Posted by Dan Ewert : 6/28/2002 12:12:00 AM (Archive Link)
I’m sure that by now most have read the news about the pledge of allegiance being declared unconstitutional. Do I disagree with this decision? Yes, but I prefer to focus on this CNN interview with the case’s plaintiff, Michael Newdow, and my opinions will come out in that. I find most of it quite interesting. Give it a read and come back.

One part I like is the following, “The framers were quite wise in recognizing what religion can do and how it can cause hatred and how it can cause death. You don't have to go far in this world, outside of our nation, to see where that has happened. It is prevalent over the entire globe and the reason we don't have it here is because we have an establishment clause.” Newdow is expressing a typical opinion that religion in general is the cause of great hatred, suffering and violence in the world. While religion as a whole has been involved in its share of atrocities, it’s troubling that Newdow is implying that an atheistic people or government will be immune from such problems. Obviously, this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny since some of history’s most horrendous people have been atheists. Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot were all atheists and recent studies have indicated that Adolph Hitler was as well. These individuals were responsible for the murder of millions of their own people and millions more who were not. What’s also interesting is that those countries where atheism becomes the de facto or de jure norm, there must be something to take the place of God after He’s been removed from primary importance. Essentially, a new god must be found for the people to revere, worship, obey, and follow. Stalin became the Russian communist god, Mao became the Chinese communist god, Hitler became the German nationalist god. There’s this atheist/humanist fallacy that because religion causes certain problems, the absence of religion will eliminate those problems. Empirical evidence does not support this and it's absurd to think that the elimination of one almost universal aspect of humanity will solve the world’s ills.

This brings me to second point which is related to Newdow’s comment, “When atheists become the majority in this country, I don't think the theists are going to be glad to have ‘one nation under no God’ inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance.” Newdow is obviously confident that atheism will eventually become the predominant attitude in America. To say this is absurd is indeed to say the least. The vast majority of the country is theistic. Those who are atheist have always been in the minority… not just in this country but across time and space. Considering that practically the whole of humanity throughout its existence has believed in one deity or another, I always think it’s ridiculous when somebody comes along thinking that the future will be a godless (in a good way) world where all religion is relegated to a mythic and humorous past. Make no mistake, religion is an integral part of the human character. The atheists would claim that it is merely an effort by man to explain the unexplainable, but I contend that it is a fundamental of man. Anthropology has found plenty of evidence that demonstrates man’s belief in a higher power at its earliest stages. We further know that it’s been a constant in all cultures and places and history. When you remove the paranormal aspect of religion, then a human figurehead with near supernatural powers must take the place. One can even make the case that atheists make a religion of science or whatever else their belief structure honors. So to even entertain the notion that religion will someday make an exit or at least drastically fade is a waste of time. I’ve already wasted enough.

All the same, though, I don’t think I’m done. I personally don’t feel that atheism is a viable philosophy in the widespread sense. Many atheists tend to be secular humanists (although they’re not at all the same thing), whether they realize it or not. Since they no longer have the moral system and justifications established by religion, they must replace it with something that has the same ends but different reasoning to support it. Often this replacement is that you do it for the sake of your fellow man and improving life for all humanity. Everything must be scientifically weighed and analyzed to divine (oops!) what is best (you can read more about it here) Aside from this being impractical since humans are unpredictable (i.e. not robots), it can only work in isolated circumstances. By that I mean this… for some, this is a workable system of thought. There are many who can go through their lives quite well, clinging to this idea that morality is best based upon what it best for humans because man is worth it. It’s that because clause I think is the problem. I don’t think man is worth it. Humans tend to be an imperfect, greedy, vengeful, violent, lusty, power-hungry, gluttonous, warring lot. The seven deadly sins weren’t invented, they were just given names. While a minority of people will pursue the ideal of model humanity and be able to cling to this, the majority will not. You can’t expect Joe Construction Worker to hold to this Star Trek vision when he’s eking out a living and while he’s experiencing the dark side of man everyday. If his morality is to rest on the goodness and inherent worth of man, then his morality is resting on a sandy foundation. When this justification for his ethics ceases to be a good justification, then his morals are likely to slip with it. So while those few who consider themselves enlightened and educated on such matters explore their options for shining light on the masses in symposiums and conferences, those masses from whom they are clearly separated and clearly ignorant will in turn ignore them.

Now, moving on, Newdow has been quoted elsewhere as saying he filed the lawsuit, “because I am an atheist and this offends me.” My response to this is, “So what?” As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe in a fundamental right to not be offended. If this were a basic constitutionally guaranteed right that must be upheld for every citizen, then we would surely have a problem as everything offends somebody. There are those who say that the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. I fully agree. However, I don’t feel that the majority’s ability to irritate a particular minority constitutes a tyrannical power. If it does, then it’s an exceptionally benign power and I encourage all prospective tyrants to rely upon it exclusively.