July 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    



Recent Entries

September 15, 2005


I’ve been at a loss as to what to post in the blog as of late. So many things…so little time…so little motivation to do so for some reason. There is all of the political sniping around Katrina (I still think it is too early to get into the politics of it, and I find it interesting how the media is starting to sight in the LA politicians…imagine that). There is the ranting of a few Senators over the confirmation of Judge Roberts (funny to hear a recording of Kennedy a few decades ago flat out opposing what he himself is doing now, and surprising to see Spector put some of his fellow Senators in their place…refreshing actually).

And then they announce that a Federal judge ruled in favor of the atheist (forgot his name) out there in CA because of the precedence set by the 9th Circuit Court a few years ago. My first, knee-jerk reaction was to write about how much of a crock that was, but then I starting to think. I can understand him not wanting his child to be “indoctrinated” (as some would liken it) into believing in God- that is for the parents to do, not the public schools or government. I mean I wouldn’t want the school my kid attends to start having the students reciting something like Mohammed being God’s prophet (not that there is anything wrong with believing so, just not my cup of tea), so it is only fair I guess.

I don’t really want to get into the whole argument as to whether or not there is any basis for claiming that the reference to God in the pledge is truly brain-washing children. I know, the original Pledge didn’t even have “under God” in it. That’s not what I want to rant about. The problem with this ruling is that these folks will keep going. Admittedly, I am not an atheist, but this guy out in CA and others like him are zealots and are going to try to get every mention of God removed from the public forum: from our money, to our oaths of office…so much for two hundred years of tradition.

No big deal, right? I mean we should be tolerant and make sure no one’s civil liberties are being abused. It even sounds like the right thing in principle. Heck, I was thinking that way until I started to see this whole issue as a zero sum game. What makes the difference in my eyes is that atheism is considered a religion in the eyes of the law (Kaufman v. McCaughtry). Not all atheists may agree, but more and more are embracing the idea so they can have the legal protections of a religion. Now, the “religion” of these folks (if I understand them correctly) is the absence of God. Maybe I am missing something, but if they argue that the mentioning of God in the public forum is promoting religion, is it not promoting their religion if all mentioning of God is removed? There really can’t be a compromise between these two bipolar positions…if one wins the other loses. So, if we legally remove all mentioning of God in public forums so that they don’t feel that we are trying to convince their children that there is a God, wouldn’t they then be convincing our children through those legal restrictions that there is no God? After all, if it was against the law to mention God in a public forum, then it must be because to believe so is wrong…right?

Show Comments

Posted by Randolph Dudetooth at 06:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)