|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
|
|
 | | |
Sponsored Discussion Archive | | | | | | | | | |
This forum offers sponsors a platform to discuss issues, new products, company information and other topics.
Read the Transcripts
| | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Outlook: What Atheists Want
Chris Mooney
Freelance Writer
Friday, October 17, 2003; Noon ET
Is trying to get the words "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance really the best way to improve the status of unbelievers in America and disentangle church and state? In this Sunday's Outlook section, freelance writer Chris Mooney, an avowed "unbeliever," wonders whether the case before the Supreme Court will provoke a backlash that might make it difficult for atheists to achieve other, more important goals.
(What Atheists Want)
Mooney was online Friday, Oct. 17 at Noon ET to discuss his article and the battle over the Pledge of Allegiance.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
|
Los Angeles, Calif.:
Given the fact that the "under God" phrase was added only relatively recently, why should it be so difficult to return to the original pledge?
Chris Mooney: Hi everyone -- it's great to be here. This is a good question, and here's my answer.
It depends on what you mean by "relatively recently." It's hard to change any law -- all develop considerable staying power, or legal inertia, within years of being passed. With the words "under God" in the Pledge, these have now been in place for some fifty years. A lot of people weren't around back when the Pledge lacked these words. (My mother claims to remember the switch and how weird it felt when she and her fellow students were asked to say the Pledge differently.)
So I think there's a widespread sense that these words have "always" been with us -- or at least, have been with us for long enough -- and that they shouldn't be tampered with.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I honestly haven't thought about whether taking the case to the Supreme Court is a wise strategy.
However, I do take issue with folks who don't understand "what the big deal is" about pressuring kids to pledge Allegiance to a nation "under God." I invite those folks to try visiting or living in a place where a religion other than theirs plays a big role in daily, public life. Say, in a Muslim or strict Catholic country. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating those religions. However, I think that unless you've really felt subjected to someone else's religious beliefs in daily life, you can't really know how it feels.
Chris Mooney: I agree with you -- there's definitely an element of coercion about the pledge, and I believe that it definitely does enshrine the sense that this is a monotheist country religiously.
However, is the harm *that* great? I'm not so sure. As I wrote, the Pledge certainly didn't hurt me any, or prevent me from growing up without any religious beliefs. I suspect that as a country we're not really ready to take the step of altering the pledge. And as I argue in my article, for those interested in ensuring that religious unbelievers are well treated in this country, there are probably better ways of achieving that goal.
_______________________
Southern Maryland:
Mr. Mooney,
Although I believe in God, I also believe you have a point about "under God" in the Pledge. The phrase is there because in the 1950s, hyper-patriots in Congress wanted to grandstand against the "godless Commies."
The Pledge is America's official statement of patriotism. The U.S. is not supposed to have an official deity, or even a de facto one. Once you start mixing religious doctrine and patriotic feelings, you start down the road to theocracy.
Now, I've heard some people claim that God is separate from religious doctine. How? The followers of Africa's aministic religions don't believe in a monothestic God. And neither do the Shintoists, who worship their ancestors. The Hindus and Buddhists believe in many gods. Surely Americans who follow those religions are just as patriotic as those who worship the Judeo-Christian God.
Chris Mooney: This is a good point. By calling ours a nation "under God," we are probably insulting polytheists -- those who believe in more than one God -- just as much as insulting atheists.
_______________________
College Park, Md.:
This is my comment on the situation. I would like get your opinion on this line of thought.
As an atheist, I am very ambivalent about the Supreme Court taking up the Pledge of Allegiance case. If the court overturns, or more likely, be deadlocked 4-4 (after Scalia's recusal) the "under God" phrase from the pledge -- it will be of disastrous political consequence. As much as I am opposed to the "G" word in official documents, I can just ignore it and live with it. (I am actually surprised how the religious people demand and take comfort in people taking God's name in vain.) However, any big discussion of the pledge issue in an election year will give big ammunition to the Religious Wrong crowd, they would write checks and go to polls, thereby increasing their representation in the body politic. If many of the conservative republicans can hold their nose and vote for Arnold -- we (as atheists) can be pragmatic and tactical on this.
Chris Mooney: Right. I didn't make this point in my article, but as a Democrat, I certainly could have. This is why most Democratic politicians ran and hid the day the Ninth Circuit ruled the Pledge unconstitutional. They know that they will be beaten to death politically if they're viewed as being aligned with atheism, or supportive of an attempt to strip the public square of religious expression. And since the Democratic party tends to be more sympathetic to secularist impulses generally, a great argument can be made that tactically, atheists activists shouldn't sabotage the Democrats in this way.
So why can't atheists "hold their nose," so to speak, and be tactical? Well, first of all, it only takes one person to bring a lawsuit. But secondly, I believe that there's a combative streak to many -- not all, but many -- atheist activists, and that when they let this combative streak determine their actions, it often backfires.
_______________________
Kansas City, Mo.:
The person or persons who established the Pledge of Allegiance most likely believed in a god. What is wrong with their freedom to believe in a god? Atheists don't have to believe in a god or the pledge of allegiance.
You are free to believe in nothing!
Chris Mooney: I am not challenging anyone's freedom to believe in a God. But the fact is, the Pledge is recited in public schools. There's a good case to be made that this amounts to a specific government endorsement of religion, which would violate of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Personally, I do think the establishment clause argument is right, as I've written elsewhere (for example here: http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp#365). However, in my Post article, I wanted to make the point that the Pledge of Allegiance, even if unconstitutional, isn't the greatest of *harms*.
_______________________
Seattle, Wash.:
Mr Mooney -- would you agree that there's a line between neutrality or impartiality towards religion, and opposition or hostility or repression of religion? At what point can we expect to see the atheist community say "that's too extreme" and take positive action to defend religious-liberty rights -- and for that matter defend the reputation of atheists from being tarred by overreaching? Thank you.
Chris Mooney: A lot of atheists are very good civil libertarians, and would strongly defend the rights of their religious compatriots in cases where they see those rights as being infringed upon. Generally, there's a fair bit of philosophical overlap between those in "atheist rights" circles and those in more overarching civil liberties groups like the ACLU and People for the American Way. These groups tend to support many of the same stances as atheists when it comes to the separation of church and state.
So yes, I agree that a line can be drawn between neutrality or impartiality towards religion and outright hostility towards it. Legal scholars argue endlessly about where exactly to draw the line. Personally, I would hope that atheists would stand up and say "that's too extreme" if anyone ever attempted to limit the right of religious expression in *any* context except for one in which that expression can be seen as an establishment clause violation (i.e., because it's forced upon a captive audience of students in schools, or stamped upon public buildings, or sometihng like that). I certainly would stand up and say so. I hope other religious doubters would too.
_______________________
Columbia, Md.:
My problem is simple. They capitalized the word God which makes it a reference to the Christian god versus other religions which do not. Make it lowercase and then my major problem goes away.
Still so many Christians I deal use this as a fact that God is central to our country. Taking it out would show the separation of church and state better for such people.
Chris Mooney: I'm not sure mere capitalization of the word "God" implies Christianity. I think many would argue that the Pledge is suitably generic, though I myself don't agree. In my view, though, the problem is that it appears to exclude atheists and polytheists from being good Americans, not that it excludes non-Christian monotheists.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Thanks for your thought-provoking article. I am an atheist, and I also happen to be gay. It seems as though there's a parallel between both groups in lots of ways. There has certainly never been as much acceptance of gay people as there is today while at the same time there is also fierce opposing feelings which only get fiercer as gay become more accepted. See the backlash following the recent decision in the Texas sodomy case. So, I think your central thesis is probably correct. And I agree that there are more important fish to fry than the Pledge when it comes to gov't forays into religion. I guess the question comes down to, what's a person who's not really an activist exactly but has strong atheist and gay feelings supposed to do? We can't sit here and just let the fundies roll over us.
Chris Mooney: Thanks for your great comments. I think the backlash that would follow if the Supreme Court overruled the Pledge might well exceed the backlash that took place when it ruled against the Texas sodomy law. There are a lot of parallels between the situations of atheists and homosexuals, except that homosexuals seem to be doing a much better job of winning acceptance. Try and imagine an atheist version of Will and Grace. You can't, right? Indeed, in the poll I cited, 59 percent of Americans would vote for a homosexual for president, but only 49 percent would vote for an atheist.
As to the question you ask at the end -- it's a tough one, obviously. I don't think that either atheists or homosexuals should sit still and put up with whatever comes. However, I do think that these groups should do their best to choose the causes most likely to help them gain broader public acceptance and achieve their goals.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Should U.S. currency bear the words "In God We Trust?" Should sessions of Congress open with prayers?
Chris Mooney: In an ideal world, I would say no. Clearly, these are minor but clear cases of the government endosing religion instead of remaining neutral between religion and the lack thereof. But for someone who's worried about the way our culture treats atheists, I think there are much, much bigger fish to fry.
_______________________
Los Angeles, Calif.:
Regardless of when the "Under God" phrase was put into the Pledge, this phrase represents an unbroken concept since the founding of this country. This country was founded on deep religious principle. Though this nation is hardly perfect, the backbone of our society has been an unwielding faith in the creator, God. The sole reason our country is as successful, civil and just as it is, though imperfect, is due to a construct of law based on faith. Anyone who seeks to see what a nation without law built on faith is like, will witness the greatest horrors mankind has ever known. China, Soviet Russia, Nazism, Communism, Fascism -- all founded on principles of man rather than God.
The vast majority of Americans support the Pledge with "Under God." The vast majority of Americans believe in some sort of Creator. Those on the radical left who seek to destroy the principles this country was founded on constitute a well-funded minority backed by the popular press. "Under God" is in no way an endorsement of a particular religion, it is an endorsement of the very truths this country was founded.
Chris Mooney: I can't answer this completely, but let me just state that there's a lot of very serious dissent on the question of whether the country was indeed founded "on deep religious principle." I would recommend looking at a book called The Godless Constitution, by Cornell University scholars Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039331524X/104-1123184-3894342?v=glance) I believe it's a pretty powerful rebuttal to the claim that America is a "Christian nation," or even close.
_______________________
Mt. Rainier, Md.:
This may be beyond the point, but I'd like to know what the rationale is behind having a bunch of young kids signifying "allegiance" and doing it every day. A soldier swears to his allegiance when he/she signs up. The president swears to his allegiance when he is sworn in. Congressmen do the same. Okay, seems a little pro forma when they've all been vowing and declaring how patriotic they are. But at least these are grown people. But children? What control do they have over allegiance to a country? If I say the allegiance every day until my parents take me to say Afghanistan, does that make me foresworn? The whole idea is dumb on the face of it.
Chris Mooney: Ah -- well, I too think that there's something a bit icky about taking little kids and making them put their hands over their hearts and recite rote words that they may not completely understand. But if we're going to do it, one would hope the words we're making the kids say do indeed represent the best principles upon which the country was founded.
_______________________
Nashville, Tenn.:
The Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator endowing us with inalienable rights. How do you square this reference with the notion that God should be deleted from the Pledge?
Chris Mooney: Good question. While an admirable statement of principle, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding in any way. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, however, explicitly prohibits goverment establishments of religion, and given legal precedents, a sound argument can be made that the words "under God" in the Pledge do constitute such an establishment.
As a general point in church state discussions, I find it's important to remember that the Constitution, not the Declaration, is the law of the land.
_______________________
Grafton, Mass.:
Mr. Mooney, I think your argument is ridiculous. To imply that atheists, or any minority that experiences oppression, should not engage their community for fear of unpopularity and backlash is an insult to every civil rights struggle this country has undergone. Because you have become apathetic to the reasons atheists hold these issues important, does not render them insignificant. Harm is relative. The Pledge didn't bother you, however, I remember the disgusted looks I received from teachers when I refused to recite it in High School. The subtle ostracism I experienced from my peers as a student and then a parent. Be careful how you perceive your world -- there are others in it.
Chris Mooney: Ouch. I think you've missed a key nuance in my argument. As I wrote, "As a strong believer in civil liberties, I would never tell a group that considers itself oppressed not to rock the boat. Yet I wonder whether atheists and other doubters of religion will actually be doing their cause much good if they win the case." I'm not telling anyone -- anyone -- to sit still and take it. But I am saying that there are more and less strategic ways of going about achieving civil rights aims. And I think that most of the time, atheists go about it all wrong. By doing things like attacking the Pledge, they fail to engender sympathy for their plight, and thus fail to make other Americans supportive of their cause.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
If atheists can't get what we really want -- to eradicate the cultural poison of religion the way we are trying to eradicate racism -- then what is the point in playing politics about it? If we can never and should never convince people to give up their false superstitions, then atheists will never be accepted in this society and we may as well try to fight it at every turn.
Chris Mooney: Well, here's the problem. By referring to the "cultural poison of religion," you're making a statement that approximately 100 percent of religious believers are going to find offensive. Atheists aren't going to become "accepted in this society" by making enemies of virtually everyone around them. And much as some atheists may seem to wish it, religious people aren't going to simply disappear.
If atheists want to be treated with respect, they should start by treating religious believers with respect too. Of course there's a place for philosophical argument of the "Does God Exist?" variety. And maybe atheists will win these arguments. But such arguments should never devolve into insult, and at the end the two sides should agree to disagree.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
What are the important goals that you think atheists need to achieve?
Is there a link to your article online?
Thank you.
Chris Mooney: The article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40996-2003Oct17.html
I think atheists need to improve their public image, and I think they need to combat serious incursions of religion into public life. The president's Faith Based initiative would be a very good start. Millions of public dollars going to proseltizing religious social service groups? To me, that's a much bigger problem than the pledge.
_______________________
Somewhere, USA:
I loved your article and agree with every word of it. A couple of comments:
1. It's part of a larger debate about the power of language. Feminists who can't abide the term "postman," authors who don't want to be on the cover of Hispanic magazine because they're "Latina," people who are "differently abled" rather than handicapped, etc., etc. I'm a good liberal, and each of these groups is largely right on the facts. And I fully recognize that language is important. But they are making themselves look silly. Folks should remember that old slogan: Keep Your Eyes on the Prize.
2. We atheists should strive to act toward believers as we would hope they would act toward us. Not as many of them do act toward us. (Do unto others...)
Again, great article. Thanks.
Chris Mooney: I just wanted to expand upon point one. Interest groups focused on what we might broadly describe as "identify politics" often get a bit myopic in their outlook, and take stances that please their core constituency but do not endear them to the rest of society. This is most definitely not a problem that's exclusive to atheists.
_______________________
McLean, Va.:
What about the "conservative" argument against inclusion of reference to the deity: Under my sense of religious integrity, one should invoke a supreme being in a mindful spirit of reverance. To toss the invocation about by printing "In God We Trust" on money, blaring it out at secular events like sports events, and coercing group parroting of the phrase in the pledge debases the practice by teaching people to habitually make unthinking and unbelieved statements about God. This violates the commandement to not take God's name in vain. I am surprized that more conservative believers do not strive to eliminate the triviality of such public watered down religious expression.
Chris Mooney: Good point. I don't get it either. Prayers over the loudspeakers at football games? This is supposed to help religion how?
But I can see what some people are thinking with the Pledge. They want to shape young hearts and minds.
_______________________
Chris Mooney: Ok, folks, it seems that time is basically up. I want to thank everyone for your great questions. I'll be following the Pledge discussion more on my website over the coming weeks -- if you're interested, tune in to www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp. Thanks for reading.
Chris
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
| 
