Is it any wonder that folks who believe in God are getting sick of
those who attack their faith? What is it about people like Michael
Newdow that makes them so intolerant of religion that they will go
to such extraordinary lengths to have it removed from the public view?
You remember Newdow I’m sure – he’s the atheist who made the headlines
a couple of years ago for filing a lawsuit to have the words “Under
God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Well, he’s been in the
news again, this time for filing a suit trying to prevent the Bible
and prayer from being used at President Bush’s upcoming January 20th inauguration.
Lost
on Newdow is the fact that prayer has been used at every inauguration
since George Washington. Obviously, tradition holds that short prayers
at such events are clearly acceptable. Of course much else is lost
on Mr. Newdow as well, such as the fact that the Founding Fathers,
through the Constitution, established freedomof religion, not freedom from religion. Lost on Newdow as well is the plain simple fact that
it makes no sense whatsoever to find offense at such mentions of God.
In what possible way does this negatively impact him (or anyone else
for that matter)? Common sense should tell him that mere words can’t
harm him. If he chooses to be an atheist, then the words should be
simply meaningless to him. The fact that he claims otherwise indicates
to me that he finds a “power” in the words, contradicting his disbelief.
Of course folks like Newdow are obsessed, and unhealthily so at that.
Rather than be logical by being comfortable with his atheism, he chooses
to pursue the eradication of something that he professes no belief
in, and he does so with a zeal that would be the envy of most televangelists.
Surely he should see the fallacy of his actions – his constant dueling
with things he claims are not real, makes him the atheistic equivalent
of Don Quixote, jousting with the windmills of his imagination.
Obviously Mr. Newdow is not behaving logically, because crusades, and make no mistake, his is a sort of crusade, should be reserved for that which serves a purpose. There can be no real purpose in battling the benign.
By
carrying on so, Newdow does more to prove the existence of God than
an old-fashioned tent revival. One has to view the actions of Newdow
as being that of someone not concerned with “rights”, as he obviously
has no regard for the rights of millions of others – no, Newdow’s
actions seem more one born out of fear, and it would be wise of Newdow
to begin asking himself just exactly what it is that he fears so greatly.
In
the meantime, Mr. Newdow’s case to disrupt the President’s second
term inauguration didn’t get very far - U.S. District Court Judge
John Bates rejected his case. Bates wrote in a fifty page ruling that,
“The material change requested by Newdow in an accepted and well-established
historical pattern of short prayers or religious references during
presidential inaugurations, based on this last-minute challenge, is
not likely to serve the public interest,”
Indeed.