QUESTIONS FOR CLARK -- Revisited (8-27-06)

In all fairness, Clark, to continue this argument you should show the courtesy to answer my three questions I posed in the last paragraph of my Aug. 21 letter "QUESTIONS FOR CLARK." Maybe it's because you can't answer them. Perhaps your pastor, or the Very Right Reverend Monsignor Little, or his boss, Bishop Adamec, can answer them -- in maintenance of the "monotheistic" theme of Christianity of course. Those are only a few of the questions I have concerning the veracity of ANY religion -- not just yours.

Of course Ms Holland was being unserious -- unserious on a subject that is taken too seriously . Lighten up! You say that 85% of the world's population believe in a deity, but do you realize that there are probably a 100,000 worship variations of that or those deities in existence (33,800 different Christian denominations exist alone, according to the World Christian Encyclopedia of 2001). Surely one of those sects worship something akin to unicorns! And of course you can see germs -- if you look for them under a microscope.

Seriously though, some atheists have reverted to their persuasion as being a religion in order to gain legal standing as an equal to qualify for the protections afforded religions in the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Dr. Michael Newdow has argued his case before the courts for removing "Under God" from the Pledge, that it is offensive to his personal philosophy which he says is tantamount to a religion. It does make a lot of us shudder at the expedience of his argument and more needs to be said. In hindsight, the establishment clause probably should have been written thusly: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF ONE'S PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY.

Strict adherence to the establishment clause tends to exclude atheists because their philosophy of life excludes the worship of any deity or supernatural condition. So semantics dictate that religion and philosophy be co-joined to the extent of excluding neither. This is sad because in reality religion is a philosophy of life, but a philosophy of life can be exclusive of worshipping a religion. Probably no fundamentalist or orthodox of any faith would agree that philosophy is superior to religion, and, sadly, they have a point. Religions can and do muster armies while philosophers tend to fight only with words. I think civilization hinges on the rectification of this impasse! (and it probably ain't ever gonna happen.)

Ron Stauffer