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?