A Good Read

Arrogance and Ignorance on Behalf of God

What fuels the efforts of conservative and evangelical Christians to defend the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Arrogance and ignorance seem to me to be two of the primary driving forces: arrogance in that they think their beliefs deserves a privileged status and ignorance about history, law, and religion.
Jen Kibler-McCabe writes at Blogs4God an open letter to Michael Newdow:

Having grown up as a northern Californian in an atmosphere that was much more progressive than other parts of the country, I knew from an early age that I had the right not to recite the pledge -- I could even name the Supreme Court ruling that gave me that right.

Jen Kibler-McCabe seems to be one of those many Christians who are under the perception that so long as people can opt out of some activity, then it is constitutional for the government to encourage and endorse it. By that reasoning, government-written and government-endorsed prayers to Allah in public schools would be constitutional so long as students are allowed to refrain from joining in. Of course, when stated in such stark terms, the lunacy of that a position is manifest. The government has no authority to endorse or support the acknowledgment of any gods, much less prayers to them. The fact that students or other citizens can opt out of participating in such endorsement or support doesn't suddenly make it all OK.

Other faiths had the right to practice and have their symbols displayed, but my Christian holidays and symbols were banned. Prayer was not allowed in school because it might offend someone...

For someone who claims to have known at an early age what Supreme Court ruling gave students the right not to join in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, Jen Kibler-McCabe has a really poor knowledge of Supreme Court history with regards to religious liberty decisions. Prayers were never outlawed. Students, acting as individuals, can pray all they want. What was outlawed were state-written, state-sponsored, state-endorsed, and state-encouraged prayers. The reason wasn't that they might "offend" someone. The reason was that the government has no authority to write, sponsor, endorse, or encourage prayers and that doing so sends the message that certain people are more privileged members of the community while others are outsiders - all because of their religious beliefs.

Conservatives like to play on people's ignorance of the Supreme Court by pretending that a prohibition on a government action is the same as a prohibition on individuals' actions - that restricting state-written prayers is the same as restricting individuals' prayers. The question we are faced with here: is Jen one of those who has been misled and doesn't know any better or is she one of those who does know better and is trying to mislead others? I'd love to see examples of where "other faiths" are given rights and freedoms denied to Christians.

Having studied religion as it relates to politics and ideology, I cringed when I heard about the lunacy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they sided 2-1 in your favor.

A lot of people, not just Jen Kibler-McCabe, have decried the 9th Circuit Court decision - but I doubt that they have read it. If they had, they would find a very careful, very cautious decision that relies heavily on Supreme Court precedent. The 9th Circuit Court judges went to a lot of effort not to stick their necks out and they based every one of their points on something already decided by the Supreme Court.

How will you handle your daughter's world history classes as they discuss medieval Europe, a period heavily influenced by Catholicism? What about any Asian history which would cover Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese religions? Are you going to request that she be excused from class as they discuss the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment?

Jen Kibler-McCabe appears to be one of those defenders of the Pledge of Allegiance who thinks that daily recitation of the affirmation "this nation is under God" is somehow equivalent to the neutral observation that "in the past, many political leaders have believed in God." How ridiculous is that? Michael Newdow isn't fighting to remove neutral references to religion in historical or cultural lessons, he is fighting to remove a state-written and state-endorsed approval of a particular theistic belief.

There's a world of difference between the two - one which even conservative Christians like Jen Kibler-McCabe would recognize if it didn't involve their own beliefs. Imagine the contrast between pledging belief in Allah and a history lesson which described in influence of Islam on the Middle East. Is the former unconstitutional? Absolutely. Is the latter unconstitutional? Absolutely not. Would opposition to the former logically entail opposition to the latter? Not at all. But of course, conservative and evangelical Christians don't believe in the Islamic conception of God, so they are able to see (or at least acknowledge) the distinction here. When it comes to their own beliefs, however, such good sense seems to evaporate.

Another issue that has arisen from your lawsuit is the demand that "[you] want [your] belief system to be given the same weight" as other belief systems that profess faith in a deity. Did you ever consider that doing so would limit the belief systems of others? I'm not going to claim that atheism isn't a belief system because it is: you have to be resolute in the belief that there is no deity and no higher power, making it a religion of sorts.

Oh, the irony - by acknowledging that making room for his beliefs would "limit the belief systems of others," Jen Kibler-McCabe doesn't seem to recognize the corollary: when the government endorses her beliefs, it essentially "limits the beliefs of others." That, of course, is exactly why the inclusion of the phrase "under God" is being challenged. I'm sure that she wouldn't approve of it being changed to "under no God," but that of course just underscores the hypocrisy of the Pledge's defenders.

It's really not surprising that after a letter filled with so many logical, legal, and historical errors that at the end Jen Kibler-McCabe would be reduced to such blatant mischaracterizations of atheism as well. I doubt that she has the first idea as to what atheism is or entails. She's "not going to claim that atheism isn't a belief system" because she doesn't know enough about atheism to write about it at all. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's a lack of a single belief (theism). Atheism isn't a religion, although it is included in some religions. It wouldn't have taken much time or effort to learn the truth of these matters, but apparently she didn't consider it worth it.

If you want to keep your right to your beliefs, please refrain from abusing the legal system to infringe on my right to my beliefs.

I always love to see people make such grandiose claims because it demonstrates beyond a doubt that they haven't given serious or fair thought to the subject. To see why, take a very close look at what Jen Kibler-McCabe is claiming: if the phrase "under God" is removed from the official Pledge of Allegiance which the government asks people to recite, her "right" to her "beliefs" will be infringed upon.

Now, what "beliefs" do you suppose she is talking about? What will be "infringed" upon? Will the government be endorsing atheism? No - although as noted above, any objection to that by a person who defends government endorsement of theism is a mark of hypocrisy. Will the government be endorsing Islam or Buddhism? No. Will the government be endorsing humanism or existentialism? No. Will the government be forcing people not to say "under God" when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance? No. Will the government be banning the belief that there is some connection between America and God? No.

Quite simply, a failure to endorse theism (and a particular sort of theism, at that) in the Pledge of Allegiance cannot reasonably be described as an "infringement" on the "beliefs" of anyone at all - everyone remains just as free as ever to believe whatever they want. There isn't even an infringement upon anyone's actions.

So why do people like Jen Kibler-McCabe make arguments like this? Sadly, there seems to be a perception that when particular Christian privileges are lost, then that represents a loss of rights as well. It's not unlike a white person complaining about blacks being allowed to sit in the front of the bus, saying that the refusal of the government to give whites special recognition above blacks somehow means that whites' rights are being infringed upon. Well, I have to say that such a position is incredibly arrogant, short-sighted, and ignorant.

Christians don't lose any rights when their beliefs aren't treated as being special and better than the beliefs of others. They may not like losing their privileges and preferred status, but the fact of the matter is they never deserved those things to begin with. They only had them because in the past they have been able to wield their political power in a manner that ignored the rights of minorities - but that power has been eroding and the end result is ultimately more liberty and more opportunity for all.