My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.


Where To Begin, Where To Begin. . .

How about the Pledge of Allegiance?

Full disclosure--these thoughts are not new. I had the bulk of this idea published as a letter to the editor of the Rocky two summers ago.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of, or restricting the free exercise, of Religion.

Let's start with a simple question: what is religion? Look at the major world religions, they seem to be united in two aspects: they have a vision for the afterlife founded in faith--the belief in that which is not proved; and they are marked by rituals.

So in what way, exactly, is atheism not a religion? Is there any way of knowing that there is no God? For those still on Earth, obviously the answer is "no." In point of fact, the vast majority of anecdotal evidence, from across the spectrum of cultures, points to the existence of some higher power,though the exact shape and form is a matter of disagreement. So is it not, absent proof, an article of faith for the atheist that there is no God? In other words, the nihilistic vision of no afterlife is not able to be proved, and is therefore based solely in faith.

But, you might ask, what sort of rituals mark this belief system? Clearly, in practice, the primary ritual of the atheist is litigation. It is an attempt by those who hold this belief to get the rest of American society to--if not conform to atheism--at least not have any public forum in which to assert their own belief system. Think carefully: if the atheist really believed in no God, then what would be the harm in public displays of religion? The true believer should look upon such rituals as Christians look upon pagan ceremonies in the outback, the jungles and the savannah: with indifference and, perhaps, superior scorn. But they would not go to such lengths to prevent everybody from executing their rituals--they would simply refuse to take part and walk past shaking their heads. Unfortunately, this is not what they do; the atheist creed is such that they must effort to prevent others from making any mention of their own belief system in the public square.

If this definition and line of logic can be accepted in even the smallest degree, how offensive must it be that courts have acted to establish atheism as the dominant religion in American public life? Not just the assertion of a majority, as the founders were primarily concerned with, but the tyrannical imposition of the views of a tiny, tiny minority. This is truly offensive!

And why the judiciary is, ultimately for me, the reason I got involved in politics and will work to get Republicans in positions to nominate judges and Republicans in position to confirm judges.

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?