————————————————————

Guest bloggerette Kim agrees with Brian that I am a hypocritical oaf. I must admit that it’s a rare day that I take flack for not being controversial enough. Still, a good writer knows his audience. I think I now have a better read on mine. (And to think, this all started because I just wanted a clever reason to put up the link to Nun Gunner.)

Her unedited post is below in Purple Text.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Brian on this one. I know how you are about

“picking your battles” and this particular one doesn’t seem to hit your hot

button. I also know how you just keep quiet during the “under God” words when

you have to recite the pledge yourself and I even admire the fact that you can

even do that considering your disbeliefs.

However, even I find it hard to be hypocritical in this instance. I believe in

God, you know that. However, I don’t believe that Religion of any kind has any

place in politics. We’ve talked about that several times. It disturbs me

greatly when the politicians use any religious views or issues to further their

agendas. This being an election year will push me over the edge having to listen

to them use religious issues in their quest to further their Presidential bids.

Gay Marriage, “under God” statements, abortion… clearly none of these things,

and many others, do not belong in the political arena. The only reason they make

it there is because there are too many Christians out there that only care about

Christianity and not real world political issues, like foreign policy, economy,

etc. They need something to cling to in order to pick their candidate, and they

pick only the one that they believe has similar religion. Unfortunately, I

believe this way of picking our political candidates, is far too prevalent.

As I said, I’m a believer, you know that. You aren’t and I know that. The best

thing is that we do respect the fact that everyone can have their own view and

still co-exist. More people should feel this way. I don’t believe in abortion,

but I also don’t want the government telling me whether or not I could obtain

one. That’s a choice only I should make and I should only have to answer to one

“being” for that… that “being” isn’t my government. I like Brian’s point “I

don’t think the government should tell me who, what, where, when, how or IF to

believe in God. ” I think the same goes for all issues surrounding God or

personal values. They don’t belong in the political arena.

Another point Brian made very well… “but because it vindicates those who think

they are better than someone else based on their beliefs. It propagates an “I’m

better than you are because of what you believe,” attitude”. I completely agree

that those attitudes are prevalent in the Christian society. There are even

Christians that totally believe that their church is the ONLY one doing it right

and therefore, if you don’t go there, you’re doing it wrong. Forget that you are

still a believer and worship the same God. If you don’t do it their way, you’re

wrong. That’s the most hypocritical view of all… the very people that have

that view and believe they are better than everyone or anyone else that differs

from them, are the very people that need to refer to their bibles more often.

That attitude is clearly not what Jesus ever taught in the bible I read.

So, if I had to weigh in, I’d have probably been hypocritical too and said it’s

ok with me that it says “under God” in the pledge, because I do believe. But…

if I truly want the religious aspect out of all politics, I’d have to say it

should go. We should be learning to treat everyone equally. We are supposed to

embrace the difference in everyone, so the laws should not prohibit that by

sounding like one group of people is any better than another. That’s not for us

to decide.

———————————————————–

Guest blogger Brian justifiably takes me to task for my wishy-washy stance on the Under God issue below. He’s right, and I’m guilty as charged. Brian’s words are unedited below in Green Text. Italics are my words from previous posts which he included to drive home the hypocrisy of my position.

The message I’m getting from this blog is that it’s probably not constitutional to have “under God” in the pledge, but its not really hurting anybody. I don’t think the former is strong enough and I disagree with the latter.

Isn’t this an open and shut case? I haven’t yet heard an argument for constitutionality that comes close to the prima facia case for unconstitutionality. Can you honestly say that you think this is constitutional? If so, make your case. If not, then doesn’t the prospect of having the Supreme Court bend to the will of the majority scare you? Wouldn’t that be a dangerous precedent? If this is constitutional, then what’s next? Is one George Bush as president worse than having 5 George Bushes on the Supreme Court? The president at least has term limits.

Let me state this for the record. I don’t think the government should tell me who, what, where, when, how or IF to believe in God. I want the line to be drawn in the sand now. All the Christians that are clamoring for constitutionality would agree with me if they were in the minority.

I think ruling in favor of Constitutionality is dangerous. But is the phrase itself dangerous? I say yes. Not because its going to dramatically sway my kids beliefs one way or the other, but because it vindicates those who think they are better than someone else based on their beliefs. It propagates an “I’m better than you are because of what you believe,” attitude. In your words:

… She then stated/asked, “Well Tim, you must be a spiritual person, aren’t you?” While I didn’t wish to make a big deal of the statement, it would have been disingenuous for me to just nod and let it go. So I said that while I had a very strong personal philosophy and morality, that no, I was not spiritual as she defined it. I was an atheist.

She reacted with, “Oh Tim…”, and an expression on her face which would have been more suitable had I just revealed that I had terminal cancer and 3 weeks to live. She clearly had no idea how to handle this information, and the conversation abruptly turned to lighthearted things. We went on as if the last five minutes had never occurred.

To be clear, I wasn’t offended by the reaction, and I’m not picking on her. I’ve seen this reaction over and over – and still it amazes me. This is a world where a person saying they are Jewish, Muslim, gay, lesbian, etc. is taken in passing. Yet it seems atheists must still be invisible and outside people’s conscious experience. (Everybody probably knows a few, they just don’t know they do.) Jews used to note that well-intentioned people simply assumed that they were Jewish only because no one had yet brought Jesus into their lives. I doubt many people would view Judaism that way today. Yet atheism is viewed that way. It is viewed as a deficiency (or worse, an opportunity) by well intentioned Christians.

Why would the court say that its OK to have “under god” in the pledge unless believing in God was preferable to not believing in God? If the court approves the phrase, aren’t they rubber stamping this attitude as OK by them? If you don’t think this attitude is widespread, answer me this. How many atheists hold public office right now?

As a society, we need to work toward respecting others beliefs. This decision isn’t going to get us there, but it’s a step in the right, or wrong, direction.