Dear Editor,
I suppose that I should be grateful that a Sacramento Federal
Court Judge has re-opened the case against the
”
under God
”
phrase in the pledge (Dispatch, Sept. 17). Due to the persistent
atheist Dr. Michael Newdow, the constitutionality of using
”
under God
”
in public schools is on the way to the Supreme Court again.
Dear Editor,
I suppose that I should be grateful that a Sacramento Federal Court Judge has re-opened the case against the “under God” phrase in the pledge (Dispatch, Sept. 17). Due to the persistent atheist Dr. Michael Newdow, the constitutionality of using “under God” in public schools is on the way to the Supreme Court again.
I’m grateful, because I’ve fallen into the habit of reciting the pledge without thinking much about the words. Attention deficit disorder is not unique to school-age children. I happen to believe in the “separation of church and state,” but that’s a different deal than the “separation of God and state.”
If the phrase had said “one nation under the Roman Catholic Church” or even “one nation under the United Presbyterian Church,” I’d have no trouble in cheering its elimination. Many people who believe in God, however, never darken the door of a church and don’t ever plan to. Most of us agree with our fore-parents that what we want nothing to do with the establishment of a state church.
The other consideration is the recognition that atheism is also a philosophical statement of faith. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in an intelligent creator; whether God made the world through an evolutionary process or by speaking the universe into existence.
If more than 50 percent of the populace believed in atheism, I’d be more open to abandoning the “God phrase,” but atheists are greatly outnumbered in our particular kind of democracy. (Granted some theists also want to dump the phrase.)
When President George Washington added “so help me God” to the very first presidential office, he did so in humble recognition of the limitations of powerful governance. Had the temperature at Valley Forge been an unmercifully 30 degrees lower, we might still be singing “God Save the Queen.”
This effort to object to a reference to God in the pledge is well intentioned. Atheists are not dumbbells and usually have a higher IQ than most of us over-credulous theists.
I have learned, however, that it is fruitless to argue with atheism because its commitment to its faith is more volitional than intellectual. One does not convince someone by logic, who is fearful that admitting that there is a God may result in God making unreasonable demands upon one’s life.
The atheist is desperately afraid of losing the freedom of being responsible only to himself. Being accountable to God in this life and the next life is great cause for an atheist not only fleeing from any acknowledgment of God, but for evangelizing others to flee also.
Atheists don’t get to experience the glorious liberties of being fully human that comes with the realization that each of us is created with a God-shaped vacuum that only God can fill.
Bill Paterson, Gilroy
Editor’s note: The Golden Quill is awarded occasionally for a well-written letter.
