If you’ve read Superman comics, you should be familiar with Bizarro, a freakishly flawed clone of Superman who, although trying and thinking he’s doing good, does nothing but harm. Well say hello to the ACRU, the Bizarro ACLU, and then say hello to Hans Zeiger and his craptastic piece entitled, So Help Me God.
But as an operative view for society, atheism is destructive, to say the least.
Yes, this is a comment by someone part of an organization whose mission is “to protect the civil rights of all Americans”. I’m not sure how defaming a minority achieves this end. In fact, I’m not even sure how he arrived at his claim since he never once attempted to explain that or support it. Why is atheism destructive? Well apparently because Mr. Zeiger says so, that’s why. Talk about “to say the least”. Yes, bald assertions without support is indeed saying the least.
Here in America, we’ve found a way to include God in our national creed without excluding people of diverse faiths — indeed, without excluding those who don’t believe in God.
A national creed? The only national creed I’m aware of is The American’s Creed adopted by Congress in 1918, and there’s no god in it at all.
Anyway, on the foundation of his bald assertion that “atheism is destructive”, he erects the argument that “no atheist should take offense at the mention of God in the inaugural ceremonies”. Why? Because god isn’t destructive. Got that? How do we know? Once again, he simply asserts it by saying, “God is understood as the provider of our liberties.” Yes atheists, who feel the belief in a god is unwarranted, should not be bothered by invoking god. Why? Because god is non-destructive pretext. Aside from this being wrong in reality, for anyone who feels that god belief is unwarranted would naturally object to invoking this entity whose existence is unwarranted, but it’s also wrong in the Bizzarro world of Mr. Zeiger, for if atheism is destructive then as a subscriber I should naturally take offense to invoking non-destructive ideas, no?
Another place where his bullshit is self-refuting is in his quoting of Washington’s farewell address. He points out Washington’s claim that religion is necessary for maintaining morality, but yet Mr. Zeiger also put forth the idea that atheism is a religion. Well lookey there, even in his Bizzarro World, America is just fine with atheism. See, here’s yet again the problem of stretching definitions. You can’t both stretch it to also fit what you want and have it snap back to just cover only what you want when it suits you. In quoting Newdow’s use of “religion”, he used the broad definition of it which colloquially is used to refer to any pursuit or cause which is followed passionately (ie – ‘he exercises religiously’, ‘gardening is her religion’, ‘their religion is preaching conservation’, etc), yet, when it suits him, he wants classic religion, the faith-based belief in the supernatural. Nope, sorry sir, you can’t have it both ways.
if ever we become “One nation under the Government” — then we will be living under despotism.
First, let’s return to the ACRU’s mission statement:
Believing that the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is the greatest legal document ever written, the ACRU stands against harmful anti-Constitutional ideologies…
Where is “god” in the “greatest legal document ever written”? Have you ever read it? If you had, you’d never arrive at the ridiculous notion that somehow without your god we’d be “One nation under the Government” (I know you conservatives think government is a bad, evil monster, but come on). Perhaps we should take a look at that ‘national creed’:
I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed;
Again, not only don’t I see your god, but I also don’t see how his absence leads to despotism. The only despotism I can imagine is one where we are under the will of a single entity, a despot in the sky. Argue all you will of your god’s supposed benevolence sir, if he exists he’s still a despot, a singular entity of supreme power. You, like many of your kind, conveniently cite the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution due to its reference to a “Creator”, but sadly you’ve completely missed the point of the document, to declare independence from a tyrant. “One nation under god” is merely exchanging one set of shackles for another.
Oh, and as the first commenter pointed out, you also completely missed the point of the Newdow case. It’s not Obama’s utterance that was objectionable but rather Roberts’, but take solace in the fact that every one of your fellows who, over the past week or so, ranted about this case also made the same mistake. Of course, you’re supposed to be a lawyer, aren’t you? Senior fellow of the ACRU? Well, perhaps you could read better without that beam in your eye, but then you’re calling them as you see them in your Bizzarro World.