Lamenting the Absence of Imposed Christianity, Anti-Atheist Discrimination

Some Christians don't just have a generally negative impression of atheists and secularism, they actively lament the fact that the government is no longer allowed to promote their religion or discriminate against atheists. I suspect that they would only be happy in some form of a Christian theocracy where all public, government, social, and cultural institutions reinforce their religious beliefs so they are never faced with competition or doubt — and where atheists certainly don't have the chance to directly question or challenge them.

Although such sentiments are not often expressed directly and forcefully, I have to wonder how many Christians feel this way, deep down. It's analogous to wondering how many whites in America accept some form of racism and White Supremacy deep down in their hearts, even though they don't openly express racist sentiments or support racist policies. Not everyone always says what the really think.

Robert Hayes writes:

In everything but law, America, at the opening of the 20th century, was a Christian nation. "Some states recognized Christianity as the official - though not established-religion. Jurors were required to believe in God, teachers, to read from the Bible, and in some states a religious observance of the Lord's Day was a legal obligation." This comment is from Henry Steele Commager's book "The American Mind," written in the 1950s. ...

From the 1950s until my high school graduation in 1964, the Bible was a part of my education. ...Teachers used the Bible in our classes, especially during Easter and Christmas when the appropriate passages were read aloud in class. Try that now. Our school day also began with morning devotionals over the PA system. Christianity was not only an integral part of our public educational system, it was a significant influence throughout society.

Source: Hattiesburg American

I don't think Robert Hayes realizes that if jurors are required to believe in God, then that's a requirement based in law. Robert Hayes is looking back fondly on a time when atheists were denied equality under the law, and that's no more moral than a white person looking back fondly on a time when blacks were kept off juries and in various other ways denied equality. Robert Hayes is expressing Christian Supremacy here, an extremist and discriminatory ideology no less noxious and abhorrent than White Supremacy.

If there is any question but what Robert Hayes laments is enforced, officially endorsed Christianity, consider:

If Mr. Commager were still with us, a revision for a new century would definitely be in order. Perhaps along these lines: "In everything including law, America, at the opening of the 21st century, is becoming a secular nation. States are not permitted to officially recognize Christianity as anything but one among many religious perspectives. No one is required to believe in God, and no teacher is allowed to read from the Bible, in their classroom. And states cannot make the observance of the Lord's day a legal obligation."

Yes, that's right, the American government is no longer allowed to promote Christianity to children in public schools just as the American government is no longer allowed to teach children that whites are superior to blacks. What's wrong with that? Christianity is one religion among many in America, no better and no worse, and the American government does not have the authority to tell adherents of other religions that their faith is in any inferior to or less favored than Christianity. What's wrong with that?

Robert Hayes doesn't just lament the absence of enforced Christianity and government-approved Christian rituals, but also the voluntary abandonment of Christianity throughout the rest of society:

Rather than embracing Christianity we seem preoccupied with distancing ourselves from it. Many clamor for a "separation of church and state" and there is much in our society to indicate a departure from the values and ideals which shaped this nation. ...In a nation which now views tolerance as a virtue, we are increasingly intolerant of those who criticize our lack of morals.

So, now that the government is no longer actively promoting Christianity, many citizens are pursuing other things and finding other activities to do with their time. Coincidence? Probably not — when the government promotes and enforces one religion, it's more difficult for citizens to escape it. When the government remains neutral in religious matters, people are free to follow whatever religious direction they wish — or none at all.

Without the power of the state behind them, religions must contend with serious competition from secular pursuits. Not all religions can compete very well and some believers are upset about this. But, honestly, if their religion cannot compete with mundane and secular alternatives, does it really deserve the backing of the state? Religions that are worth following will be able to take care of themselves attract followers on their own.

If believing in God is as foolish and irrelevant as many today would argue, then no problem, right? On the other hand, if the God we once openly acknowledged is real, we need look no further than the Bible to understand the consequences we face.

Those "consequences" which Robert Hayes refers to are the sorts of disasters which, in the Bible, God sends to punish the Hebrews for failing to submit to God's will. These disasters even afflicted those who remained true to God — floods, droughts, fires, and the like affect both the good and the evil, after all. This means that God is depicted as punishing innocent people as revenge against a few who fail to submit.

Submitting to such a god may be prudent and pragmatic, but morally it's foolish and wrong. If such a god exists, we're all much worse off than we can possibly realize. Fortunately, there are good reasons to conclude that no such god can or does exist — and that we should live our lives without regard to what the self-proclaimed defenders or authorities for such a god tell us.