atheism

Here's a random quote that I liked:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

discussing religion

I've vacillated between atheism and agnosticism for the last ten years or so, but I do find the practice of organized religion interesting from a cultural and sociological standpoint. The Old Testament, for instance, has lots of great, timeless stories, and beautiful writing. I love this line from L.M. Montgomery (in a WWI context):

The age-old cry--"Joseph is not and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away." How the mothers of the Great War echoed the Patriarch's moan of so many centuries agone!

But I digress. Although I'm pretty much secular myself, in high school, I was good friends with a devout Presbyterian (daughter of a minister) and a practicing Catholic. We often had great conversations about religion; we talked about faith and logic, the spread of Christianity in Asia, the role that religion plays in communities, and other topics.

Consequently, I was rather surprised when I went to college and found that some people got very upset talking about religion at all. I didn't understand, if a person had so much faith in something, why he/she would have a problem with exploring the roots of his/her beliefs.

Recently I asked this question of a friend, and his answer rang true to me. His analogy was that asking a deeply religious person to justify his/her faith was equivalent to asking a person involved in a serious relationship to justify his/her feelings. While some might consider logical analysis of religious ideas interesting from an intellectual standpoint, those who have a very deep personal connection with their faith might see those same probing questions as attacks intended to poke holes in their cherished beliefs. I would likely feel similarly if someone took a microscope to my relationships with my friends and family.

I guess the thing to remember is that there is a strong emotional component to religious belief. However, that does rather confirm my theory that logic and religion can't easily be mixed.

under whose god?

I've been reading some more about the Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case, concerning the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, now being heard by the Supreme Court.

I myself waver between agnostic and atheistic views. I do think that mentions of God on our currency, in our courts, and in the Pledge are divisive, since they exclude those who explicitly do not believe in a higher power or being. Additionally, although the argument has been made that "God" does not necessarily refer to the Judeo-Christian God, I think it is implicit. Yes, Allah is just an Arabic word for God, but if I were Muslim, I might not necessarily accept that the "God" that the US government refers to is the same as my God. If I were Hindu or Daoist, I might wonder if monotheism were being thrust upon me.

That having been said, I was a little worried about this case. Earlier media coverage seemed to portray Dr. Newdow as a fanatic, who would not be capable of arguing the case rationally. When Dr. Newdow, an ER doctor who passed the bar exam 2 years ago, decided to argue the case himself, my fears seemed justified. A Reverend Lynn, director of an organization dedicated to the separation of church and state, asked to speak before the court, because he also feared that Dr. Newdow would not do an adequate job of presenting the case. Looks like we were all wrong.

According to law.com:

Newdow showed he had mastered the case and his emotions, making a forceful presentation that could teach veterans some new argument tactics.

Newdow, in a risky maneuver, had asked Scalia to recuse because of a speech he gave last year that appeared to tip his hand on the Pledge case. Without Scalia, who usually dominates questioning during oral argument, Newdow and the other advocates spoke for unusually long stretches of time without interruption.

"She does have a right not to participate," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. Newdow quickly replied that in the 1992 graduation prayer case Lee v. Weisman, the Court had found the atmosphere in schools "coercive" for students who might otherwise not participate.

Newdow was also quick to respond when Rehnquist tried to counter his point that the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge was divisive. What was the vote in Congress in 1954 to include the words? Rehnquist asked. It was unanimous, said Newdow. "That doesn't sound divisive," Rehnquist said, and Newdow shot back, "That's only because no atheists can be elected to office."

I was a little confused by the last exchange, until I discovered that apparently, eight states still have laws barring atheists from holding office.

Sounds like Dr. Newdow just might know what he's doing. Unfortunately for him, and for us, it probably won't matter, given the right-wing tilt that this country has taken in the past few years.