Bill's Notes

Commenter ST over at Pandagon (one finds inspiration in strange places) came up with this take on the Pledge of Allegiance case before the U.S. Supreme Court. To set this up, another commenter, Brian, had suggested (quite rightly, too) that the plaintiff in the case, Michael Newdow, was trying to impose his atheistic views on the rest of the country.

ST made this comeback, though:

Brian: ... Unless [Newdow] is advocating a change in the pledge to 'one nation under no god,' or advocating that the Congressional Chaplain be replaced by someone who comes on to the floor before each session begins and says 'There is no god, [m]ankind is alone in a meaningless universe, now go about your business,' the notion that Newdow is "pushing" atheism is a crock.

I'm not going to take on the merits of ST's point. But if you visualize that scene, it's pretty funny. You can see the legislators, all excited to begin, sort of falling back in their seats and having existential crises.

On the other hand, if the chaplain says, "Life is meaningless and alone in an indifferent universe, go about your business," the depressed legislators might pass much less legislation, because, well, why bother?

Let's try it for a term and see the results. We could end up with a lot less onerous interference from the federal government.