Frivology

Ever since the inauguration, I keep reading the same phrase (or hearing it uttered) over and over and over and over again… "Well, Christians are the majority, so we get what we want.  Shut up, Atheists." 

This is also characterized in this article at AlterNet, recounting some recent comments.  "Pilgrim" says:

Why can’t atheists keep their incessant whining to themselves instead of continuously denigrating believers who outnumber them?

I personally don’t give a hoot what atheists believe, and I wish they would just shut up and stop belittling those who don’t see things the way they do.

Things are not going to change because of their continuous grousing and ridiculing.

Well, Pilgrim (I feel like John Wayne suddenly), what you really need to realize is that our push to restore the separation of church and state isn’t just for our own, fat, atheist egos.  It’s because it’s fairer to everyone - including you.  Right now, you are right, Christianity is the majority.  But… Atheists, Agnostics, Non-Believers, Humanists and the Irreligious make up the second largest group.  If wackaloons continue to take over your religion, we can easily see it bolstering our ranks.  A few generations from now, when the tables are reversed, what would you rather see….

World #1: While Atheists are the majority, Christians are still allowed their churches, and still allowed their personal freedom to believe in whatever they want to.  While these beliefs aren’t carried out through the government, the government also doesn’t tell Christians they aren’t allowed.  While government-sponsored functions no longer make reference to god, jesus, the bible or anything religious, they also don’t force those who believe to stop believing. 

World #2: Atheists, now in the majority, decide to treat Christians like Christians have treated Atheists.  Christians who wear T-Shirts that have Jesus on them are frequently ridiculed and called names.  In some places, Christians are asked to REMOVE any paraphernalia, as it is offensive to non-believers.  All government-sponsored events start with an announcement that there is no god, and require those who take the oath of office to do so on ‘On the Origin of Species’.  Polls regularly state that the majority of the people of the United States trust Christians LESS than they trust Wall Street Investors and churches can rarely get zoning for their buildings to be built. 

Now… seriously … which world would you rather live in?  I know it may be hard - nay impossible - for a "true believer" to imagine a world where they aren’t the majority, but try.  I’d dare say that most atheists do not want World #2.  Most atheists are content to live in a world where there are dozens of religions that they don’t believe in so long as those religions don’t force their beliefs on them.  Similarly, while most atheists don’t really have any desire to deconvert everyone that they meet.  They’re content only to explain their disbelief when asked.  I realize I’m speaking in generalities here, but I believe these generalities are all fairly true.

So, for those who keep spouting the ‘We’re the majority’ line, remember… you may not always be the majority.  Do you really want to be treated the way that you treat us?

As I was watching the Inauguration on Tuesday, I kept thinking to myself, "Wow, Obama is really bitchslapping Bush.  Good.  He deserves it.", but I wasn’t sure whether or not I was making a big deal out of it.  Apparently not.  Seems that the plane trip from Washington DC to Texas was full of crying GOPs.

Personally, I think they deserve it - and then some.  You don’t do what you did to this country and then just get to walk away from it pretending like you actually accomplished something.  While Bush, himself, seemed oblivious to the whole thing, his supporters are throwing fits.

Mr. McKinnon said there were good wishes for the new president and “an absence of malice one normally sees among the constituencies of the vanquished.” But he also said there were “some critical reviews of the speech, complaints about taking unnecessary shots and grousing about borrowed ideas.”

Right, so after attacking Obama at every step in the road during the candidacy, they now want a medal for not acting like the jerks they are during the transition.  Umm… no?

Can these guys whine any harder?  Oh wait, they can!

(continue reading…)

Wait… eternity next to some guy who can’t stop going on about how awaesome the Raiders are?  That IS Hell! Even more fun images by Gerry Canavan.

I don’t get much of a chance to blog at work, but I do get opportunities to catch up on my RSS feeds.  Which means, I got to watch the world react to Obama’s Inauguration even though I wasn’t able to really participate init.  Planet Atheism was a pretty big aid to doing that, as I got to read all of the reactions to the part that made me ‘woohoo’ out loud - Obama recognizing non-believers.  I also just kind of got to see how people would react. 

Unfortunately, one of my favorite bloggers - PZ Myers - disappointed me the most with, really, the least to say: 

I’m not wildly enthusiastic about our new president, but he is so much better than the amoral sleazebuckets he is replacing in office that I have to see it all as a largely positive change. I also just read the speech … not bad. I’ll give him a few years to prove himself.

I also caught the brief acknowledgment of the existence of non-believers. It’s a small thing, but appreciated. Everyone seems to be a bit unsatisfied with his specific choice of word, and I agree a bit. The better choice, the word that would have been more inclusive and positive, is “freethinkers”. Someone let his speechwriters know.

via: Catching up with the event of the day

Well, first, as I understand it Obama wrote his own speech for this one, but that’s me being nit-picky.  Secondly, I really don’t like the term ‘freethinkers’, it doesn’t really hit with the right punch what it really means.  Non-believers works very well, thank-you-very-much.  I feel like PZ, and then later when I read him, Hemant, are really … I don’t want to say cynical as that sends the wrong impression, so does bitter, but maybe … jaded?  

(continue reading…)

I was browsing the Jake Tapper story to see if he’d changed the first paragraph to be more accurate, and I found out that he has not.  I don’t expect him to, actually.  It’s far more dramatic to have it this way instead.  I did, however, respond to a couple of people who claimed that Newdow was trying to “force” Atheism on everyone, and that they couldn’t understand how prayer and invoking God’s name was forcing Christianity.  

First of all, you all need to get a grip. Removing ’so help me god’ is not “forcing atheism” on anyone. The suit is NOT to ask for it to be removed and in it’s place be put ‘there is no god’, or require an hour-long lecture on Darwinism.

Secondly, considering part of this suit is about the many prayers that occur during these GOVERNMENT functions, how is a Christian clergyman (in fact, multiple, from different denominations) asking ME, an atheist, to PRAY NOT forcing your religion on me. Sure, I cold ignore it or close my eyes or stuff my fingers in my ears, but this is a government function and I am a citizen of this country. Why should I be excluded?

Plus, though Newdow is often just treated as an Atheist, he’s doing this not just for Atheists, but for people of other religions. Think about how you might feel if, instead of having Christian clerics up there, Obama had everyone conduct a traditional Muslim prayer and followed that up by saying ‘praise Allah’ at the end instead of ‘So help me god’. Would you still be foaming at the mouth to protect his “rights”? I somehow doubt it.

Basic critical thinking, folks.  You can not declare in one breath that the absence of something forces another thing, then in another state that the presence of something does not force that thing.  Unless, of course, you live in opposite world, which I guess most theists do. 

Yesterday, I posted that Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper was falsely reporting that Michael Newdow was trying to prevent Barack Obama from saying “so help me god”.  It’s important - very important - to recognize the difference.  One is an argument against altering the constitution.  Another is an argument for restricting a man’s Freedom of Speech.  I don’t want to make blanket statements, but atheists, of all people, are more likely to understand and appreciate first ammendment rights, including free speech.  It is inappropriate and irresponsible to inaccurately report that.  Well, Jake’s changed his post to (almost) fix the problem. 

The atheist groups have no problem with President-elect Obama uttering the phrase himself if he wants to, they say. Their problem is Roberts saying it first, as if the phrase are part of the official oath.

“If President-elect Obama (as a black man fully aware of the vile effects that stem from a majority’s disregard of a minority’s rights, and as a Democrat fully aware of the efficacy his Republican predecessor’s ’so help me God’ oath additions) feels that the verbiage formulated by the Founders is so inadequate that he needs to interlard his oath with a purely religious phrase deemed unnecessary by the first twenty presidents, Plaintiffs have no objection at this time,” they say. “The President, like all other individuals, has Free Exercise rights, which might permit such an alteration. 

“No such Free Exercise rights, however, come into play on the part of the individual administering the oath to the President,” they assert.

So they seek to prevent Roberts from making the heavenly acknowledgement, though Roberts’ attorney says that Obama wants to say it.*

via: Courts: PEBO Can Say ‘So Help Me God’ As Part of Official Oath on Tuesday*

It goes a long way to fixing the problem, but it doesn’t correct the very first paragraph of the post, which inaccurately still states that Newdow was attempting to prevent Barack, himself, from saying those words.  Please.  We need responsible reporting, not inaccurate reporting.  I picked Jake’s post to pick on because it was the first one to show up in my Google reader under that particular news search.  That news has now been reported in several places - all inaccurately.  Seriously, and this goes for all journalists - get it right or find another job. 

More places getting it wrong: 

CNSNews - WRONG: “…demand that President-elect Barack Obama be barred from saying “So help me God”…”
Associated Press - WRONG: “Judge won’t order Obama not to use ‘God’ in oath” 
OneNewsNow - WRONG: “…suit recently to prevent Barack Obama from using the phrase ”so help me God…” 
Opposing Views - WRONG: “…group of atheists who said President-elect Barack Obama’s reference to God…”

I know… actually reading and understanding things before you report on them is hard work, but really… isn’t that what you get paid for? 

Newdow, who lost a battle in the U.S. Supreme Court to have the words “under God” excised from the pledge of allegiance, is one of 18 people and 10 atheist organizations who sued Chief Justice John Roberts, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and two of the pastors who will be part of the Inaugural ceremony — Rev. Joseph Lowery and Rev. Rick Warren — to prevent Mr. Obama from adding the heavenly acknowledgement, and to prevent Lowery from delivering the benediction and Warren the invocation.

via:  Courts: PEBO Can Say ‘So Help Me God’ on Tuesday

No, he was JUST trying to prevent the Chief Justice from saying it, not Obama himself.  Try to at least understand the story before you write about it.

Newdow got shot down.  Not really a big surprise in my book, but I maintain that simply filing the suit is a good idea and an excercise of our freedoms.  A lot of people made a pretty big stink to Obama about the Rick Warren deal, which got V. Gene Robinson a chance to say a prayer (the Obama team claims that they were going to do this all along, but I’m not sure anyone believes that - if that were true, I’d think they would have had the brains to announce both Warren and Robinson at the same time).  While Obama has completely and utterly ignored atheists even after courting our votes, we can just hope that this places a little thought inside his head - and that of others. 

Let’s not forget that Michael Newdow started these little fights alone, and he’s now starting to gain ground by being able to sign on more and more plaintiffs.  Eventually, the voice that wants the separation - which doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be solely that of atheists - is going to be loud enough that it can not possibly be ignored.  That’s the key to “winning” this fight - making sure that your voice is so loud that politicians can’t afford not to listen to it.  I really think this is still just the beginning and the more steam and more voices that are picked up the more likely we’re going to win. 

Hat tip: Hemant at Friendly Atheist

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.

(continue reading…)