WASHINGTON � A California atheist told the Supreme Court Wednesday that the words �under God� in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional and offensive to people who don�t believe there is a God.
If you don’t believe in God and thus in no moral absolutes then how can anything truly be offensive? If you believe that values are only defined by the culture around you, then a majority culture that believes in God can set those values against a minority that doesn’t? If these values are truly only subjective then why can a minorities subjective values trump the majorities subjective values? If we are going to play the offended game, then wouldn’t removing “under God” be offensive to the majority of those who believe in God? I was once a conservative and pro-life atheist and these contradictions in my belief opened me up to the possibility of God.
Of course with the present Supreme Court, we know that logic and especially the Constitution will not be determining factors in this case. The current court is like Bullwinkle saying “Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”, everything but a rabbit always appeared. Comparably the court says “Watch me pull a law out of the Constitution!”, everything but something from the Constitution appears instead.
I wonder what Michael Newdow’s next quest will be? Will he go to Japan to demand that God be removed from Godzilla?