Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

As may be obvious, I am less than pleased with this ruling. It is simply another attempt to impose by judicial fiat a coercive requirement to reject God.

The attempt is being made to establish Atheism as THE required religion of the United States, something not contemplated (indeed forbidden) by the Founders of the country. The documents of the people who wrote the Constitiution contain regular and repeated references to God -- admittedly mostly to the "absentee watchmaker" god of Deism, but God references nonetheless.

I can remember when "under God" was added to the Pledge -- I had to re-learn it -- and to some extent, I still think that the older version is "The Way It Outta Be(tm)". ;-)

Atheism is a religion, just as Christianity is -- in the sense of making unprovable metaphysical statements about the makeup of the Universe. Christianity affirms that there is a God, although non-material, and non-observable in a physical sense. There is no logical or rational proof of God's existence.

There is likewise no logical or rational proof of God's non-existence -- only a bald metaphysical denial.

The only defensible logical and rational position is agnosticism -- which observes that no logical proofs exist, own way or the other, and declines to make any metaphysical statement whatever.

Recent graduates of what I call "The Little Atheists' School" tend to prate about "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Balderdash, for two reasons:

1) That is a very recent claim -- first uttered by Carl Sagan, I think.

2) Seen historically (the last 5,000 years or so, since the beginning of writing), atheism is the "Extraordinary Claim" -- theism of some sort has been (and for that matter, still is) the default position of most of humanity.

Absence of proof is in no way proof of absence. All that can be concluded is that no proof exists. And you cannot reason from that premise to anything useful.

I refuse to engage in "prove God" debates -- as a matter of fact, I have had Evangelical Atheists scream obscenites at me because i told them that I would not even begin to try to prove God, until they showed their willingness to prove the opposite. They consider that unfair tactics.

I consider using a rhetorical trick (which the "prove God" challenge is) unfair. The unstated premises behind the "prove God" trick are:

1) God needs to be proved logically.

2) God needs to be proved to the satisfaction of the Evangelical Atheist pulling the trick.

3) No possible answer will ever satisfy said E.A., because of.

4) The hidden (and denied, but obvious) metaphysical assertion in the background that no God exists.

Unfortunately, many Fun_DUH_mentalists do not grasp the falsity of Items 1 & 2, and the essential mendacity of Item 3, and froth on for hours, attempting to use Bible verses to bash the E.A.into aquiescence, the way they do others of their own ilk. Evangelical Atheists can derive hours of pleasure from thus torturing Fundies. For the record, it also amuses me, but I occasionally will take up rhetorical cudgels in defense of the simple-minded, and give E.A.s a bad time about their game.

So what is my solution for the Pledge Problem?

Simple -- let tham as object, say the Pledge in its original form, and keep silent during the "under God part. I.e. Be polite, and don't scream in other peoples' faces.

Is that too much to ask?

Why Katrina?

Bill Leaming wrote:

I think that the devastation called "Hurricane Katrina"
fits in well with the concept of Pride and Humility. When we mutter "There,
but for the grace of God, go I." what are we *really* saying? Are we
exhibiting pride of humility? It has always seemed to me that such a
statement--just as when we hear a siren and pray that it not be our
family, home or friends for whom it sounds--that we are acting not in
humility toward Holy God, but in a form of true "pride". "Not me Lord,
not me" denotes that it should, then, be someone else.

Hurricane Katrina -- where is God?

From the time Hurricane Katrina took its deadly turn toward the Gulf
coast we may have found ourselves asking, "Where is God in all this?"
That question may be especially poignant now as our minds are full of
pictures of devastation, of struggling survivors, of the possibility
of thousands of deaths, and of the inability of the authorities to
do much to help.

What follows reflects on my own struggle to comprehend the devastation
that is before us in the context of my own faith. You are free to disagree
with my conclusions. As always, please feel free to post comments.

1. God does not send hurricanes. For some, it is easier to believe that
God sends hurricanes and the associated devastation than to believe that
God is not in control of all things. What they don't understand is that
God IS in control of all things, but that God gifted creation with free-will.
I believe that the interaction of Nature's freewill with humanity's freewill
is the base cause of such natural disasters. While I understand that impulse
to believe, I cannot agree with the concept that God is the cause of such
things. Not now. Nor do I agree that God was somehow angry with New Orleans
and Biloxi and smote them in anger. That's not the God I know or believe in.

2. God likewise does not prevent hurricanes and similar disasters. Natural
disasters - as opposed to those caused by us humans - are a part of the
created universe. Hurricanes are a part of the same sunlight and water
engine that makes all life possible to begin with.

3. At this point our human pain and disappointment enter the equation.
We expect a loving God to prevent the kind of human devastation we are
witnessing. Doesn't God care that so many have died, that so many are
suffering? Yes. But the clear evidence is that God does not prevent
such things a priori. That's just one of those things that we have to
accept as true, based on the evidence. It's at this point that some
will get off and stop believing in God.

4. Our human disappointment does not drive God's agenda. I believe that
God has an agenda, and that God's agenda is centered around the ultimate
redemption and restoration of all things. I believe that God's redemptive
and restoring purpose is already at work in our world. But that's a different
thing from believing that God's purpose is to prevent us from experiencing
hurt or disappointment or devastation.

5. In fact our own agenda is a part of the problem. I need to be careful
here, because I don't in any way want to say that Hurricane Katrina and
its aftermath were in any way the fault of its victims. What I want to
do instead is suggest that our own desires become a part of our picture
of God and our picture of God's purpose; and to further suggest that now
may be a good time to adjust that picture.

6. We too easily assume that we're entitled to comfort and security and
happiness. If we believe in God, then God may in our own minds become the
guarantor of this entitlement. Think for a moment about gasoline prices.
Ours here have just climbed to over $3.00/gallon (which is nowhere near
what the price is in other places, by the way). Why is God letting this
happen to us? Our lifestyle is built, so to speak, on the oil standard.
Likewise the increase in oil prices may lead to a recession, which will
hamper our lifestyle and make things financially difficult for most of us
and this will include the Church - voluntary giving simply dries up during
a recession. Difficult as it is to swallow our disappointment now may be
the time to reconsider our concept of happiness and security as well as
our ideas about what God's job is.

7. There's also the matter of our own control over our destiny. A disaster
of the scale of this one demonstrates that no matter how powerful or flush
with resources we are there are some things we can't handle. It will be
weeks or months before the situation west of us can be stabilized.
There is doubt in some quarters about whether New Orleans can in fact be
rebuilt, or whether it should be. We're watching the sheer number of refugees,
and those still alive but awaiting rescue, simply overwhelm every attempt
to meet the need. That hurts our pride - but it also puts us back in our
place. We are not, after all, omniscient, all-powerful. Accepting that
may help us adjust or renew our relationship with God.

8. Though Katrina and its aftermath is primarily a natural disaster it does
raise some justice issues. And justice issues are faith issues. The hardest
hit, and the least able to evacuate, were the poor of the Gulf Coast, including
Louisiana and Mississippi. The jump in oil prices will make some rich while
others suffer. In the midst of our dismay and devastation we get a sobering
look at who we are and what's important to us. And a chance to advocate for
justice in the tradition of the prophets and, most especially, of Jesus himself.

9. In God's world the best tonic for bitter disappointment and helplessness is
to do something helpful and useful. I'm not an advocate of the theology that
says that we are God's only hands and feet; it seems to me that that leaves too
little in God's hands. But I am clear that people of faith have an absolute
mandate to accomplish the Acts of Mercy, both Corporal and Spiritual. We will
not be able to meet every need or solve every problem that comes our way - far
from it. That's not even our job. Our job is to do those things that are at
hand, trusting finally in things that are beyond ourselves.

We're here for a moment in time and then we're gone. Why waste one second on
self-pity, frustration, irritation, and all the rest?

"The healthy do not know how the sick feel, nor the full how the hungry suffer.
But sick sympathize with sick, and hungry with hungry, the more closely the
more they are alike. For just as pure truth is seen only with a pure heart, so a
brother's misery is truly felt only with a miserable heart." St. Bernard of
Clavirvaux (1090-1153)

Bill

---

What Bill said . . .

A marvelously adult view of catastrophe and devastation.

The Orthodox do not subscribe to Augustine of Hippo's idea of Original Sin (a sin inherited from Adam), but see his sin as a breaking of the original unity between God and man. With Adam's sin, the perfection of God's Creation was sundered, and death and destruction entered into the world. God did not create evil and suffering -- we did. And it is our selfishness and illusions which maintain them.

God does, indeed, want all creation to return to him, to that primordial Unity and Glory -- and our job in this life is to work toward that, both within ourselves, and in the outside world. We need to see how oour own selfishness and comfort-seeking can and does harm others -- exporting pollution, among other things -- as well as working to help others in their time of need.

The Christian ideal is: "Not I, but Christ in me" -- which calls for a radical humility, but an ACTIVE one, not a passive one. We cannot simply tend to our own spirituality and faith -- crying "Lord, Lord" and expecting salvation for merely believing. We must be the ones who DO the will of the Father.

Good deeds do not automatically flow from "faith" -- but must be actively chosen and followed up on. There is no magic formula of a "Beleiver's Prayer" that will assure heaven -- we need to "labor in the sweat of our brow" to re-establish the harmony broken by Adam's (indeed each one of our's) sin.

Prayer and the sacraments are no less part of the work of repairing that Breach. They lifto us aout of our everyday, limited individual lives, and put us in direct contact with the Universal, the Timeless, the Transcendant. In prayer we reach out to God -- to know and feel His will for us and His Presence, His Glory.

In the Eucharist, God enters into us -- as He promised -- and fills us with His Grace. If we can but open ourselves -- relinquish our selfishness and egoism, that Grace can do marvellous things.

+Sam'l

---