Save the Pledge... From Religious Bigots

Religious conservative fear that the Pledge of Allegiance is being threatened by godless forces - according to them, the removal of "under God" from the Pledge would cause people harm. In reality, though, I think that if the Pledge is under attack, it is from religious bigots who want to use the symbols and trappings of patriotism in order to promote their own narrow religious visions.

David J. Abraham writes for the Lenawee Connection:

If the basic human rights of freedom and liberty do not come from God, then they arise from only the government, which -- in a second -- can remove these rights as easily as they were granted.

History, including American history, makes it clear that that is exactly what has happened. Blacks were enslaved and then, even after getting their liberty, were denied basic rights like the ability to vote. Women were also denied the right to vote at one point. At the start of World War II, people of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and placed in internment camps. After September 11th, Arab Muslims were arrested and detained in secret.

Yes, the government does take right away from people and does so far too often. The responsibility for the maintenance of our rights does not lie with any gods but, rather, with individual human beings like you and me (but not, apparently, with politicians like David J. Abraham - I wouldn't trust him to protect the rights of anyone, especially minorities like atheists).

If God or a supreme being is not a part of the lives of our kids, then -- like the government without the Declaration -- our children are left to their own devices to decide what is right and wrong.

Indeed, we are all left to our own devices to decide what is right and what is wrong. The power to make laws and create mores lies with the people, not with any gods. Abraham may wish that there was some means for imposing his vision of right and wrong upon everyone else (a vision he would deny is his, saying that it really comes from his God - despite the fact that other believers would disagree with him), but that's just not how it works in America. In this country, people are left to their own devices (as much as possible) to find their own way.

Our nation's laws are based on a connection to the Creator so that when this link is broken, the bond to moral behavior is broken. Like two tracks of a railroad, they cannot exist alone or this country and the lives of our children will derail.

This is one of the reasons why David J. Abraham cannot be trusted to respect and protect the rights of others, especially nonbelievers: according to him, people who don't believe in gods no longer have any bond to "moral behavior." This is, then, just a fancy way of repeating the old prejudice that atheists cannot be moral. In reality, though, neither theism nor religion are required for a person to be moral. When a person repeats a stereotype like this, it's no longer to really take them seriously because it's made obvious that they haven't made any effort to research the topic they are writing about or to take atheism seriously.

When you get right down to it, there was simply no point to Abraham's column except to express his prejudices about nonbelievers and to get others to share in his bigoted attitude. I'd like to hope that the people in his community won't fall for this, but they did elect him to a position of authority and responsibility so that hope is probably misplaced.

In addition to protecting us from a government run amok, a belief in God is part of every religion on this planet with the exception of the atheist. what's next?

Abraham couldn't be more wrong. First, there are religions that don't require the belief in any gods at all - many Buddhists, for example, are also atheists. Second, David J. Abraham isn't simply say that belief in gods is a part of every religion, he is saying that belief in God is part of every religion. Those are very different assertions.

Most religions are theistic, but not in the sense that Abraham is saying. Abraham means something specific by the term "God" - he isn't talking about the generic concept of god. He is probably referring to the classical, philosophical conception of God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.). It's simply false that every religion believes in this god - the god of traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Christian Nationalism
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Newdow v. U.S. Congress (case summary & explanation)
• Pledge of Allegiance (background & origins)