I Pledge Allegiance... to My Lawyer
Well, since I was away for a week, I have missed the opportunity to comment on the major things going on in the world while I was away, so I'll try to start making up for lost time. The biggest event that took place right before I left for Georgia was the court ruling made by a three-judge panel from a federal appeals court in California, regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. Now I'm sure you're wondering how I, as an agnostic, feel about this case and the decision that was made. Well, I may piss off some of you by saying this, but I feel that the judges made the correct ruling.
OK, before you start crossing me off your Christmas card list, hear me out. The two judges who made the ruling made the ruling they HAD to make. There was legal precedent, notably the 1960s-era Supreme Court ruling that banned school prayer. This decision was cited in the majority opinion, and until our current Supreme Court has a chance to rule otherwise, that's what has to be followed. Where I have a problem with this case, and I KNOW I'm not alone here, is the fact that this NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. This whole business of Congressmen shouting "under God" at the top of their lungs and vicious letters flying across the nation's editorial pages would have never happened if it wasn't for one person who decided that something that offends only him should be wiped off the face of the planet.
We've been down this road before, I mentioned it last Christmas, how all too often in our society one or two people take offense to something and immediately seek to rub it out. They're not always atheists, but most of the time they are; these people apparently cannot go about their daily lives in a normal way if they spot a manger scene or deeply religious message or the Ten Commandments displayed anywhere that might have been funded by your tax dollars. Such a case involving the Ten Commandments is now brewing in Frederick, Maryland, right in my backyard. An 18-year old's inquiry over an engraving of the commandments in a public park has suddenly led to the ACLU circling the town like vultures, threatening to bury everyone in lawsuits. While it's not illegal to do this, and I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that this was NOT the reason our judicial system was created, to give grandstanding lawyers a chance to descend on any community that might display something even slightly Judeo-Christian within its borders.
Or, in the case of Mr. Michael Newdow, grandstanding lawyers-in-training. Let's revisit the facts of the old Pledge of Allegiance case, shall we? Newdow, an atheist, filed suit against his local public schools over the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in his daughter's school. He claimed that by not wanting his daughter to recite the pledge, it would invite insult, ridicule, or worse. Newdow went before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acting as his own lawyer (which makes sense... it means that he wouldn't have to share the publicity with anyone else). Well, as we are learning more and more in the days since the ruling came down, his daughter had exactly NOTHING to do with this case. The very morning that news of the court's ruling was splashed across the front pages and TV newscasts of America, Newdow appeared on CNN and declared that the suit was filed for the sole reason that he was offended by the pledge's very existence. He named his daughter in the suit in order to have a legal basis to file. Well, today the news is out that his daughter is A) not an atheist, and B) doesn't even LIVE with him! Her mother has custody of the child, and both are practicing Christians. Newdow is challenging the custody in court; I wonder if the mother can enter this whole pledge nonsense as evidence that the guy is a nutjob so she can retain full custody of the girl. What I'm really afraid of is the possibility that he is not only representing himself in the custody battle, but also that this pledge fiasco was part of the plan to get his daughter back.
As for the hysteria that has resulted from this, as usual, it's a knee-jerk reaction and people should really take time to process events before they react. Can you still say the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school? Yes. This ruling doesn't take effect if it's appealed, and you can bet it will be, all the way to the Supreme Court, where we will get to see if their past precedents hold up. Has God been declared unconstitutional? No. People rant about "freedom of religion versus freedom from religion"; let me put it to you this way: I have always believed that everyone should practice what they believe is the correct religion or faith (that would be freedom of religion). However, I believe there should be as little stepping on each others' toes as possible. This is where we fail as a society, as some believe that it is their duty to remind those that don't believe in the same God or a God at all that they are wrong and evil and are going to hell. It's a small minority of the population, but I wish it was zero. Is that me desiring "freedom from religion"? I don't think so. I think that I only want freedom from religious persecution, as do most if not all of us. I just happen to walk a different path from the large majority of Americans who consider themselves of the Judeo-Christian faith. I'll tell you one thing, though; I would never EVER protest the displaying of religious symbols in public places, I would never EVER go running to the ACLU or a lawyer looking to purge these things so I could put my mind at ease. As I've always believed, better to show respect to many religions rather than to none. In such a battle, I would more than likely side with the pro-religion folks, but I wonder if they would have me.
This hopefully will provide some perspective that agnostics and atheists are not one and the same. I am very tolerant of other religions displaying themselves in my midst. I can even deal with the church down the street ringing its bells musically for what seems like an eternity every Sunday morning, keeping me from my well-deserved rest. Let this be a lesson to everyone, you can tell an agnostic from an atheist; it's really quite easy. The atheist is the one with the lawyer.
OK, before you start crossing me off your Christmas card list, hear me out. The two judges who made the ruling made the ruling they HAD to make. There was legal precedent, notably the 1960s-era Supreme Court ruling that banned school prayer. This decision was cited in the majority opinion, and until our current Supreme Court has a chance to rule otherwise, that's what has to be followed. Where I have a problem with this case, and I KNOW I'm not alone here, is the fact that this NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. This whole business of Congressmen shouting "under God" at the top of their lungs and vicious letters flying across the nation's editorial pages would have never happened if it wasn't for one person who decided that something that offends only him should be wiped off the face of the planet.
We've been down this road before, I mentioned it last Christmas, how all too often in our society one or two people take offense to something and immediately seek to rub it out. They're not always atheists, but most of the time they are; these people apparently cannot go about their daily lives in a normal way if they spot a manger scene or deeply religious message or the Ten Commandments displayed anywhere that might have been funded by your tax dollars. Such a case involving the Ten Commandments is now brewing in Frederick, Maryland, right in my backyard. An 18-year old's inquiry over an engraving of the commandments in a public park has suddenly led to the ACLU circling the town like vultures, threatening to bury everyone in lawsuits. While it's not illegal to do this, and I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that this was NOT the reason our judicial system was created, to give grandstanding lawyers a chance to descend on any community that might display something even slightly Judeo-Christian within its borders.
Or, in the case of Mr. Michael Newdow, grandstanding lawyers-in-training. Let's revisit the facts of the old Pledge of Allegiance case, shall we? Newdow, an atheist, filed suit against his local public schools over the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in his daughter's school. He claimed that by not wanting his daughter to recite the pledge, it would invite insult, ridicule, or worse. Newdow went before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acting as his own lawyer (which makes sense... it means that he wouldn't have to share the publicity with anyone else). Well, as we are learning more and more in the days since the ruling came down, his daughter had exactly NOTHING to do with this case. The very morning that news of the court's ruling was splashed across the front pages and TV newscasts of America, Newdow appeared on CNN and declared that the suit was filed for the sole reason that he was offended by the pledge's very existence. He named his daughter in the suit in order to have a legal basis to file. Well, today the news is out that his daughter is A) not an atheist, and B) doesn't even LIVE with him! Her mother has custody of the child, and both are practicing Christians. Newdow is challenging the custody in court; I wonder if the mother can enter this whole pledge nonsense as evidence that the guy is a nutjob so she can retain full custody of the girl. What I'm really afraid of is the possibility that he is not only representing himself in the custody battle, but also that this pledge fiasco was part of the plan to get his daughter back.
As for the hysteria that has resulted from this, as usual, it's a knee-jerk reaction and people should really take time to process events before they react. Can you still say the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school? Yes. This ruling doesn't take effect if it's appealed, and you can bet it will be, all the way to the Supreme Court, where we will get to see if their past precedents hold up. Has God been declared unconstitutional? No. People rant about "freedom of religion versus freedom from religion"; let me put it to you this way: I have always believed that everyone should practice what they believe is the correct religion or faith (that would be freedom of religion). However, I believe there should be as little stepping on each others' toes as possible. This is where we fail as a society, as some believe that it is their duty to remind those that don't believe in the same God or a God at all that they are wrong and evil and are going to hell. It's a small minority of the population, but I wish it was zero. Is that me desiring "freedom from religion"? I don't think so. I think that I only want freedom from religious persecution, as do most if not all of us. I just happen to walk a different path from the large majority of Americans who consider themselves of the Judeo-Christian faith. I'll tell you one thing, though; I would never EVER protest the displaying of religious symbols in public places, I would never EVER go running to the ACLU or a lawyer looking to purge these things so I could put my mind at ease. As I've always believed, better to show respect to many religions rather than to none. In such a battle, I would more than likely side with the pro-religion folks, but I wonder if they would have me.
This hopefully will provide some perspective that agnostics and atheists are not one and the same. I am very tolerant of other religions displaying themselves in my midst. I can even deal with the church down the street ringing its bells musically for what seems like an eternity every Sunday morning, keeping me from my well-deserved rest. Let this be a lesson to everyone, you can tell an agnostic from an atheist; it's really quite easy. The atheist is the one with the lawyer.
Labels: lawsuits
posted by Dave | 11:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home