Frivology

A couple of days ago, I listened to the latest Atheists Talk podcast featuring Michael Newdow. He discussed, at length, his most recent suit against the inaugural committee (amongst others) for including a prayer and altering the oath of office. It was an interesting conversation, and I understand a bit more why he does these things.

Then, this morning Hemant posted that he’s actually getting to go to court over it. To which he asked this question:

What do you think: Do you think there’s any chance we’ll be seeing a secular ceremony?

I had the same reaction to reading this that I did when I heard the show - not a chance. But, I gained a little perspective on it by listening to the show. Like the crass atheist sign popped up in the Seattle capital, suits like Newdow’s keep the conversation going. We shouldn’t be content to just be a silent minority anymore, not when the future is looking more and more like it will eventually have us in the majority, instead.

Hemant’s post posed some interesting responses, the most confounding of which (to me at least) came from James Fich (big surprise, I’m disagreeing with a righty).

I want to take this bit by bit because he hits on a few things, then brings them all together. You can read the whole thing, uncut, here.

We as atheists do our cause no good by seeming like victims. My children are not going to end up as mindless robots worshiping an imaginary god because because their money mentions it. They are not going to become missionaries because the big “O” says “so help me God” at the end of his oath. We are not this weak and frail.

This is, first, wrong. Newdow isn’t suing for what OBAMA says. He’s concerned more about what the Chief Justice says when he alters the oath set into our constitution by adding ’so help me god’, not to mention the opening benediction and closing prayers. Newdow isn’t suing for OBAMA to not say something. In fact, he said on the podcast that if Obama - or any president for that matter - wanted to add ’so help me god’ he had no problems with this.

Newdow and company actually make it harder for us to win hearts and minds because they attack religion out of anger and offer nothing in its place but more anger. These silly lawsuits do nothing but attack American culture. Sure, there is a lot about American culture that needs to be changed, but the courtroom is not where we need to have this battle. There are no Jim Crow laws keeping us from enjoying equal opportunity because of our atheism.

If we want to have a secular country, let’s start by showing the theists that secularism isn’t negative; that a naturalistic world view isn’t just about rejecting a mystical one.

See, here’s the part that I don’t get… “attack religion out of anger”. I listened to Newdow and he talekd at length at how his previous suits actually got him speaking engagements at Christian churches. This suit, like the others, isn’t about anger. It’s about inclusion. Including not one, but two Christian prayers at a public event sponsored by the government is not terribly inclusive. It assumes (rightly, but still) that a majority of the people listening are Christian as well and will agree with what’s said and that the minority need not be represented.

Obama is free to follow his own religion, to say ‘So help me god” if he really wants to. I don’t mind that. However, the office of the President of the United States of America is supposed to represent ALL Americans - not JUST Americans that believe in the Easter Bunny. Government, even in this tiny way, should be completely neutral. It should include all Americans. Now.. as Newdow also said on his program… if Obama wants to then leave the inaugural ceremony to go to his church and have a religious ceremony of his own, he’s perfectly welcome to.

And for crying out loud, let’s act like we have some spine. We can’t seem to be afraid of religion or our government. Of course, we have to stand up and fight against obvious and insidious mingling of the state and religion (i.e. prayer in school and the teaching of intelligent design in science class). And we need to stand up and say the state has no authority to decide which two people want to marry and what they do in their homes. But to worry about and go to court over four words the President says maybe twice in his life at the expense of making a case *for* a secular world view seems like too high a price to pay.

This is the part where I just get plain confused. First, Newdow is angry and now he’s afraid? Maybe it’s a fight or flight mechanism? He’s so darned afraid that he’s gotten angry about it. I disagree that there is any such thing as a small injustice. Any disclusion or injustice in a country that touts it’s inclusiveness is large enough an issue to call attention to. Not to mention, again, it’s not about four words the President says.

This is a classic argument that we should worry about the big things and let the little things go, but I don’t think that one has to exclude the other. Why not worry about the big things AND the little things?

Related posts:

1. Jake Tapper: Thanks for Trying? Yesterday, I posted that Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper...
2. Opposite Land I was browsing the Jake Tapper story to see if...
3. Get it Right, Jake Tapper I know… actually reading and understanding things before you report...
4. So Help Me God’s Day in Court Newdow got shot down.  Not really a big surprise in...
5. Thank You, Mr. President! I’m completely thrilled that Obama is acting with emotion.  There...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.