From: "Roland"
Subject: Re: I disagree with you

This country was founded by Christians, not Muslims, Hindus or atheists. Lucky for you it allows you to have your own beliefs where a lot of countries do not. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure this country had a government free of declaring a particular religion. It never said it wanted a country free from religion.

Notice the contradictions in Roland’s statements — contradictions that you can often find among conservative and evangelical Christians like him. On the one hand he wants to argue that American is a land where we have religious freedom, but on the other he wants to argue that this is a Christian nation founded by Christian people and so of course the government should embody Christian principles.

Unfortunately, you can’t really have both at the same time. If the government supports and endorses some particular form of Christianity (Roland’s, naturally, and he doesn’t even think that all self-professed Christians really are Christians), then it does so at the expense of other religions and other forms of Christianity. This isn’t really religious freedom because most religions are disadvantaged.

Yes, the people who founded America were not Muslims or Hindus. Most were Christians, although many probably wouldn’t qualify as Christian under Roland’s “non-denominational” definition of Christianity. Others were deists and a few probably were atheists. None of that, though, actually matters when it comes to the fact that none of them wanted the American government to be a “Christian” government.

Instead, they established a secular government — a government that neither favored nor disfavored any religion or group of religions. They did this deliberately and consciously. This entails a certain degree of “freedom from religion” because a person can’t truly have freedom of their religion unless they also have freedom from other people’s religions being imposed upon them in some fashion. That’s what “freedom from religion” means and it’s supported by everyone who doesn’t advocate some sort of theocracy.

The man in California that wanted "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance was trying to force his beliefs/non-beliefs on others. His child was not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance which means the government was not dictating it should be done. If the children want to say the Pledge of Allegiance or if they want to leave out the "under God", that should be their choice but they should have choice as the Constitution states it is their right to have.

Roland’s criticism of Michael Newdow’s lawsuit against the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance could work equally well against the government-written, government-endorsed prayers and Bible readings that were kicked out of public schools in the 1960s. At that time students could refrain from participating and could even leave the room if they wished. That, however, was not accepted as a defense.

Why? Because the problem isn’t simply whether a person is forced to participate. That’s wrong, no question about it, but that isn’t the only “wrong” thing that can happen. Prayers that a student can opt out of are wrong because they represent government favoritism towards a particular sort of religious exercise not accepted by all citizens and they represent a government statement that some citizens have a favored, insider status while others have a disfavored, outsider status determined solely by whether they accept that particular religious exercise.

A similar matter is at issue with the Pledge of Allegiance. By adding the phrase “under God,” the government is endorsing a particular belief Ina particular god that has a particular relationship with the nation — all things that some, but not all, citizens personally accept. The government simply has no authority to do this. When we elect politicians, we don’t grant them the authority to tell people what sort of god to believe in and how they should express their relationship with that god.

Had Michael Newdow won, he would not have imposed his beliefs upon anyone in the country. People would still have been free to insert “under God” in the Pledge when they recited it, just as they are currently free to insert something like “under Jesus” in that place. All that would have happened is that the government would not have taken sides over what, if anything, should be put there. How can that be objectionable to anyone who genuinely believes in religious liberty?

As other atheists have claimed that our government is not fair to them since it has a belief in God, I say this: Gather supplies, build a boat, sail across the sea, claim a country to be new found [to you], convince the inhabitants of that land that you have a right to be there, lie to them, destroy them, take their land, claim it as your own and set up your own form of government where you can write any laws that you wish.

Ah, the old “love it or leave it” response to those who disagree with the government and complain about what the government does. I wonder if Roland would have offered a similar suggestion to blacks during the 1950s and 1960s. After all, they felt that the government wasn’t fair to them, so perhaps they should have just packed up and sailed off to find a new place to settle down?

Then again, maybe not. Maybe it makes far more sense to stay in America and work to improve America. Just as blacks had to work to gain equal rights, atheists will also have to work to get equal rights. Atheists today don’t face the same institutional discrimination that blacks did at one time, but there exists far more social discrimination.

A black lesbian would have a better chance of being elected to almost any government position than a white atheist heterosexual male. That demonstrates that blacks, women, and even gays have made tremendous progress in America, which we should all rejoice, but it also demonstrates that atheists remain one minority which people feel comfortable discriminating against — and that needs to change.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...