Atheist Values Voting

It wasn't too long ago that pandering to religion and inappropriate mixing of religion with public politics was behavior confined primarily to Republicans. Today, more and more Democrats are trying to get in on the act. Some believe that it will help them get more votes. Some actually believe that it's appropriate for public policies and laws to be based, at least in part, on private religious ideology. Regardless, of the reasoning, though, it's just as wrong when Democrats do it as when Republicans do it.

Ronald Aronson describes some of the problems faced by atheists, secular humanists, and believers who are staunch supporters of a secular government:

§ an informal but clear religious test for public office, to which Obama and John McCain submitted when they were cross-examined by mega-church pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church. Each had to answer questions about personal as well as political beliefs: "What does it mean to you to trust in Christ? And what does that mean to you on a daily basis? What does that really look like?"

§ widespread social pressure to believe, based on the pervasive myth that "nearly all Americans" do. This was hammered home repeatedly by Leah Daughtry, Howard Dean's chief of staff and the CEO of the Denver convention, who explained the religious events there by saying, "Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith." Of course, this leaves out atheists, agnostics, humanists, skeptics and freethinkers, people of no religion and many deists and spiritualists.

§ ever more frequent references to God, faith and religion in public life. In a Labor Day speech in Detroit shortened to nine minutes because of Hurricane Gustav, Obama mentioned God and prayer no fewer than six times, including leading the audience in silent prayer for those in possible danger.

§ treating secularists as invisible. Obama, who once seemed keenly respectful of them, appears to have forgotten they exist. On Labor Day, he did not say, "For those threatened by Gustav, let's have a moment of silence, whether in prayer or meditation." Planning the Denver interfaith events, Daughtry ignored the Secular Coalition for America's request to participate.

Source: The Nation

Nonbelievers and secularists are put in a difficult situation because when Republicans have mixed religion with politics, secularists often opposed both the ultimate political agenda and the effort to achieve that agenda with religion. When Democrats mix religion with politics, secularists may be more likely to approve of the ultimate agenda while disapproving of the use of religion to achieve it. It is difficult to adequately and accurately oppose the use of religion without appearing to oppose the goals or even actually impeding progress towards those goals — but secularists must do it despite the risks because the risks of not speaking out are much, much greater.

First and most obvious is the fact that we can't tolerate further erosion of the wall separating church and state, not even for the benefit of policies and goals that we approve of. If we ignore the erosion of church/state separation for the sake of policies we like, then in the end we can't really claim to believe in church/state separation after all. We'd be hypocrites, like people who claim to believe in free speech but somehow only support it when it comes to speech they approve of while suddenly turning their heads away when speech they dislike is infringed upon.

Second, but no less important, is the fact that secularists and nonbelievers are already too invisible and too readily ignored by powerful religious politicians. If we keep quiet now, when such important matters are at stake, then we will be sending the message that we really don't matter and that it's right to ignore us. Only by kicking up a fuss, making some noise, and generally behaving in an obtrusive fashion will we attract attention. Quiet politeness never made a difference in politics and certainly never helped achieve important progressive goals.

Unfortunately, the categories of "secularists" and "nonbelievers" are so broad that they include just about every political and philosophical viewpoint imaginable. This means that there is no single political philosophy that they can unite around and agitate on behalf of. The best that can be hoped for is that they work in a coordinated, united fashion on behalf of secularism and secularization. This isn't as impossible as it might seem because other groups have managed. Gays have worked on behalf of civil equality despite similar political and philosophical diversity. Women have worked on behalf of quality despite their own political and philosophical diversity.

Secularist agitators can't expect the active support of all or even necessarily most secular voters — no more than gay rights activists have ever been actively supported by most homosexuals or feminists have enjoyed the support of most women. All we need is the support of enough secularists to create a broadly-based and well-funded movement that can also point to an even larger number of people who will tacitly agree with the movement's overall goals. In the long run, even a small but committed movement of people can achieve a lot.