Frivology

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

Wow, Grand Junction is just a hotbed of editorials these days. One more quick look at one of them before I go to bed. This one matches up their own issues with prayers before their city council meetings with Michael Newdow’s suit concerning the inauguration.

Beyond getting the history of ’so help me god’ showing up in inaugurations completely wrong, Mr. Wagner seems to have figured out why it is that atheists have such a wedgie about separating church from state:

What hurts for people like Newdow is the idea that there’s someone more important than themselves. Believing that there isn’t seems less like being an atheist and more a victim of narcissism. Indeed, the rage some seem to feel at the mere mention of religion, particularly by public officials, no matter what the context, seems outsized to the offense.

via:  Narcissism may drive opponents of religion as much as atheism

Okay, Mr. Wagner.  Here’s a quick lesson for you.  Believing there is no god does not equal believing that there isn’t someone more important than ourselves.  In fact, I’d turn the gun of narcisism right back around onto you, Mr. Theist.  When you pray, are you not often praying for something for yourself?  If you pray to, say, win the lottery, are you not presupposing that you are so very special to your god that you - above all others - should have your prayer personally answered?  As atheists don’t believe in that tripe, atheists don’t consider themselves above anyone else.  We are, in fact, made of the same matter as even you, Mr. Wagner.

Secondly, what is so wrong with each of us patting ourselves on the back every now and again?  When I was an evangelical, I had a very hard time watching people attribute some amazing feats that they did to God.  There were plenty of people who gave up drugs or alcohol and built better lives for themselves, and they never gave themselves credit for having the strength of will to do it.  They always thanked God for doing it for them. 

As humans, we are an amazing race, Mr. Wagner.  We are capable of beautiful and wonderful things, and by insisting that we could not do the beautiful and wonderful things we do without the hand of God, we are denying ourselves the simple pleasure of being amazed at nothing more powerful than each other.

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…)