Change the Pledge: One nation under Allah?

Sadly, the Freedom from Religion Foundation lost another round in their effort to remove "Under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance. The Court wrote:

"It takes more than the presence of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing religion, let alone to do so as a primary effect," the judge wrote. "The Pledge and the phrase 'under God' are not themselves prayers, nor are they readings from or recitations of a sacred text of a religion. Here, the words 'under God' appear in a pledge to a flag – itself a secular exercise, accompanied by no other religious language or symbolism."

But for all of the Court's complex (and sometimes convoluted) reasoning, there's a simple and obvious test that shows that their decision is wrong. Even they should have seen it. Consider this:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Doesn't this also meet the Court's definition of "secular"?

Or how about this:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Surely that too meets the Court's definition of "secular."

Give the Ft. Hood Shooter the BEST Lawyer in Town!

Wolf Blitzer of CNN doesn't get it.

Blitzer was interviewing Nidel Hasan's military lawyer, and posed the usual question, asking how he could defend such a horrible person. At the end of attorney Colonel John Galligan's answer, Blitzer made a terrible mistake, saying:

"I'm sure he will get a much fairer hearing than those 13 Americans who were brutally gunned down the other day. I'm sure he will get all of the rights that are applied by the U.S. Military Code of Justice."

Blitzer is completely missing the point.

There's all this ballyhooing about how you're "innocent until proven guilty," which is absolutely true and a foundation of American Democracy. And there's all that stuff about, "Better to let ten guilty men go than convict one innocent man." Also very true, and the sign of a great nation.

But that's not why I want Hasan to have a great lawyer.

I want Colonel Galligan to be the best lawyer in the country. I want the Colonel to put up the best defense any lawyer ever mounted. I want him to poke into every nook and cranny, explore every possibility, grill every single witness ruthlessly. I want Colonel Galligan to really try to get Hasan off the hook.

Because then, when the jury finally pronounces its "Guilty!" verdict, as we all know they will, I want Hasan to go in front of that firing squad without any hope of appeal, and chance of clemency. I want him to be as hopeless and helpless as his victims were. And only Colonel Galligan can make Hasan completely hopeless, by doing his job well. I don't want even a hint of a mistake that could cause a mistrial, or get an appeal granted, or make anyone have any doubts at all. I want him to be found guilty, in spite of the best defense possible. I want him to be utterly and completely without hope when this trial is done.

Wolf Blitzer, you're not seeing this the right way. Let the Colonel do is job, because that is how justice will be served.

Hallelujah! Christians can Legally Discriminate!

(Note to my readers: This article was originally a parody, but I decided it was over the top, and have withdrawn it. Here is a short note about the original news article.)

It seems there's a way to be exempt from normal laws prohibiting discrimination: Become a church! The California Appeals Court ruled that it's OK for churches to discriminate, because "as a private, religious organization" churches are exempt from normal laws prohibiting discrimination. Unlike other businesses, religions don't have to follow these laws that are supposed to protect minorities.

It seems a two girls at a Christian high school admitted to being in love and having a relationship, and were booted from the school. The court's ruling was apparently designed to be narrow; by declaring that a religious school is not a business, they can exempt the school. Unfortunately, this also exempts the school from ALL laws about discrimination.

Tags: lesbian discrimination court christian atheism

I'm an Athiest, So Help Me God

America's Courts have a fundamental flaw that virtually guarantees bias against Atheists.

Not long ago, I was swindled by a thief who was selling stuff and not delivering. My wife is quite the internet sleuth, and managed to track the guy down, and we hauled his ass into Small Claims Court.

When you get to the courtroom, the first thing the bailiff does is to ask all the parties to sit down and see if they can reach an agreement without the judge. A lot of times people know they're in the wrong and will settle rather than face the judge. In our case, it was instantly apparent that our opponent was a total snake, one of those guys who lies even when there's no reason to. He said things to me that he knew were false, and I knew were false, and that he knew that I knew were false! And he did it with a straight face.

The worst-case scenario for a judge is when there is no concrete evidence – no contract, no receipt, no emails, just a handshake, and the two parties with the opposite version of what that handshake meant. Plainly one or the other is lying, but which one? The judge has to simply guess, based on intuition, reputation, looks, and whether one of the parties' story has the "ring of truth." I didn't envy the judge.

As I watched the judge settle a couple of cases, my hopes rose. He was pretty good. He found sensible compromises, he spotted holes on peoples' stories, and he seemed to have a good sense of fairness and justice. But when my turn came, I suddenly realized I had a big problem.

The bailiff called our case. We walked forward, and the judge said, "Raise your right hands. Do you swear that the evidence you are going to present this Court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" I was like a deer caught in the headlights. In an instant, a hundred stories and statistics were spinning through my head. Atheists are America's least-trusted group according to many surveys. Atheists don't deserve the rights of citizenship according to President Bush (the elder). Separation of Church and State was invented by the Devil according to Rev. Jerry Falwell and his flock.

Unfortunately, I have this flaw that may kill me some day: I'm honest. "Your honor, I'm an Atheist." This pretty much stopped everything. The Court's clerk, who had been chatting quietly with the bailiff, stopped mid-sentence and looked up. Various other plaintiffs and defendants, who had been reading, whispering amongst themselves, or dozing, were suddenly paying attention. Even the judge's normal composed, scholarly demeanor was momentarily lost.

The defendant, my lying opponent, quickly jumped in, and in a very loud voice, said, "I swear, so help me God." The Judge regained his composure, and turned to me. "Do you swear that the evidence you are going to present this Court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" And he sort of stopped with an awkward pause, the sentence seemingly incomplete. I could only fill in the silence with a firm, "I do."

I lost the case. The liar lied to the judge, and I told the truth, and the liar got away with my money. Was it because I'm an Atheist? I'll never know. I believe that the Judge, a man who has dedicated his life to the study of law, and to the principles of fairness and justice, was able to put aside his prejudices. I believe that his decision was wrong simply because my opponent was such a good liar. But ... sometimes I wonder.

And I also wonder why, over two hundred years after this country established a wall of separation between church and state, a citizen who happens to be an atheist has to be "outed," to declare his/her religious beliefs, before being heard by the Court.