Nothing Inspires Quite Like Discrimination

Posted By: Adam 12 Comments

As an upper-middle-class suburban white male, you might not expect that I would be discriminated against. Sadly, I am and it's become so commonplace that I'm generally not affected by it any more.

I am an Atheist.

That doesn't mean that I am a Satanist, Anarchist, Communist, or anything else. One does not beget the other. What it does mean is that I do not currently believe in God or a so called "higher power." I believe that everything that has ever or will ever happen has a strictly empirical scientific explanation; whether "we" — the collective knowledge of our species — understand it (yet) or not. But this isn't about my beliefs, it's how I'm being discriminated against.

On November 27th, our local paper published an article about a local Atheist Group, the Freethought Society, planning to erect a holiday display on municipal grounds next to the Menorah, Christmas Tree, and a Cr?che. The following Sunday, the paper ran a letter to the editor that they unfortunately haven't published on their website for me to link. And even more unfortunately, I think we've already recycled the paper and I won't be able to quote it directly for you. In her letter, she says that we (Atheists) should, "keep our opinions to ourselves." Let's not overlook that letters to the editor appear in the OpEd section: Opinions and Editorials. That is the definition of hypocrisy. What gives her the right to voice her opinion and not the Atheists? Because it's her holiday, being a Christian? Were this a different rant, I might argue that point.

And as much as I'd like to explain to her that her letter is hateful, oppressive, intolerant, and hypocritical, I believe she has the right to have and voice her opinion. Part of me wants to sit smugly knowing that I'm not going to stoop to her level, but another part of me knows that the smugness is just another form of stooping.

The saddest part about the whole thing is that I didn't even flinch when Megan read the letter to me. Atheist hating has become the new popular intolerant thing to do, now that racism and gay bashing aren't acceptable public behavior. I only hope the next group to fall victim to the intolerant has the patience and tolerance to persevere.

Kill em with kindness, mom always said.

12 responses to “Nothing Inspires Quite Like Discrimination”

I love the way you two intelligently "discuss" things like this.

One of the greatest freedoms in this Country - granted and fought for by our forefathers - is the abillity to to choose and voice our opinions without being persecuted.

We are, indeed, a very fortunate "people". If only tolerance were as popular a theory as politically correctness, society could be an amazing place, couldn't it!

MomT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
And to separate a few things out from the Separation of Church and State part of the discussion, here's some more thoughts:

Since when are we a democracy? I pledged my allegiance to a republic. The same reasoning behind the Electoral College being in control of presidential election (the majority is not always right) should apply on the local level; and in a manner of speaking it does with city counsel and state government. That doesn't mean they are infallible, just that they are supposed to be well educated and able to take an objective point of view, which we both know is not always the case, on either count.

Next, don't confuse Atheism with Nihilism. Atheism isn't the lack of a belief or an opinion, it is the belief in the opposite: As you are a Theist, I am an A-Theist. Agnosticism is the middle ground for the unsure or indifferent. (Whom I think are mostly just almost-Atheists that are hedging their bets so they don't end up in hell. Kind of cowardly, in my opinion.)

Lastly, I specifically said in my previous comment that Atheists with anti-religious agendas would be the "fringe minority", but made no similar allusions about the woman who wrote the letter that I based my post on. I realize that by and large religious people with an anti-atheist agenda are the fringe and possibly the minority on their side as well. We're just so far outnumbered that it can sometimes be hard to remember that all of those hateful voices are still their own minority.

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Unfortunately I dont believe I will live long enough to see a society that does not persecute "the different". Its a shame, because being different is what makes us who we are.

It is nothing less than simple respect for each other. Somewhere along the road, it was lost, and its a real shame.

MomT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Ed, to counter your comment about the 10 commandments: What if the vocal majority were Nazi's and wanted some Nazi document on display at the courthouse instead? What if it had already been there for 100 years? Being a Christian, would that bother you? What if you were Jewish?

I suspect so, and I suspect that your tune would change to suit your desires: You want it gone, but you want it gone for the right reasons. You may not desire to oppress the opinions of the Nazi's (they are free to be hate mongers), but you desire not to be forced to see their doctrine on "neutral" grounds. What legal standing do you have?

Separation of Church and State.

Nazism isn't necessarily a religion, but its doctrines are oppressive based on religion. I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would dismiss a case brought against a local court for displaying Nazi doctrine on their grounds in anything other than a historical context.

Atheists who pursue the removal of the 10 commandments (excepting the fringe minority that may have an anti-religious agenda) simply want neutral ground to remain neutral. Any display of the 10 commandments other than in historical context might as well be an endorsement, which is in direct violation of Church-State Separation Mandate. 100 years of precedent or not.

While we're on the topic, another thing that cheeses me off is blatant disregard for Church-State Separation Mandate, such as the addition and refusal to remove the phrase, "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. (<a href="http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm"; rel="nofollow">It wasn't originally there</a>.) So now it's unpatriotic not to believe in God?

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Very interesting, Adam. I think that most people of faith view Atheists as persecuting them, and that has lead to the link between Atheists and Oppressors. Of course, there are a very vocal few (even in the "Free Thought Society") that evangelize the atheistic agenda with the purpose of oppressing people of Faith. But, I've never thought of Atheists as the oppressed and I'll need some time to process that.

As an American, I believe that everyone has the right and liberty to speak their mind. But not to the point of discrimination or oppression. As a Christian, I believe it is my duty to share with others, but only to the degree that they want to hear. (It's not only my duty, it is my pleasure as I would love others to experience the joy, happiness and peace that my faith has brought me.) You will never see me with a microphone standing on a street corner telling everyone they are going to hell, which I think is the picture-definition of unbalanced, oppressive, extremist and ill-thought-out Christianity. That form of Christianity is twisted.

I suppose I've seen Atheists as those who did not believe, and therefore had no reason to be upset by what was going on around them. (DON'T READ INTO THAT STATEMENT TOO DEEPLY!) There are those in government and communities that want to push a religious agenda. If that agenda is not well-balanced (such as offerring both an evolutionist theory AND an intelligent design theory) and the reality is that ALL science is thrown to the way-side, the issue needs a voice. That voice would understandably come from people like those in the "Free Thought Society". But, the "good guys" never get the airtime. Only those things which are sensationalized get the media's attention. For example: The 10 commandments plaque on the ChesCo Courthouse wall that had been there for 100 years. The Free Thought Society wanted it removed. The GREAT majority of those that LIVE in Chester County wanted it to stay. The argument for it's removal, in my opinion, was paper-thin, and it seems as if true democracy won in this circumstance.

My greatest problem with some atheists or ANY group is the desire of the few to silence the many. Knowing you, and knowing your's and Megan's convictions, I know that is not your agenda. You are respectful of my family's beliefs, and I can tell you that respect from your court means SO much more than to me that the lack of respect or credibility that my family (which claims to be Catholic) offers towards us. They give some, but there is an ever-present air of judgement and disapproval.

My last comment: EVERYONE is so quickly offended today. I think we ALL need to unclench and stop worrying about whether one person out of 10,000 will be offended. This applies to all faiths, all races, all shapes, all sizes, etc. Respect should be innate, not something that needs to be legislated. If we all DID spend time putting ourselves in the others shoes, the P.C. movement may die off. Oh how I dream of that day!

Anyway, I suppose I ought to get back to work. I appreciate your post and you've given me something to think about.

--Ed

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
You two atheists are still invited and most welcome to share our Christian Holy Day of Christmas with the rest of the family - we'll even give you presents! We're always interested in sharing our beliefs and listening to yours, but I know you haven't choosen the "popular" route, and that's difficult.

Mom R ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
ADAM:
Ed, to counter your comment about the 10 commandments: What if the vocal majority were Nazi?s and wanted some Nazi document on display at the courthouse instead? What if it had already been there for 100 years? Being a Christian, would that bother you? What if you were Jewish?

ED:
We could ?what if? until we were blue in the face. Of course I would be bothered by a Nazi document that us based on hatred and intolerance! If I were Jewish, the sting would be even more bitter I am sure. You have to be fair here. We are talking about religion and specifically a document that was intended to guide people toward God. If I were NOT a Christian or Jew, the only commandments I might feel uncomfortable with as they tout God is the first, stating that there shall be not other gods before him, and the 4th, ?remember to keep the sabbath holy?. The others are completely relevant in our society and every society.

ADAM:
I suspect so, and I suspect that your tune would change to suit your desires: You want it gone, but you want it gone for the right reasons. You may not desire to oppress the opinions of the Nazi?s (they are free to be hate mongers), but you desire not to be forced to see their doctrine on ?neutral? grounds. What legal standing do you have?

ED:
I think the ?reasonable man test? needs to be applied to any and all situations. No reasonable man, as defined by the social and political mores or our time, would ever say that the Nazi agenda is reasonable. BUT, I would argue that the majority would say that the Ten Commandments are not only reasonable, but helpful to our society at large.

ADAM:
Separation of Church and State.
Nazism isn?t necessarily a religion, but its doctrines are oppressive based on religion. I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would dismiss a case brought against a local court for displaying Nazi doctrine on their grounds in anything other than a historical context.

ED:
I think you are off-base here. The Nazi agenda is not reasonable, neither from a historical perspective nor any societal perspective

ADAM:
Atheists who pursue the removal of the 10 commandments (excepting the fringe minority that may have an anti-religious agenda) simply want neutral ground to remain neutral. Any display of the 10 commandments other than in historical context might as well be an endorsement, which is in direct violation of Church-State Separation Mandate. 100 years of precedent or not.

ED:
The Church-State Separation Mandate is so misunderstood! The original meaning of the mandate was that a State could not enforce a Church on it?s citizens (i.e. The English Monarchy and the Anglican Church.) This is what the pilgrims were all about. NEVER was it intended by our founding fathers that religion was to play NO part in the lives of people, inside or outside of the public arena. In terms of neutral ground, aside from the commandments I?ve laid out above, which do you feel are not neutral and unbeneficial to society?

ADAM:
While we?re on the topic, another thing that cheeses me off is blatant disregard for Church-State Separation Mandate, such as the addition and refusal to remove the phrase, ?under God? from the pledge of allegiance. (It wasn?t originally there.) So now it?s unpatriotic not to believe in God?

ED:
Although I like the mention of ?under God? there, I TOTALLY see your point.

ADAM:
And to separate a few things out from the Separation of Church and State part of the discussion, here?s some more thoughts:
Since when are we a democracy? I pledged my allegiance to a republic. The same reasoning behind the Electoral College being in control of presidential election (the majority is not always right) should apply on the local level; and in a manner of speaking it does with city counsel and state government. That doesn?t mean they are infallible, just that they are supposed to be well educated and able to take an objective point of view, which we both know is not always the case, on either count.

ED:
Well, get involved in local government and make a difference!

ADAM:
Next, don?t confuse Atheism with Nihilism. Atheism isn?t the lack of a belief or an opinion, it is the belief in the opposite: As you are a Theist, I am an A-Theist. Agnosticism is the middle ground for the unsure or indifferent. (Whom I think are mostly just almost-Atheists that are hedging their bets so they don?t end up in hell. Kind of cowardly, in my opinion.)

ED:
I don?t believe I am confusing the two.

ADAM:
Lastly, I specifically said in my previous comment that Atheists with anti-religious agendas would be the ?fringe minority?, but made no similar allusions about the woman who wrote the letter that I based my post on. I realize that by and large religious people with an anti-atheist agenda are the fringe and possibly the minority on their side as well. We?re just so far outnumbered that it can sometimes be hard to remember that all of those hateful voices are still their own minority.

ED:
AMEN to that!

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
ED: We could ?what if? until we were blue in the face. Of course I would be bothered by a Nazi document that us based on hatred and intolerance! If I were Jewish, the sting would be even more bitter I am sure. You have to be fair here. We are talking about religion and specifically a document that was intended to guide people toward God. If I were NOT a Christian or Jew, the only commandments I might feel uncomfortable with as they tout God is the first, stating that there shall be not other gods before him, and the 4th, ?remember to keep the sabbath holy?. The others are completely relevant in our society and every society.

ADAM: I disagree. In my opinion, what we're talking about here is a document supposedly handed down from God himself as guidelines on living life. So it's OK to pick and choose which are not necessarily religious (and by your argument, therefore ok to post on neutral ground)? Does that mean its OK to pick and choose which you'll obey? Just because they don't specifically mention God doesn't mean that they aren't based on and/or inspired by religious motives. What about the one about coveting thy neighbor's wife? It isn't a crime to have an extra-marital affair. So what business is it of the courts if you choose to? It is grounds for a divorce, for sure, but you can't go to jail or even get fined for it.

ED: I think the ?reasonable man test? needs to be applied to any and all situations. No reasonable man, as defined by the social and political mores or our time, would ever say that the Nazi agenda is reasonable. BUT, I would argue that the majority would say that the Ten Commandments are not only reasonable, but helpful to our society at large.

ADAM: I beg to differ. The majority doesn't get to dictate what is or is not reasonable (ie the Ten Commandments). Are the concepts of the commandments helpful and generally a healthy addition to your lifestyle? Sure, I won't argue that. Does that make it OK to post them in their religous context? Negative. It's still a religious document, thus an endorsement by posting it. I'm not going to nitpick and go dig up one truly good statement from some obscure Nazi document, but if I did, would that make it ok to post the whole document based on that nugget of wisdom it contains? The same concepts are available without the religious context. What we want is the freedom not to be enshrouded in a context we don't choose (and in fact choose not to choose).

ED: I think you are off-base here. The Nazi agenda is not reasonable, neither from a historical perspective nor any societal perspective

ADAM: You're dismissing the Nazi argument because you don't consider it reasonable. There are plenty of people that think a man in the sky who created the planet and everything on it (and everything else outside the planet too) is a tad unreasonable. The argument is that Church-State Separation Mandate guarantees that my government will not endorse or otherwise benefit any one religion over another (and let's not forget that having no religion stands firmly in those ranks -- it is a choice at the same level as Catholicism, Buddhism, etc) for the exact reason you next stated:

ED: The Church-State Separation Mandate is so misunderstood! The original meaning of the mandate was that a State could not enforce a Church on it?s citizens (i.e. The English Monarchy and the Anglican Church.) This is what the pilgrims were all about. NEVER was it intended by our founding fathers that religion was to play NO part in the lives of people, inside or outside of the public arena. In terms of neutral ground, aside from the commandments I?ve laid out above, which do you feel are not neutral and unbeneficial to society?

ADAM: Exactly. The government can't require me to attend a church or believe any religious tenet, regardless of whether or not I want to. Nobody is claiming that religion should "play NO part in the lives of people." What we're saying is that if that's your choice, then enjoy it. Erect a cross on YOUR lawn and post the 10 commandments on YOUR door. The courthouse is land that you and I BOTH own by virtue of paying taxes, so if we can't agree on what should be displayed there, then the compromise is NOTHING. I am simply exercising my right not to have a religion.

ED: Well, get involved in local government and make a difference!

ADAM: Believe me, the thought has crossed my mind. Sadly, I wouldn't be able to support my family for at least the first few years while I climbed the learning curve; and even attending a Home Owner's Association meeting sends me spiraling into a depression about how we're all doomed by our worthless bureaucracy. I think you have to be black at heart to thrive in local government, and that's just not something I can accomplish.

On the last point (except the one about hateful religious zealots being the minority that we agree on) about Atheists not caring:

ED: I don?t believe I am confusing the two.

ADAM: Perhaps not, but you basically said that since I don't have a religion I shouldn't (or maybe you were thinking "wouldn't"?) care about religious issues -- though you did say not to read into it too deeply, which maybe I have.

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
OK, I think it's obvious that we're not going to "win" the other over. So, can we agree to disagree?

Ed ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Problem with discussing the details is that sometimes we miss the painting. I think the original point was intolerance, but the question and following discussion does invoke some thoughts.

I wrote a BLHP a couple of days ago but decided against posting it. Here I am again so you have struck a chord with me.

I've long been opposed to organized religion. I'm not talking about the local small church, I'm talking about the Vatican and other palacial centers of religion. When religion becomes a business the reason behind religion gets distorted.

So what is religion and why does it exist?

I don't think it matters what I believe, so much as that I do believe something I can't explain caused my existance. That could have been directly and purposely or indirectly and without deliberate plans for the way I look and think today. I dont believe that free will can co-exist with a God who knows everything before it happens.

As a kid my mom explained that a couple of thousand years ago people didn't understand time as well, so the focus was teaching creationism - taking literally, 6 days. Rather than explain millions of years time was expressed in a way everyone could understand. That means life didnt have to go from "dirt to Dennis" in 6 days. My acceptance that evolution and creationism co-exist came from this.

What I accept from the bible is objective. I believe Jews were once slaves in Egypt. I believe they stopped being slaves. I dont accept the exact Biblical version of how that came to be and I think its kind of one-sided in favor of the Jews.

(off topic - for Ed? -- Where were the Jews before they were slaves? If Israel was the new promiced land, what conquered nation did they make up originally? Since they needed a new place, I guess the old place wasnt worth going back for.)

Religion resulted from a need to control larger groups without other tangible incentives. Religions have rules that govern how people interact. Dont kill, dont steal, etc. Along with the rules comes the morality (think 7 deadly sins).

Heaven is the reward and Hell is the retribution. Heaven is good and Hell is bad. When people started asking about Heaven the description became "city of gold" or "better than you can imagine." When asked why was Hell bad, the answer was "fire and brimstone" (I guess some really, really hot rocks).

I laugh at the idea that a devout Islamic mans reward in Heaven is to have lots of virgins! What do Islamic girls consider a reward? Considering they have a harder life I hope its a better reward.

Religion is the belief in something bigger/better. Religions only exist where many people can each get many other people to accept, believe and spread. It can have good or bad intentions and is governed by incentives (good or bad) you dont get until you die. It cant be proved so faith is required. Accepting the faith means accepting the ideals - demionstrating possibly the only real need for a religion.

(Any Scientologists out there?)

I absolutely agree there were times in history (which may be repeated) when society needed religion. And there were times (which may be repeated) where religion was a bigger problem than a help.

I doubt I'm the first to think along these lines. Separation of Church and State was neccessary to prevent religious leaders from abusing their power. Elected officials ensure majority rules (or close to it).

The 10 commandments are mostly good rules for society (taking exception to religious points). I'd guess good leaders in pre-history had to design their own rules and the 10 commandments could have been a result of many generations of trial-and-effort. I think Ed is on target here. Wording makes this a specifically religious document but I think that at the time it was written that was the only way to gain acceptance of a GLP (good living practice).

Having religious symbols displayed publicly came from a different time. It speaks to our history and what kind of people started this nation. They were religious - but smart enough to draft a document allowing future changes without destroying the core values.

I dont want to spend tax dollars cleaning up after history and I agree that the Pledge of Allegiance shouldn't require swearing to a religious belief.

I can be pragmatic because I'm not offended - plus its a lower cost, faster return investment. You dont have to agree, but you only get control of tax dollars by being a majority (or using a law to force the majority to acquiesce to a minority.)

Whenever you strongly disagree with a publicly made comment its your right to address that comment in the same forum. The newspaper might not print a complaint about another posted letter, but the would probably give equal time to letter offering an opposing view.

*We* know how you feel. Is that enough for you?

DadT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Dad, you make a perfectly valid argument and I don't see any holes staring me in the face, so I can't argue with your reasoning. I don't draw the same conclusions, probably because I don't accept some of the reasoning as my own, but I don't fault your acceptance or conclusions. The only thing that bothers me is this:

DAD: I can be pragmatic because I?m not offended - plus its a lower cost, faster return investment.

Taking the same concept and applying it to another context, this sounds an awful lot like allowing the school bully to take your lunch money because (a) he does every day [historically], and (b) it's easier just to give it to him than to stand up for yourself and maybe get a bloody nose in the process [lower cost].

And I know how you feel about standing up to bullies. ;o)

Adam ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Not the same thing to me. The school bully taking anyone's lunch money *would* offend me. I might not go for a front-on confrontation but I think I would find a way to get satisfaction.

If one bully took money from another bully and it didn't offend *me* that would be different. I might actually enjoy that somewhat.

But the point is that the original letter offended *you*.

I agree with your argument and suggested a course of action appropriate to the situation. I also said (generally) that spending tax dollars to eliminate those things that offend wasn't fiscally prudent, while changing the Pledge is.

If it cost millions of dollars to make a change I would probably need to consider it carefully. But to me it seems like such a simple thing to do that supports our laws and shouldn't offend Christians. I'm sure it will offend many, but in this situation reason should prevail.

As a voting citizen, if given the opportunity I would side with changing a statement and leaving the symbols. If I got outvoted then I would live with that situation and complain when I felt it neccessary.

DadT ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 9:57 PM

TuttleTree.com

Nothing Inspires Quite Like Discrimination

12 responses to “Nothing Inspires Quite Like Discrimination”

On Flickr

On Twitter

Categories

Archives By Month

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

About This Site