Runaway Planet

DO WE REALLY NEED EMPTY, MEANINGLESS PRAYER?

Michael Newdow lost in his attempt to stop the inauguration prayer, but the reasoning the judges gave in ruling against him makes me wish he had won. At least it would have spurred a deeper debate. Basically, the judges said the prayer could proceed because it didn't signify anything important and to change it so close to the event would mess up all the planning that has already taken place of the event.. It is a prayer of tradition, they said, devoid of anything that might be considered proselytizing.

In a decision issued late today, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates rejected Newdow's legal challenge saying "there is a strong argument, that at this late date, the public interest would best be served by allowing the 2005 Inauguration ceremony to proceed on January 20 as planned."

The court continued: "That would be consistent with the inclusion of clergy prayer in all Presidential inaugurations since 1937, and with the inclusion of religious prayer or reference in every inauguration commencing with the first inauguration of President Washington in 1789. To do otherwise, moreover, would at this eleventh hour cause considerable disruption in a significant, carefully-planned, national event, requiring programming and other adjustments. The material change requested by Newdow in an accepted and well-established historical pattern of short prayers or religious references during Presidential inaugurations, based on this last-minute challenge, is not likely to serve the public interest, particularly where Newdow's ability to proceed with this action remains in doubt and there is no clear evidence of impermissible sectarian proselytizing."

So if that is all it is - a few words that don't signify much - why bother?

STILL BATTLING OVER THE PLEDGE

Atheist Michael Newdow is suing again. And, at least in regards to the eduction question (he has sinced branched out into trying to stop the inauguration prayer), I still think he's right.

RELIGIOUS WAR IN THE COURTS

The ACLU's battle to rid the country of Christian symbols is generally presented as a fight between religion and no religion. However, as David Klinghoffer correctly asserts, the war is really between two religions: Secularism and Jewish/Christian theism.

What we are observing here is not what it may appear to be — a struggle of religion against no religion. It is instead a battle pitting one religion, broadly speaking, against another. On one side we have, primarily, the biblical faith of Jews and Christians. On the other side, secularism. If you object that secularism has no deity, remember that other recognized faiths, for example Zen Buddhism, likewise lack a belief in God. What is a religion, then? Simply, a system of beliefs based on stories that explain where life comes from, what life means, and what we, as living beings, are supposed to be doing with our few allotted years.

Exactly right, and very nice to see in a paper like the LA Times. Klinghoffer concludes

It emerges that, in the controversies surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance and the L.A. County seal, what we're seeing is an unacknowledged interreligious civil war. Centuries ago in Europe and the Middle East, intolerant faiths sought to suppress one another, erasing symbols of their rivals wherever possible. Churches were converted to mosques, their crosses removed. Synagogues were converted into churches, their Jewish symbols effaced. Today the church of secularism agitates against its rival, the Judeo-Christian tradition. In the interest of honest debate, at the very least it would be of benefit to recognize secularism for what it is: an aggressive religion competing for converts, a faith lacking the candor to speak openly of its aims.

WHEN ATHEISTS ARE RIGHT

Newsweek offers up a must read online article by Melinnda Hennenberger about why, as I have argued often in this space, atheist Michael Newdow is right about removing the phrase "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. She argues that religious words have lost their meaning - they are just therapeutic symbols that people don't actually believe to be true - and if that is the case, we might as well say to hell with them:

In Chicago the other night, I met an old school friend for a late dinner. She’s a lawyer now, with two young kids, and as we talked about our families, she said how much she envied me my faith—or as she put it, my “ability to make that leap of irrationality.” She explained that she, a non-believing Catholic, and her husband, a non-believing Jew, were trying to find a way to pass on a little trumped-up religious feeling to their children. Why? “Because that’s such a comfort for kids.”

“You’ve always been such a true believer,” she said—and at this point she actually leaned over and patted my arm. “But they’re just a bunch of stories that are supposed to make us feel better.” I believe this was the moment I began to think, “I gave up two hours of sleep for this?” And when I was reminded of a story Flannery O’Connor told on herself, as quoted in George Weigel’s beautiful new book, “Letters to a Young Catholic:’

GOD BLESS ATHEISTS

When atheist Michael Newdow argued against the phrase "one antion under God" before the Supreme Court last week, I pointed out that he seemed to be the only peson in the proceedings that properly understood the nature of religion. Now the New Republic has come out with a cover story saying the same thing. It's not often I'll recommend this magazine, but these are stange times.

ONE NATION, CONFUSED ABOUT GOD

The Supreme Court is deliberating over the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance today. From what I've read and seen, the only person in the story with a proper understanding of religion is the atheist, Michael Newdow, who is suing to have the words removed. He argues that the words "under God" obviously refer to a deity and by reciting the pledge, schools are teaching kids that God exists. Newdow doesn't believe that is true, and therefore doesn't want his tax dollars paying for teachers to tell his daughter that her daddy is wrong. I have no problem with this line of thinking.

However, everyone else, from the judges to the people being interviewed on the street, seems to. They think Newdow is wrong to think that the pledge is actually referencing a single deity. They claim that the phrase "under God" means something other than it's plain sense meaning. They say that it refers to a love of country or an ambiguous "life force" and, for all intents and purposes,  "god" can be whatever you want it to be. Or, they say, the phrase doesn't mean anything at all - nobody pays any attention to it anyway - and therefore it doesn't matter if you leave it in the pledge.

This is a ridiculous approach to religion and to the issue of the pledge. Everyone with half a sense of history (and who hasn't been sucked in by postmodernist thought) knows what the words are referring to - the Christian God of the Bible. And as such, there are only two real questions to answer in regards to this case:

1. Does this God exist and what is He like? - Obviously this is not an issue for the courts, but it is the ultimate issue in this case.

2. Should the government be in charge of educating our children? Newdow argues that the government should not be indoctrinating theism because some people in the democracy don't believe it. Fair enough. But if they don't indoctrinate theism, that means they indoctrinate atheism. After all, indoctrination - the teaching of what reality is all about - is what schools do. That is the nature of education. They have to teach some worldview. So who decides what the government teaches? Therein lies the problem. If you try to implement a single, state sponsored education system in a pluralistic country somebodies beliefs are to get trampled on because you can't teach all worldviews at once. (To reiterate, choosing "no religion" as a school's worldview, which is what Newdow wants, is to teach practical atheism, which is just as much a religion as the rest.) I think the solution is to privatize education. If Newdow doesn't want theism taught, he should find or start an atheistic school. And for those who want theism, or Buddhism, or whatever ism, let them teach what they want. And then lets all meet once a week or so to discuss which ism is true. I know which one I'm betting on.