Atheists need to put the Christian right on the spot, ask them if they really think we’re less Ameri

[phantom power]

The rationale for government endorsement of religion, according to Kennedy, is that it’s simply the recognition of “traditional practices that recognize the role religion plays in our society” and doesn’t count as an attack on religious freedom unless you’re actively being forced to pray yourself. Basically, the argument is that since the group “Americans” are largely Christian, it’s okay to make government explicitly Christian so long as the few non-Christian Americans are allowed to practice their unrecognized and disdained religions without fear of overt government reprisal. This is a bullshit argument, of course, as the First Amendment explicitly says that Congress shouldn’t make laws “respecting an establishment of religion”, and holding up Christianity as a faith that is better than and somehow more American than other faiths is doing just that.

Unfortunately, the sense that “Americans” and “Christian” are basically synonymous, except for a few outliers, makes a lot of emotional sense to a lot of people. The people most poised to interrupt this narrative are the non-religious. One in five American adults has no religion at all and, when it comes to people under 30, it’s one in 3. This isn’t a country where nearly all people are Christian, except for a handful of religious minorities. One in five is a significantly sized minority, big enough that marginalizing them—in the way that Jews (1 in 50) and Muslims (1 in 120) are unfortunately marginalized now—is much harder to do.

That the non-religious are the biggest threat to the concept of America as a “Christian” nation hasn’t passed notice on the right, either. Witness Todd Starnes having a meltdown over pro-secularists insisting that it’s wrong for the government of a religiously diverse nation to openly prefer some religious beliefs over others. He compares secularists to “Hitler”—who was religious and routinely invoked religion in his speeches, by the way—and complains that not being held up as the bestest Americans of all Americans is somehow an assault on the rights of Christians, specifically claiming “the Obama administration has been waging a war against people of the Christian faith.”

Dunno what the administration has to do with this, but I think that this is a discussion that we should be willing to have: Is it right for a country to deliberately exclude large groups of voting, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens because we have different opinions about supernatural beings? I mean, right now most Christians say “yes”, but I think the deep unfairness of it will wear them down if it’s pointed out over and over again, just as the unfairness of excluding gay people from marriage for arbitrary reasons eventually dawned on people. Non-religious people have the numbers on this, and so we’re in a good spot to make this argument. And we need to get out there and make it, over and over again: We are just as American as you are, and when you have government endorsement of religion, you are saying we don’t count for as much. Make them defend the idea that we are less-than. It’s not a good look.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/06/atheists-need-to-put-the-christian-right-on-the-spot-ask-them-if-they-really-think-were-less-american/

[MountainLaurel]

1. Honestly, some of them do

I've been told that if I don't like Christian prayers in the schools, I should leave the country. If only some nice first-world nation would take me...

[whatthehey]

2. Why? The answer will be "yes" and no-one other than atheists will care.

All that will achieve is make the majority more antagonistic towards atheists in the ensuing backlash, because even apathetic pseudo-Christians will band together in tribal unity with their rightwing fellow believers against the "other" daring to speak up against them.

[MicaelS]

3. That is exactly what will happen.

Do you think the extremely religious are going to shy from telling you exactly what they think? Shame only works if your opponent perceives themselves to be in the wrong. Since the Christians in this country think they are absolutely correct, and Atheists are absolutely wrong, shaming them isn't going to work.

[phantom power]

4. As I read it, the OP proposes two answers to that question

1) Atheists and non-atheist secularists aren't as marginal as we habitually think. 1 out of 5 people you see walking down the street is secular. One out of 3 young people. That's a number with political weight, if we made our presence more vocal. Furthermore, it implies that a whole lot more people know somebody like us than they probably think. We aren't some esoteric fringe inhabiting universities and the ACLU.

2) Consider the trajectory of LBGT acceptance as an analogy. Not very long ago, it was Accepted Wisdom that LBGT were (a) rare and (b) Scary Other. Obviously, the 25% Conservative Core still feels that way, is proud of it, and is going to continue feeling that way. But the other 75% of non-wingnutz have been changing their mind about this with astonishing rapidity, in the grand scheme of things.

So, the OP proposes that it is equally plausible for secular citizens to achieve the same kind of consciousness-shift that the LBGT community has been achieving. I don't see why not. Secular citizens constitute an even larger fraction of the population than LBGT.


Tangentially: I've been wondering what impact the rise of LBGT characters in TV shows had on the LBGT success story. Assuming that was important, I wonder if the same would happen if atheist characters started showing up in TV shows.

[whatthehey]

6. A bit too early for that

The gay community managed to be both much more cohesive and much more affirmative than the atheist community has been so far. They are fragmented on what to call themselves, diluted trying to address issues outside their core, including somewhat ironically the very worthy but already much more successful GLBT cause, and way too worried about minutiae.

Atheists are shown on TV and movies - almost always as either insane/sociopathic geniuses or emotionally flawed damaged people. Their fate seems to be either vengeful destruction, "heartwarming" reconciliation to faith, or emotionless isolation - take your pick.

I think the difference is that homosexuality does not even tangentially say that heterosexuality is wrong per se. Atheism says that religiosity is wrong. It's much less threatening to say "my orientation is different from yours" than to say "my orientation asserts yours is mistaken".

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. Atheism does NOT "say that religiosity is wrong", for fucks sake.

Every single Atheist I know and have talked to has come to their conclusion by a different path. Now some may be completely ANTI-religion, but it isn't the majority nor is it the case that all of them consider religion to be wrong.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Since most Atheists are former theists, they tend to understand how religious mindset and indoctrination takes hold in humans, how naturally gullible and superstitious a species we are and if nothing else, hold out a modicum of understanding for the religious.

As an Atheist, I simply have no gods. That's it. The fact that the majority (but steadily shrinking) of Americans do bothers me only to the extent that they want to (or wish they could) make me see things their way again. Faith communities RELY on their ideas being universally held or at least seen as acceptable. That is slowly changing. More and more young people in particular are seeing the old ways of discovering spirituality as archaic, useless and offering an outdated perspective.

I see these efforts on the part of the courts and legislators to institutionalize religion as the beginning of the end. There will be a serious push back as the secular portion of society grows. The "leaders" of the religious in this country have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. That is, I think behind the latest push by so many to get Creation taught in public schools. If you dare teach children how to think critically, the Church tends to lose them as they get older.

They aren't about to let that happen and they aren't going get off that gravy train willingly.

[herding cats]

5. This doesn't work against their sense of righteous indignation

I appreciate the sentiment expressed in the article, but it completely ignores the fact that those of the Christian faith who feel this way have a self righteous attitude in regards to their beliefs. Their anger harbors no room for guilt regarding their actions toward those who don't agree with them. Which isn't rational, and as such cannot be dealt with rationally.

Religious zealots want everyone to be subjected to rule under their religious beliefs because they think their way is the only correct way. If you cannot be wrong, then there's no reason to feel remorse for projecting your religious beliefs on the rest of the population. They actually believe it's for the overall good of the country, and all those who live in it, to believe as they do.

Note, I am making a distinction between the religious zealots and the other people of faith. Being a person of faith (whatever your faith) does not mean you're a zealot trying to circumvent the Constitution of the United States. Just to be clear.

[Uben]

7. I don't identify as a christian or an atheist.....

...I have my own beliefs. That said, letting people have prayer is not a hill I want to die on. I would like to see them use silent prayer so as not to antagonize anyone. I don't pray to any god, but I have no problem letting others as long as it doesn't affect me. If they'll let me believe what I want, I'll let them pray to their gods. Now, doesn't that seem reasonable?
I'm not one to push my beliefs on anyone. I don't care what you believe, just keep it to yourself or groups of like minds. It doesn't make me feel any "less than" a human being if people are allowed to pray in public as long as it is not required.
Isn't that the way it should be? I have friends that are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, atheists, Shinto...you name it. I don't define people by their beliefs, I define them by their character. I don't choose my friends by their politics, religious beliefs, race or ethnicity. I choose them because I like who they are...period.
We all reside on this planet and that is not going to change, so we might as well get along in a civil manner.

[phantom power]

8. IMO, it's not benign

Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, needs "public prayer." We already have thousands and thousands of places for that, all across the nation (and world). We call them "churches." In fact, we've had them for thousands of years.

As for "private prayer," nobody needs any new venues for that either. You want a "moment of silence," then take it in your fucking office, or on the way to work, or on the toilet, or over lunch.

Prayers at public schools and courthouses and legislatures, etc, is solving a problem that transparently doesn't exist. The people who are trying to insert this kind of thing into our public spaces are not arguing in good faith. This kind of crap serves no practical purpose, except to elevate Christianity over other religions, and people of no religion.

It isn't a victimless crime. It is creeping coercion:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-supreme-court-is-wrong-public.html

[Arugula Latte]

10. You said "I don't care what you believe, just keep it to yourself"

and then proceeded to say that praying in public is fine. So what about people keeping their beliefs to themselves? That went out the window quickly...Public prayer is pushing beliefs (almost always Christian beliefs) onto others. It's not right in a government setting. It's wrong when it happens in Congress, too.