Why the Atheists are Right About the Pledge

[Daltonator]

An interesting article from Newsweek I thought I'd share...

Why the Atheists are Right About the Pledge

In this country at this time, it’s a lot harder to be a non-believer than a believer

Updated: 4:47 p.m. ET April 28, 2004

April 28 - In my world—you know, the godless Eastern establishment media—I hear a minimum of personal as opposed to political God-talk, not counting the odd snide remark about my nun-sized cross, which was my grandmother’s, and her mother’s before that. “If we run into any vampires, we’re all set,” a colleague once loudly announced on a campaign plane, and I laughed, too, though maybe not all that hard.

Recently, however, I had the kind of frank talk with a non-believer that reminded me a) why these chats do not, as a rule, yield anything but bad feeling and b) why I agree with Michael Newdow, the California physician who sued to have the phrase “under God” stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance.

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:’

“I was once…taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy…She departed the Church at age 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn’t opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say. The people who took me were Robert Lowell and his now-wife, Elizabeth Hardwick. Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend…(McCarthy) said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the “most portable” person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.’’’

But, back in the real world….my Chicago friend was still talking, saying laughingly that her husband had actually proposed that they become secular humanists, of all things—a total non-starter in light of her plans to run for office. Here she cited Newdow. Last month, when he was arguing his point of view in front of the Supreme Court, Newdow said the only reason this issue had not been divisive when the phrase was added to the pledge in 1954 was that “no atheists can be elected to office” in the United States.

So, my friend said, until she and her husband came up with a better plan, they were raising their children in their best approximation of both of the faiths they had grown up in and rejected. It seemed to be going okay, too, she said, describing her son and daughter as “pious Jews who were so serious about giving up candy for Lent, it was so cute.” Now this conversation was really headed nowhere good. You cannot be a pious Jew who is serious about Lent, I told her. Of course you can, she argued. No, you can honor both traditions, you can play with a dreidel and hunt for Easter eggs, but you either believe that the Messiah has come or has not come.

Here’s where Newdow really is right: While faith is sometimes mocked, at this moment in this country it is non-believers who are the truly oppressed minority. (And when we complain about the shocking excesses of popular secular culture, I’m sorry, we have only ourselves to blame.) So much of all that’s gone wrong with the radical, counter-cultural, and yes, wildly irrational way of life that is Christianity goes back to the sad day it became Rome’s state religion. We were supposed to be in this world but not of it—and certainly not bullying people who don’t want to be “under God” into saying words they don’t mean.

Several Supreme Court justices seemed to challenge Newdow by asking if we hadn’t just as well keep the phrase “under God” because it had been stripped of any real meaning. Justice David Souter said the words are “hardly noticed by most people, including children. This is so tepid, so diluted, so far from compulsory prayer that it is beneath the constitutional radar” monitoring the separation of church and state. U.S. Solicitor Theodore Olson said the words were purely “ceremonial.” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist called the phrase “descriptive.”

They are “just words,” you see-like the Bible is “just stories.” But words do matter; the whole gay-marriage debate is a war over a word: marriage. The idea of words stripped of meaning—specific meaning—is another kind of sacrilege to me. (Why are we newsfolk always writing sentences like, “Blah, blah, blah,” Mr. Smarty Pants shrugged—when Mr. Pants did not, in fact, shrug? I’ve never known. Why do stories about nuns, particularly if they are Irish nuns, seem to require a nonsense description of Sister So-and-So’s “twinkling eyes.” Scary stuff, I tell you.) And if the words “under God” don’t mean what they say—and of course, they do not—then what good are they? If it’s a symbol, to hell with it.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

[haas mark]

Interesting, indeed. And coming from a religious person. -ponders-

[h0rus]

"So, my friend said, until she and her husband came up with a better plan, they were raising their children in their best approximation of both of the faiths they had grown up in and rejected. It seemed to be going okay, too, she said, describing her son and daughter as “pious Jews who were so serious about giving up candy for Lent, it was so cute.”"

That's enough to make me sick. That idiots like these exist.

[Col. Crackpot]

As a 'Secular Humanist' or whatever it is i'm supposed to call myself, I resent being 'represented' by that Newdow prick. He is a non custodial parent using his daughter as a pawn in a politcal battle. Nothing fucks up a kid more than parents using them to suit their lives and agendas.

[Knife]

Interestingly enough, I think most people are in their 'churches' because of peer presure. If everyone on the block is (X), then to fit in you become (X).

The lawyer in the story and her husband seem to have slipped through the cracks but still feel termendous peer presure to conform. Sad.

[General Zod]

Interestingly enough, I think most people are in their 'churches' because of peer presure. If everyone on the block is (X), then to fit in you become (X).

The lawyer in the story and her husband seem to have slipped through the cracks but still feel termendous peer presure to conform. Sad.

there's also considerable amount of family pressure as well. If you don't do the same thing the rest of your family is doing they're going to make you feel guilty for it, go on about how they're worried for your soul, yadda yadda yadda. rather than actually letting you make the choice not to go.

[Mayabird]

Interestingly enough, I think most people are in their 'churches' because of peer presure. If everyone on the block is (X), then to fit in you become (X).

The lawyer in the story and her husband seem to have slipped through the cracks but still feel termendous peer presure to conform. Sad.

A lot of it is childhood conditioning. Whatever you do as a kid you consider normal, and it's very difficult to get out of the habit. So even if you stop attending church when you leave home, once you get kids those old habits arise again. You have little kids, so you must take them to Sunday School because that's what you did as a kid.

Also, here in the South church is the big social gathering of the week, which is why they have it all day Sunday as well as Wednesday nights and any other time the churches can think of an excuse. There's not much else to do in the boonies.

[Rogue 9]

"So, my friend said, until she and her husband came up with a better plan, they were raising their children in their best approximation of both of the faiths they had grown up in and rejected. It seemed to be going okay, too, she said, describing her son and daughter as “pious Jews who were so serious about giving up candy for Lent, it was so cute.”"

That's enough to make me sick. That idiots like these exist.

Oh, get back under your bridge.

I've got to agree with her. Its not anyone's place to force others to pledge to God along with the country.

[NapoleonGH]

yep it isnt, also my 2nd objection to the pledge is that they took someone else's words and ADDED "under god" into them, as a man with enormous respect for the concept of intellectual property, this bothers me

[Guardsman Bass]

"So, my friend said, until she and her husband came up with a better plan, they were raising their children in their best approximation of both of the faiths they had grown up in and rejected. It seemed to be going okay, too, she said, describing her son and daughter as “pious Jews who were so serious about giving up candy for Lent, it was so cute.”"

That's enough to make me sick. That idiots like these exist.

That reminds me of something Michael Shermer(from Skeptic Magazine) said in his latest book, in a part about Carl Sagan. He reported that although Sagan did not believe in God, he was a strong practitioner of Jewish traditions, and his house was full of Jewish-related material. Not to insult what he has done, just a memory.

As for this woman, well- she's a moron. She makes me think of the sort of "buffet" style intellectuals(not the good kind) who claim to find some sort of spiritual satisfaction in dabbling in the "rituals of the primitives." I hope her kids turn out to be either radical Jews or hard-line Christians, just to show that you reap what you sow.

[Xenophobe3691]

That reminds me of something Michael Shermer(from Skeptic Magazine) said in his latest book, in a part about Carl Sagan. He reported that although Sagan did not believe in God, he was a strong practitioner of Jewish traditions, and his house was full of Jewish-related material. Not to insult what he has done, just a memory.

Actually, I know a few people who do that, me included. Goes to show you that Judaism is more than a religion

[Guardsman Bass]

That reminds me of something Michael Shermer(from Skeptic Magazine) said in his latest book, in a part about Carl Sagan. He reported that although Sagan did not believe in God, he was a strong practitioner of Jewish traditions, and his house was full of Jewish-related material. Not to insult what he has done, just a memory.

Actually, I know a few people who do that, me included. Goes to show you that Judaism is more than a religion

Very true Maybe the woman just wants religious kids for good photo-ops . Of course, one wonders what the good folk will say when they find out that she has a mixed-religious marriage.

[Darth Raptor]

"So, my friend said, until she and her husband came up with a better plan, they were raising their children in their best approximation of both of the faiths they had grown up in and rejected. It seemed to be going okay, too, she said, describing her son and daughter as “pious Jews who were so serious about giving up candy for Lent, it was so cute.”"

That's enough to make me sick. That idiots like these exist.

Oh, get back under your bridge.

Yeah, too bad he was making a valid point that time.

[Durandal]

Very true Maybe the woman just wants religious kids for good photo-ops . Of course, one wonders what the good folk will say when they find out that she has a mixed-religious marriage.

Lots of parents like teaching religion to kids because it keeps them in line. Kids have wildly active imaginations, so they'll believe you when you talk about an invisible man in the sky who will punish you for not being a good boy. Children can pull the "sad puppy face" stuff with parents, but they can't do it with vindictive deities.

[Darth Wong]

Very true Maybe the woman just wants religious kids for good photo-ops . Of course, one wonders what the good folk will say when they find out that she has a mixed-religious marriage.

Lots of parents like teaching religion to kids because it keeps them in line. Kids have wildly active imaginations, so they'll believe you when you talk about an invisible man in the sky who will punish you for not being a good boy. Children can pull the "sad puppy face" stuff with parents, but they can't do it with vindictive deities.

Of course, the downside of this technique is that if their faith wavers, a child raised in this manner might go apeshit, and all of a sudden you end up with "preacher's daughter syndrome".

[Durandal]

Of course. Then you get children who can't cope without some authority telling them what is moral and what is not. So when they get into hardcore drugs and their lives spiral down the shitter, they blame it on secularism.

[Exonerate]

"So, my friend said, until she and her husband came up with a better plan, they were raising their children in their best approximation of both of the faiths they had grown up in and rejected. It seemed to be going okay, too, she said, describing her son and daughter as “pious Jews who were so serious about giving up candy for Lent, it was so cute.”"

That's enough to make me sick. That idiots like these exist.

Oh, get back under your bridge.

Yeah, too bad he was making a valid point that time.

What point?

[Rogue 9]

Oh, get back under your bridge.

Yeah, too bad he was making a valid point that time.

What point?

That's a really good question. I sure don't see one.

[Rye]

I don't think it was a point so much as an opinion, though it wasn't just a pure trolling one.

[Darth Raptor]

I don't think it was a point so much as an opinion, though it wasn't just a pure trolling one.

You're right. I'm fairly certain we're not supposed to pounce on trolls whenever they open their trap regardless of what actually comes out of it.

[sketerpot]

Of course. Then you get children who can't cope without some authority telling them what is moral and what is not. So when they get into hardcore drugs and their lives spiral down the shitter, they blame it on secularism.

And the cycle keeps perpetuating itself, since when these people have kids, one of two things will happen:

1. The parents are still in the life shitter (nice phrase BTW; I think I'll use it multiple times ), and their kids are born there, too. This isn't quite "perpetuating the cycle", but it is perpetuating shitty lives. Or,

2. The parents have managed to pull themselves out of the shitter, and so they will blame their past problems on secularism.

I saw this one back in Sunday School. The teacher was an ex-alcoholic who justified parental coercion into going to church, praying, etc., by saying that it's all for the best even though you might not realize it now, and it's important to go to church so you don't fall into sin and mess your life up, and it's the duty of a parent to force their children to become Good Christians.

Since they blame their problems on secularism, they're not going to let their children fall in that same "trap", so they're going to bring up their children in a devoutly Christian environment (this may happen with other religions, but I don't know about it), and they'll try to shield their kids comepletely from the world. They'll try to censor the internet, carefully watch for obscene words and pornography, and try very hard to do what the newspapers all seem to say is the duty of parents: become Big Brother. This is doomed to failure, of course, since the world is to big to keep out unless you go to fundamentalist extremes.

In many cases, the "corrupting influence of secularism" will then corrupt the unprepared kid, and thw whole damn thing starts again. This isn't inevitable, and there is hope. But I have a feeling it won't come from more religious indoctrination and fear of the Outside World, with its immoral modern secular culture.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As a 'Secular Humanist' or whatever it is i'm supposed to call myself, I resent being 'represented' by that Newdow prick. He is a non custodial parent using his daughter as a pawn in a politcal battle. Nothing fucks up a kid more than parents using them to suit their lives and agendas.

It'd be nice if you posted proof that this girl has been hurt or abused by Newdow's actions, rather than simply applying a gross generalisation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As a 'Secular Humanist' or whatever it is i'm supposed to call myself, I resent being 'represented' by that Newdow prick. He is a non custodial parent using his daughter as a pawn in a politcal battle. Nothing fucks up a kid more than parents using them to suit their lives and agendas.

While I dont like the guy either, we really dont have much choice in the matter.

He was the one that challenged the pledge, while it would ahve been nice if somone like me did it, that didnt happen. This is why we dont need to support HIM, just support the constitution.

[Durandal]

As a 'Secular Humanist' or whatever it is i'm supposed to call myself, I resent being 'represented' by that Newdow prick. He is a non custodial parent using his daughter as a pawn in a politcal battle. Nothing fucks up a kid more than parents using them to suit their lives and agendas.

While I dont like the guy either, we really dont have much choice in the matter.

He was the one that challenged the pledge, while it would ahve been nice if somone like me did it, that didnt happen. This is why we dont need to support HIM, just support the constitution.

I don't think you quite understand the reality of the situation. This subject is extremely touchy, and it was especially so when the suit was originally filed, less than a year after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It's no coincidence that every religious apologist on the planet was tripping all over themselves to crow about how Islam was a "religion of peace." Nor is it a coincidence that songs like "God Bless America" are popular patriotic tunes. Americans are a very self-righteous group of people, so they like it when someone blows smoke up their asses and tells them that God is on their side. Americans don't see the establishment clause as saying "religion and government are totally separate." They see it as saying, "the government cannot endorse one particular religion over another, but endorsing groups of religions is okay." Religion is America's sacred cow, so when you start bucking the trend, you'd better damn well be sure that you don't have any big skeletons in your closet.

Now, enter Newdow. Despite the fact that he's right, people will interpret what he's doing as imposing his atheist views on the American government. If most people would bother to read more about the situation and see that the problem is not people saying "under God," but the government including it in the official version of the Pledge, then they might be a little more open to what he has to say.

The problem is that the guy's an opportunistic douche bag who doesn't even have legal custody of his daughter, but he's using her as a political weapon anyway. Add to that that the mother is raising the daughter as a Christian, and Newdow's toast in the arena of public opinion. He does give atheists a bad image, and he's painted atheists as a bunch of unpatriotic, un-American assholes who'll use children as a means to remove God from the government. Not only does that play right into the fundamentalists' hands (i.e. "Those godless bastards use children to try and run God out of the government!"), but it also alienates the moderate religious groups who otherwise might be open to atheists' strict (and by all indications of the Framers, the correct) interpretation of the establishment clause.

In the long run, Newdow's done a lot more damage to atheists than good. Even if the court rules that he's right (which might very well happen if they don't throw the case out on account of a technicality), you'll see Bush et al out in force spinning bullshit about the "activist judges" again. So no, we don't have to support Newdow, and personally, I think the best thing that could come of this would be for the case to be thrown out on account of Newdow not actually having legal custody of his daughter and then everyone just forgetting about Newdow.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I now think Newdow's been treated very unfairly. Think about it: why should it matter whether he has primary custody of his daughter, or whether she agrees with him?

Let's try turning this around: let's say a Christian is aghast that his school makes his kid recite a statement every morning which says "one nation, in which there is no God and we don't believe in such ridiculous superstitions".

Let us further imagine that he becomes enraged at this coerced interference with his religious beliefs. But suppose the kid is convinced, and agrees that there is no God? Would this placate him, or his legions of supporters? Hell no, they would say that the success of this kind of pervasive indoctrination is even more reason to demand that it be stopped. It makes it even more difficult for him to bring her to The Light, and convince her of The Truth.

Let us also further suppose that this hapless Christian's wife actually has primary custody of the child, and she doesn't believe in God either. Would this placate the man or his legions of Christian supporters? Again, hell no, they would argue that the school is effectively in cahoots with his wife in their attempts to actively poison his daughter against his beliefs, and the fact that they have succeeded would only prove his point. He doesn't have a fighting chance to compete against his wife's indoctrination efforts when the government is effectively taking sides.

Think about it; this "he doesn't have custody" and "his daughter doesn't even agree with him" bullshit wouldn't fly two inches above the ground if the roles were reversed, but it's viewed, amazingly enough, as a massive condemnation of his motives and ethical standpoint by people on both sides because he's an atheist.