I read Oliver North’s latest column, Of faith and freedom, over at TownHall. In it, I see that Michael Newdow, that nutty atheist who tried to get “under God” removed from the Pledge, and tried to ban mention of God in the inauguration, isn’t the only atheist who feels threatened by a public display of faith on the part of others. Now I’ve more or less known this for ages, but for some reason, it still surprises me every time I see it that people can think this way. How insecure they must be in their lack of belief, how shallow they must be that they cannot stand upon their own atheism when confronted by the belief in God that Christians hold. While this might superficially seem to be a good thing, in that it should mean that it is easier to convert them, I don’t take it that way. Rather than thinking it would be easier to convert such an atheist, I think that he must rather be rabid, and will emotionally react against anything that hints of faith, without thought. And someone who refuses to think will not convert, their fear will hold them back. To really understand the scope of what they are doing, look at what the uproar would be if the situation was in reverse. They want to forbid us to mention God in public, as public officials. Think if they were forbidden to deny His existence in public, or as public officials. Try to put such a restriction into practice, and you will quickly not be able to tell the difference between the result and a theocracy. Which is exactly what atheism would result in, since atheism is just as much a religious/philosophical belief as monotheism. Shall we establish, in our zeal to “separate church and state” (a phrase that is no where in the constitution, but, unfortunately, fairly heavily in US Supreme Court precedent, and thus in common law), establish a state atheism? Enforce religion into a “God of the gaps” type practice, with ever narrowing bounds? I fear that we may yet see the full cost of our “tolerance,” beyond “Catholics” who do not believe what the Church teaches, but to the point of suppression. Already in some places, special action is needed, and hopefully will be successful, to allow the Mass to be said¹. A mention of God in a speech is said to infringe, a prayer in a public event. Shall a Cross in a skyline be next? How about a rosary hanging from a rear-view mirror in a public parking lot? Sound paranoid? Would you ever have believed that there would be a challenge to the right of the President to have a prayer said at his inauguration? I know I wouldn’t have.

1) LAUGESEN, WAYNE. ” City Wants to Help Priest Say Mass In Public” National Catholic Register January 11, 2005.

I think I have this all set up for now. No RSS, but that’s fine with me, if you’ve managed to find this, you are already coming here periodically already. Maybe I’ll do that later. It would be an interesting exercise in php’s xml capabilities to see if I can generate something fairly compliant on the fly. Thanks to Joe Duffy, who’s LiveJournal gave me some ideas on how to format this.

I’m just starting this, not sure how it will work out. A previous, flatfile attempt, a few years ago, fell very flat. I’m using some cobled together php for this rather than a fancy blog package, partly because of my utter failure to get 2 of them working (I am fairly hopeless at setting up mysql or postgresql), and partly because I’m not sure exactly what I want. Certainly nothing with the high overhead of livejournal. I’m also not certain how public I want this to be. I’m fairly certain I do not want to be on LiveJournal.