In God We Trust?
One of the most common complaints Christians have about atheists recently is that "they are trying to push their [non-]beliefs onto us". This comes as a response to atheists who would like to see a more honest separation of church and state by removing artifacts of religion, such as "In God We Trust" and "Under God" on our money and in our Pledge of Allegience, respectively. The idea that secularists are "pushing their beliefs" is pretty ridiculous.
The first problem is that secularists rarely have any religious beliefs to push in the first place. They are not proposing that we replace "In God We Trust" with "Praise Allah!". They are simply trying to insulate everyone from all religious beliefs by removing the artifacts of Christianity from our government. The second is that the Christians' argument is extremely hypocritical. There are numerous groups around the country who push their Christian views of the world on everyone else, asserting that those who "do not accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior will burn eternally in the fires of Hell". And probably more importantly, there is incredible pressure from parents for children to believe the same things that their parents do. An excellent example is this video of a son trying to tell his mother he is an atheist.
"In God We Trust" was added to U.S. coins in 1864 after the suggestion of Reverend M. R. Watkinson, so that "...the antiquaries of succeeding centuries [would not] rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation." In addition to clearly being a very religious man making religious suggestions to the government, his reasoning came down to mere appearances. More importantly, his reference is specifically to the Christian God, which at least a quarter of Americans have no belief in.
Likewise, "under God" was first proposed by the Knights of Columbus, finally finding it's way into the Pledge in 1954, after 62 years of religious neutrality. Again, this reference applied specifically to the Christian God and is an overall endorsement of the Christian religion.
One thing I find interesting, but do not fully understand is that both of these religious additions were enacted by Congress, which seems to be in direct violation of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". So how did these additions get made? And why haven't they been repealed? I wonder if the have become such a part of American history that, even if they are unconstitutional, it is impossible to remove them.
At 6:04 PM on April 16, 2007, someone said,
spelling mistake at the end of the second paragraph: "he is an theist."Thanks, fixed.
At 6:13 PM on April 16, 2007, someone again said,
People need something to occupy their minds with. If you take religion out of the picture, they'll just find something else, e.g., gangs, hate groups, etc.
At 1:48 AM on April 17, 2007, Tyler said,
You seem to be insinuating that if people don't have religion, they are going to do something destructive. This is absolutely ridiculous. Not only do prison inmate statistics suggest that non-religious people commit less crime, the examples you give, gangs and hate groups, both tend to be very religion specific.
You know what I do on Sundays while I'm not at church? I play soccer. I read. I sleep. I write blog posts. I work on Project Euler. I go shopping. I run. I do homework. Instead of occupying my mind with religion, I occupy it with other things that are productive. Hell, just think, if people weren't spending so much time occupying themselves with religion they might actually go out and learn something about the world or do something positive which benefits everyone. Think of all the scientific discovery that has not taken place because of religion. I can only hope that people will find something else to occupy their minds with.
At 8:23 AM on April 17, 2007, Tori said,
Hey Tyler --
First, let me say that I have enjoyed reading all of your posts. Second, I should say that I consider myself a religious person, a devote Christian, to be more precise. While some might think these two facts are contradictory, I think without a healthy exchange of (differing) ideals, we'll never progress as a society, planet, species, etc.
However, I have noticed that in this post, and in the last one specifically about religion (3/13), it seems that you're walking a fine line in some of your statements. I agree with you on many points: people shouldn't push their religious beliefs on others (Christians especially -- we're commanded by God to quite the opposite), and that there should be a clear separation of church and state (although I think our forefathers did so to prevent things like the Inquisition, but it's still a wise move), for example. However, be careful not to become the people that you are criticizing. Not all Christians are the same, and to classify them as such is as grievous, in my opinion, as select Christians classifying all atheists as immoral or inherently "bad".
Again, I really enjoy reading your posts. It's always good to be challenged in your beliefs. If you can't explain them, what good are they to you? Anyway, just be careful that you don't become what you're fighting against.
:-)
Tori
At 12:14 PM on April 17, 2007, Tyler said,
Good to hear from you Tori, thanks for the feedback!
I agree that I am walking a fine line between the pot and the kettle. To generalize and say that all Christians think this way is clearly incorrect. But from the numbers in my first post as well as my own personal experiences, it seems that the majority have at least some of those beliefs. I think, though, that most of the Christians I know who read this blog are on the more thoughtful side, which is something I appreciate. My hope is that by toeing the line in these posts, I can help open the discussion and get people to think, because like you said, without a healthy exchange of ideas, we'll never make any progress.