Great. Here we go again with silly atheists making a big stink for no logical reason.
The Pledge of Allegiance has, in the past, come under attack for containing the words "under God" - and now with Obama's inauguration fast approaching, a group of atheists is trying to get the phrase "so help me God" removed from the Oath of Office. One of them (Dan Barker) is quoted in the article as saying that the phrase:
"...makes those of us good Americans who don't believe in God second-class citizens. It's unfair."
I don't get it. How exactly does it turn non-believers into second-class citizens? Does it impose a religion on anybody? No, it's just a piece of text read out at a traditional ceremony. Does it somehow take religious freedom/freedom to be non-religious away from atheists? Again, it does not. It also does not mean the separation between Church and State has been broken - America still has no national church or religion, it just has a piece of traditional text.
Plus, you wouldn't edit the Iliad or some such piece of literature to bring it in line with, for instance, modern grammar, or PC prudishness, would you? While it may not be a famous epic poem, the Oath of Office (and the Pledge of Allegiance, for that matter) strikes me as the same sort of thing; you wouldn't want to change the way it was written historically, because it would no longer be THE Oath of Office. Especially since, you know, it doesn't actually oppress anybody.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'm with Barker. Let's leave the references to dubious dieties out of our government ceremonies and public schools. There is just no need for it. You're an athiest, right? Why don't these things bother you?
Yes, I am atheist, but no, the mention of God doesn't bother me. As I stated, no one is trying to make me into a Christian if they ask me to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. These things (The Pledge, the Oath of Office) were writing a long while ago when it was assumed that anyone reciting them would be Christian. While this assumption is obviously obsolete in the modern day, we still use the old ceremonies for tradition's sake. Why do you feel threatened by that, whether or not these things are 'needed'?
Our government is a secular institution and it should stay that way. I'm glad people like Dan Barker are making an effort to keep it that way and I'm surprised that a fellow non-believer could be so insulting to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Inviting a preacher to the inauguration is fine, but allowing him to pray to a deity would definitely be insulting to not only the free-thinking population but also to Americans who worship other gods than the one represented by Rick Warren.
Referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance is not part of the original script. It was added later, a contamination of an otherwise wonderful statement. Intelligent, free-thinking parents would prefer their children not be exposed to religious ideology at an otherwise secular school.
None of these references to a god has any traditional value as you suggest. They are suggestive of our ignorance and perpetuate the ridiculous myth and flimsy theory that something had to have consciously made everything in nature. The references and statements seem harmless on the surface, but they suggest the acceptance of a delusional way of thinking. Modern cultures would be better off without embracing this kind of ignorance. The only importance it has is as a study of religious history, not as a currently practiced tradition.
*My point is that we ARE free free from religion and that the government IS secular- actual governmental activity is not affected by any theology.
*What is wrong with exposure to religion? AGAIN, no one is being forced to become a Christian or adopt Christian beliefs if they recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm getting the impression that something about religion personally offends you, even while you have total freedom of religion/freedom to be non-religious.
*Out of curiosity, when was the 'under God' thing added to the Pledge of Allegiance? I know very little about this. If it was added relatively recently, I would agree that the addition would be inappropriate and a bit disturbing. If it was added not to long after the original Pledge was written, I would still think the editors were right in believing all those reciting it would be Christian.
*As for you statement about religion equaling ignorance: Personally, I've never been able to understand the belief in any sort of God/afterlife, etc. Still, the majority of the human race believes in a creator of some kind, which makes me think that this sort of belief is ingrained in humanity's genetic makeup, at least 90% of the time. Therefore, I could never consider someone who was religious as 'ignorant' just because they believed in a God.
To say that governmental activity is not affected by any theology is not only inaccurate, it is also incredibly naive. There are tons of information available on the subject of religion and how it influences government policy. For a start, here is the link to the Freedom From Religion Foundation link to the Church/State FAQ:
http://www.ffrf.org/faq/
What is wrong with exposure to religion? Books have been written about this. My recommendation is:
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
You said that you think belief is ingrained in humanity's genetic makeup. I agree. I recommend reading:
The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes by Dean H. Hamer.
You admit that an adulteration of the original wording of the Pledge of Allegiance would be inappropriate and a bit disturbing. I agree. The following paragraph addressing the subject is copied from the ffrf.org site:
A secular Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was first published in a national magazine, Youth's Companion, on September 8, 1892. "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Congress in 1954 passed House Joint Resolution 243, approved by President Dwight Eisenhower (Public Law 396, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session), which amended the language by adding the words "under God." In signing the Act of Congress, Eisenhower said: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty,".
When I use a phrase like 'embracing ignorance' with reference to religious belief, I'm not using the word 'ignorant' in a derogatory sense. I'm using the the definition of "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified." The 'thing specified' is the knowledge of how our world came to be. Religious theory is incompatible with scientific theory based on evidence and information obtained using the scientific method. Religious doctrine mandates that followers should not doubt the teachings of the scriptures. I call this 'embracing ignorance'.
Atheists get little respect in this country. Here is a typical comment from a believer:
"I respect Satanists over Atheists.
Reason: At least satanists believe in God and just choose not to follow him as Atheists are so blinded by stupidity they are unable to come up with a reason besides their "magical explosion from nothing" big bang theory."
Even fellow non-believers sometimes refer to us as "silly atheists." Of course I'm personally offended.
Thanks for the info about the addition of the 'so help me God' clause- I decided to do a little research myself as well. It seems that while the God stuff was/is not included in the original Oath, most presidents have decided to tack it on after Lincoln did so when he was elected. Washington is also alleged to have said it, but there is little evidence to back up this claim.
As for exposure to religion: In the most extreme cases, religion leads to ridiculous, petty, bloody wars, witch burnings, etc. It can also lead to unique cultures and an increase in morality among some. In less extreme/normal cases, exposure to religion does nothing. "So help me God" hurts no one.
An overview of the Freedom From Religion site gave me no reason to think the government is under the influence of any religion, Christian or otherwise. Can you give me a specific example?
Your connection between religion and ignorance seems to think that all religious people are fundamentalists. The fundies are out there, no doubt, but of all the Christians I've met in my life, I would only judge about two or three of them to have been blindly 'following the Scriptures'.
I can agree with your statement that atheists should get more respect. However, I think the term 'atheist' has been corrupted by anti-Christmas, anti-Pledge, anti-religious individuals who are making religious individuals, whack jobs and decent people alike, think that the atheists are trying to attack their religion.
I'm reading a very interesting book, "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. A fascinating book if you have the time to look at it. In the book Ayaan mentions a friend of hers, who also happened to be atheist, who wanted to have her new born baby baptised. Ayaan attended the ceremony and later told her friend that she herself could have wished all the nice things the priest mentioned as blessings upon the child. I would have agreed with Ayaan that the ceremony was a waste of time. But, of course, the mother has the right to do that as she pleases.
I can see from what you're saying that there is traditional value of religious practice and the harm it would cause to any innocent non-believing bystander could be written off. No one tried to convert anyone to Christianity during the baptism ceremony. When I attend the Catholic church with my wife no one tries to convert me either. And attending the mass causes me no harm. Of course I'd rather stay home, but I do it for my wife.
The consequences of religious belief and how it affects governmental activity are probably not so obvious that we can begin listing them off the top of our heads. And while the simple statement "under God" to you is innocuous, I don't like the suggestive reinforcement that's repeated daily for as long as a child is in public school. Out of respect for non-believing families and families observing religions other than Christianity, the statement should be removed from an otherwise secular institution. I also think there's more influence in Washington than either of us knows. I know that the FFRF is continuously involved with church vs. state issues. I think it's a good and important watchdog organization.
The real problems arise when taxpayer funds get involved. An interesting article about that can be found on the ffrf.org site:
Bush's church-state mess takes liberties with ours
http://www.ffrf.org/media/miscellaneous/blumner07.php
Post a Comment