From: “Jennifer“
Subject: Re: Atheism

I am a high school social studies teacher in Georgia. Today, I logged on to your site to read some information you wrote about "separation of church and state." The goal of my reading was to learn more about laws passed and issues that have come from the phrase, in order to have more information to present to my students. Throughout my reading, I came across the phrase "religious right," which I noticed you used several times. Out of curiosity, I wanted to read more about this group and your thoughts on them. Amazingly, however not surprisingly, I was interested to learn your thoughts on this "group." Imagine to my surprise that I am a member! All of these years, and I had no idea! Because I support Biblical beliefs and a return to Biblical principles, I am a member of the "religious right." However, I use the term loosely, because it is apparent that you have great distain [sic] for this group. Sir, I must point out that your writings are a paradox.

I wonder if anyone believes this Jennifer’s “surprise” at being a part of the “Religious Right.” Anyone? Anyone at all?

I don’t. The term has been used far too long by far too many people for any devout Southern Baptist (which Jennifer is, as becomes evident later) to not only be unfamiliar with the term, but also to be “surprised” that it would apply to them.

Feigned surprise like this is little more than a rhetorical trick to launch a conversation where the inclination is to view the label as invalid, unnatural, or at least inappropriate in this particular case. It is, in essence, just the opposite of being honest, forthright, and reasonable — all very important observations as we will discover.

That said, it should be acknowledged that there is nothing odd with trying to argue that the phrase “Religious Right” doesn’t apply to some group, doesn’t apply to some person, is too vague to be useful, or at the very least shouldn’t be treated as if it were a bad thing. Arguments to this effect may be quite reasonable. The use of subtle rhetorical tricks to make it appear as though the label were wrong, though, are another matter entirely.

While you claim that separation of church and state allows for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, you are quite simply bashing good hearted people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson for reasons that you have yet to explain.

I never claim that "separation of church and state allows for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." On the contrary, I argue in some detail (and in more than one place) that freedom of religion requires freedom from religion (with respect to the state). Ergo, I must conclude that Jennifer either hasn't read my writings as she claimed or, if she has read them, she hasn't bothered to read very closely.

For that reason, I can't take any of Jennifer‘s "critiques" very seriously. I wonder how it is she manages to teach her students when she proves so unable (or uninterested) in upholding even the most basic standard of rudimentary scholarship, i.e. actually paying attention to the material being discussed.

People who have never caused harm to others, but are simply proponents of change toward the return of morality in America. Why are they your target?

To say that people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson are “merely proponents of change toward the return of morality” in America presumes that whatever exists today doesn’t qualify as valid morality — it is, instead, immorality. This assumes the correctness of their beliefs and their cause, which means that Jennifer is committing two fallacies here.

First, she is Begging the Question because she is assuming the truth of Dobson’s and Robertson’s cause when that is, obviously, exactly what is at issue (i.e., my critiques of their cause and whether those critiques are valid). Second, she is offering a False Dilemma by portraying the situation as a choice between a “return to morality” and the presumed immorality that we currently have. Other options, like that we do have morality today but that it involves different moral standards, are simply ignored as if they didn’t exist.

Finally, whether people like Dobson and Robertson have ever “caused harm to others” is itself part of the question. It is easily argued that by promoting intolerance they also effectively promote hate and discrimination, both of which cause a great deal of harm towards others.

It has always amazed me how people like you, angry and loathing of this so called “religious right,” will stoop to any level to make people, who have every right in America to hold to and fight for their rights and beliefs according to the Constitution (as do you), look like horrible people by comparing them and even linking them to the KKK. That sir, from any religious or political position, is abominable. In no way are my views, the views I share with members of Focus on the Family and the Heritage Foundation, linked with the KKK. The KKK is a terrorist organization built on hate and intolerance, which is EXACTLY the opposite of the teachings in the Bible. If you had done your research, you would know that. The KKK hides behind their “Christian Fundamentalism” like the 9/11 hijackers hid behind their “Islamic Fundamentalism.” In no way are 9/11 hijackers related to all Muslims, as I am not related to the KKK.

I’m not sure what Jennifer’s specific complaint here is because she was too lazy to bother giving me a specific reference. She may not recognize in the KKK a “true” Christian organization, but it was founded as a Christian organization and still sees itself in terms of defending true Christianity. Early on, Klansmen openly recruited in churches (white and segregated, of course), attracting members from all strata of society, including the clergy.

Although Klan ceremonies have varied greatly, one common form will include an American flag, a cross, and a Bible opened to Romans 12, exhorting Christians to "godly conduct, godly nature." Also common is a sword representing the war against all enemies of the Christian life an the American "Christian Nation." Opening and closing prayers may often include "The living Christ is a Klansman's criterion of character." In Capitol Sq. Review Bd. v. Pinette, the Ku Klux Klan sued for (and won) the right to place an unattended cross in the Statehouse plaza in Columbus, Ohio, during the 1993 Christmas season.

The Klan is, then, just as much a Christian organization as Muslim terrorist groups are Islamic organizations. I don’t claim that the Klan represents all Christians any more than I claim that Muslim terrorists represent all Muslims — but they are part of the same religious tradition and that should be pointed out. Religious believers only hurt themselves when they try to pretend that they have nothing to do with extremists. They need to acknowledge the threads of extremism in their traditions because that’s the only way to make sure that they don’t dominate.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...