in America" composition book. Then we are supposed to write a rhetorical analysis on said article. We were given a choice between 4 different articles and I chose one called "A Government in Thrall to Religion" by Frank R. Zindler, an atheist.
I obviously approached this article with some trepidation, not knowing what to expect. As I read through it, I couldn't help but question if what he was saying was true. His main arguments are as follows:
1. The Constitution calls for a separation of church and state.
2. George Bush(the president at the time) is not supporting this separation but is bringing religious bias into the White House.
3. Evidences of this bias: His entire cabinet was made up of religious politicians; He largly ignored the warnings of ecologists and other scientists; He did not believe in global warming; He pulled funding from a U.N. fund that helps mothers in third world countries get abortions; His administration to some reproduction-education stuff off the nation health websites; He allowed more waste dumping by manufacturers and miners.
The author calls for a separation of church and state and makes it clear that the nation should base it's decisions on science, not religious values, in order remain non-secular.
Do you agree or disagree with this? Do I agree or disagree with this?
On second thought, I'd have to say I disagree.