Freedom OF Religion

Not Freedom FROM Religion


I actually have what I think is a valid point to make here, so bear with me while I ramble along mentally to get us to it...

If you are a non-blogger and/or causal internet user, you might not realize how far reaching Google’s influence has become. Besides making its co-founders famous and wealthy, it has also become a powerful guardian to the internet and internet access that can make or break blogs and commercial websites alike.

As I understand things today, Blogger.com, the company that hosts my blogs (for free by the way) is owned by Google. Recently I've learned that several prominent blogs have had trouble with their content being removed or otherwise censored for unexplained reasons, and the only recourse was for the blogger to go somewhere else for hosting.

I've thus far managed to stay out of that situation, but...hey...I'm always just one good rant away from insanity...

They (Google) spend a good deal of their time working on your and my behalf and they are the number one search engine on the internet.

I find their services to be indispensable in regard to my own web usage. They constantly refine search algorithms in order to ensure that the results you get when you peck in a topic in the search box are the best possible, but sometimes problems ensue

For instance, last year I found that doing a Google search for my name resulted in seeing me come up number one on their listing.

Woooo, hoooo, yeeeee, haaaa, with that and a buck I can get a cup of thermonuclear coffee at Waffle House.

But then, mysteriously, shortly after I discovered that ego enhancing fact, I also found that my ranking had virtually disappeared, falling down in the second or third page of search results.

It was no big deal for me commercially, but I have to admit that it hurt my feelings a little.

Not to worry, because today the sun is shining and the birds are singing, and my name again sits atop Google’s search results.

But do you know what else I just found out this morning?

Something sort of cool, but yet sort of strange at the same time.

One of my postings was prominently quoted in an article on the website about.com. What really caught my eye was that the category in which this article was published was Agnosticism/Atheism.

You can go here to read the text of the November 15, 2005 article entitled “Conservatives mobilizing against Atheists.

“What the heck” I first thought to myself. “Am I supposed to be flattered or outraged…”

It turns out that I just have to sit back and chuckle, because the posting that Mr. Austin Cline made was referencing my own blog rant entitled “Newdow, Old Tricks.”

I really thought that title was quite cleaver.

I was writing at the time about the meddling California Atheist father Michael Newdow that sued in court to stop his daughter for having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the classrooms in public schools.

Mr. Austin takes umbrage with my simplistic reasoning, but he missed my point entirely in the process. I actually wasn’t trying to be that serious, I was just venting my feelings—one of the primary reasons that I write a blog.

Here is what he said (the text in green is quoted from me):

At least Doug Hagin mentions a couple of genuine issues. Virgil Rogers dispenses with such niceties and goes straight for the personal attack:

"In my opinion, Mr. Newdow is a truly bored, egotistical, useless moron. I wish I had the spare time and energy that Mike has, because I’d probably have solved some critical problem like finding a cure for the common cold or producing a vaccine for Avian flue or something USEFUL by now. I bet Newdow spent his twelve years in public schools with the other boys and most of the girls kicking his butt and wiping the floor with him."

Notice any attempt to argue that Newdow is wrong? Neither do I. Virgil Rogers insists that Newdow is “screwing” with his rights and civil liberties, but he doesn’t explain what “rights” or “liberties” would be overturned if the government ceased to officially endorse, support, or encourage particular religious beliefs. Do Hindus have fewer rights and liberties because their religious beliefs aren’t endorsed by the state? Do Shintos have fewer rights and liberties because their religious beliefs aren’t promoted by the state? Hardly. Yet so many Christians are certain that it would be a form of discrimination if the government ceased to support and endorse their beliefs.

It’s not rights or liberties that they would be losing, it’s privilege. Christians and Christianity have, through much of America’s history, been treated with special deference as compared to other religions. When most Americans were Christian, this was accepted and enjoyed — objections by religious minorities were simply dismissed. Now that America is more religiously diverse, however, religious minorities are becoming more vocal and more successful in their challenges to traditional practices.

Well Mr. Cline, let me say THIS about THAT.

I am constantly torn between writing serious commentary versus just “letting it all hang out” here on the blog, trying to be entertaining.

Maybe you're just pointing out that I have failed at doing either or both at the same time, BUT...with regard to the issue of Michael Newdow’s lawsuit about the words “one nation under God” in the Pledge of allegiance, there is an important detail that I failed to mention, and that you apparently fail to grasp.

Let me state it as simply as I can for you and my readers.

I believe that the government can ABSOLUTLELY stop promoting the pledge of allegiance when the government also stops confiscating my property tax dollars to pay for the mind mush mills laughingly called “public schools” and REQUIRING that our citizens send their children there for twelve impressionable years of their lives.

Last time I checked, it was AGAINST THE LAW to not send your kid to school. The police will come to your house, arrest you, and put you in jail if you let your kids sit at home playing Playstation and eating Poptarts all day long.

I say that when the government starts allowing parents to have freedom of educational choice and are allowed to home school or otherwise educate their little darlin’s in the private school of their liking, then you can send your own child to a school where they say a pledge of allegiance to the Devil or Elvis or even Howdy Doody if you want.

It's all about educational choice.

The only catch is that the goverment should pony up some cash, in the form of school vouchers, to help the parents pay for the alternative (read that REAL) education. After all, it's their (our) money that the government is currently using to pay for the drivel that they are teaching between 8 AM and 3 PM.

The wording of the Pledge of Allegiance should be the LEAST of our problems.

It seems to me to be an easy choice, yet we all still sit here today with crappy, underachieving schools and endless debates on test scores.

Until such time when parents have educational choices, and only then, I say that the VOTERS, not the courts, are entitled to decide what our kids are or are not taught. This means that Michael Newdow can't use the COURTS to override the VOTERS.

It's just that simple...