Eugene is correct about public hostility to atheists and the willingness to admit discriminatory feelings against them. In 1991, the General Social Survey asked 1244 respondents this question (variable POLSGOD):
How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following?: Politicians who do not believe in God are unfit for public office.
RESULTS:
15% Strongly Agree
15% Agree
27% Neither Agree Nor Disagree
31% Disagree
11% Strongly Disagree
Note that 30% think that atheists are “unfit for public office,” and only 42% actively disagree with the statement that they are unfit.
By comparison, in the 1991 GSS, 90.5% of Americans said that they would vote for a qualified black for President if nominated by their party. Similarly, 91.4% of Americans said that they would vote for a qualified woman for President if nominated by their party. The difference for atheists is stark.
In looking at some demographic breakdowns, there is no difference in tolerance of atheists between Republicans and Democrats, but there is between conservatives and liberals, with liberals being significantly more tolerant. Also, whites are significantly more tolerant of atheists than African Americans.
All this emphasizes for me how different the law teaching world is, where atheists (such as myself) are strongly over-represented and Christians, particularly fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, are strongly under-represented.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Appeals to Religious Hostility from the Texas Republican Party:
- Mixing Politics and Atheism:
- Holocaust-Denying Atheist Candidate for Alabama Attorney General Gets 43.5% of the Primary Vote:...
- Follow-Up on Larry Darby, Formerly of the Atheist Law Center:
- Hostility to Atheists in the 1991 GSS.--
- Still More on Hostility to Atheists:...
- Hostility to Atheists:
- Leading Atheist Legal Activist and Candidate for Alabama Attorney General
- Discrimination Against Atheists:
::end snark::
Some of the nastiest people in the world (like Penn of Penn&Teller) are these in your face athiests whose only goal is to offend.
Just my two cents. I'm sure you're a peach, Jim!
I guess that's bigotry and discrimination against someone's belief system too.
Just a hunch, but maybe the reason that this survey is so bad for atheists is that by the very nature of a democratic republic (or whatever you want to call what we have here in the U.S.), you have to trust the politicians whom you elect to do the right thing. And those of us who are not atheistic probably trust someone who is religious much more than someone who is an atheist because we know and understand what we think is their core morality. So, I think we trust them more than we do an athiest whom we don't know to do the right thing - because for the most part, we don't know what the he uses as his base for his morality.
And maybe, some believe that at least some atheists are devoid of morals.
Note though that a lot of this argument is based on the fact that we don't know the politicians at issue, so have to find some reason to trust him/her. But this is much less operative with people we know. There, you can look them in the eye, or look at their past actions and see if they appear to be moral or not. And, so, I would expect that the religious among us would be a lot more trusting of the atheists we know, than the ones we don't know.
Or maybe it is bigotry against what is assumed to be a lack of a belief system.
But God, especially a Judeo-Christian understanding of God, has been part of American culture since Jametown. "In God We Trust" is on every piece of our money. "One Nation under God" is in our Pledge of Allegiance. Christmas is federal holiday, almost universally celebrated in our culture...etc, etc. Theism is a core part of our culture and history - and atheists, unlike Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc., consciously reject it. So they are objectively in a different category.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your hypothesis why most people prefer to vote for someone religious over an atheist. Religious people likely believe that other religious people are more likely to act morally and to be trustworthy, and hence they vote for them.
The really interesting question that follows is whether this belief by religious people about other religious people in general and religious politicians in particular is rational and based on empirical evidence, or simply a self-serving prejudice. Said differently, your hypothesis can either be a defense of the sentiment expressed in the survey, or an indictment, depending on whether religious politicians are in fact more or less likely to act morally.
My personal impression is that the alleged link between religion and moral behavior / trustworthiness is tenuous at best.
The comparison of largely Judeo-Christian America with the Marxist/atheist-police-state-of-your-choice seems to offer some pretty good emperical evidence.
What about religions founded after the union was formed. Clearly the founders didn't have Mormons in mind. But that's a JC-based religious group. Are they also "objectively different?"
You should also do some research on Deism as a belief system quite prevalent in the late 18th century and decide if you think it's truly "Judeo-Christian" and then note some of it's proponents and their influence on our union.
Oh...and "One nation, under God" was added to the pledge under Eisenhower, not at the founding.
This does yield a pretty good result, but is a bit like comparing liberals to dog-raping, necrophiliac conservatives. Adding qualifiers diminishes the usefulness of the comparison. How about a comparison between Judeo-Christian American and Scandinavia? What kind of empirical evidence does that provide with regards to morality vis a vis important social indicators?
Mormons do not reject the religious roots of American culture, so they obviously are not different. Diests don't reject the religious roots of our nation either. The Declaration of Independence references God. Read Washington's first inaugural, or his Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789. To say that religion is a big part of American history and culture is simply stating the obvious.
Since no one implied otherwise, not sure what your point is.
There is nothing inconsistent with an atheist who recognizes that theism in some form has played an important part in American history. It still isn't clear to me why a present rejection of God disqualifies someone from public office.
Also, any reason why the email listed on your comments is different from the email on your website?
Which proves that Condi Rice would win in a heartbeat, if the GOP had sense enough to nominate her.
Personally, I suspect that that outcome is an interaction of two factors mentioned in the comments.
1. The fact that atheistis mentioned in the media are generally filing lawsuits to suppress things that most folks like, or at least have no objection to, and are thus the 1% most contentious and, dare I say it, obnoxious, of the group. This is a problem not by any means unique to them (altho, as one commentor suggests, one that would be shared by the Ayn Rand worshippers if the general media knew who she was and gave that group equal tratement).
2. A general associaton of atheists with unprincipled types (I won't use the term amoralists, since as Neitzsche pointed out, theism and morality can be consistent). This does have at least some rational association, since for thousands of years morality has been associated with belief in some higher force dictating rules and enforcing them. And in fact the association of that which we can define as morality, and that which we can define as religious upbringing, does have some non-rational link (i.e., the belief in human equality, when no two humans are equivalent, is hard to justify absent belief in a soul, which is nice but cannot be documented or proven).
Jim Lindgren
About the only thing Hamburger proved is that the phrase "separation of church and state" is a meaningless catch phrase.
How many professed atheists could honestly say they do not take the religious beliefs of a given candidate into account? Did the derisive “Jesusland” map come out of thin air?
It always struck me a somewhat scary that so many devout people basically argue that if there was not god they would be out raping and pillaging the countryside. Honestly, I would lead the same life regardless of how the god questions was decided tomorrow. I hope this is just a bad bit of rhetoric that get overly repeated and I am not living among a bunch of restrained sociopaths ;-)
I bet not. I bet atheists have, not theoretically, voted for infinitely more theists than the other way around. I would hazard to guess that most atheists would not place the candidates' religion as high on their list of voting issues as would theists confronted with atheist candidates.
Um, okay. But why would an atheist have to face the repercussions in this world? Not all atheists believe there's some kind of karmic thing that guarantees we'll get ours for all the awful evil things we do before we die. If we die, that's it, no? (well, for most of us.)
Well, what I'm trying to say here is: The comparison is faulty. The proper comparison is retribution in the afterlife (with extreme unction or what-have-you pro remissionem peccatorum) vs. nothing at all.
I think.
I'm not sure if it was the same survey, but I had a textbook back in '98 that had a graph showing the results of a similar survey. I remember looking at it and thinking, "Well, at least we beat the homosexuals."
I object to the reductivist comparison of religions, which is premised on the idea that all religions are essentially the same, meaning they are all essentially like Christianity. To poll "prejudice" against religion is to make this assumption. People tolerate Christianity, so a priori they should tolerate things that are superficially similar to Christianity. Religions have varying notions of morality and varying attitudes toward other religions. This entire discussion proves absolutely nothing.
I didn't say anyone should be disqualified. I was merely describing the distinction, not advocating anything.
Either email goes to the same place.
I know both Laycock and Hamburger--and both are indeed brilliant professors (Laycock was a colleague of mine for my semester visit at Texas in 1995 and we got along well then).
But I read Laycock's review of Hamburger's book in the Univ. of Chicago Law Review and I find Laycock's attack on Hamburger's work tendentious and extremely weak in substance. Despite Laycock's rhetorical skills as a lawyer, I just don't see the depth of understanding of the period that he would need to take on someone like Hamburger (who is the best Americanist of the period IMO and has twice won a prize for the year's best work in English legal history).
For example, no one whom I've read approaches Hamburger's skills in archival research in the founding period. The evidence that Hamburger uncovered on ground one would have thought well trod is remarkable. Laycock, on the other hand, lacks Hamburger's research skills and thus mostly reworks Hamburger's evidence adding his own spin or relies on long-known evidence.
In short, the idea that Laycock has torn Hamburger to shreds is ridiculous. Before tearing someone to shreds, one has to show that Hamburger is wrong in several of his major claims. As a first step, would you mind pointing out a single significant error of Hamburger's that Laycock found (not Laycock's strongly expressed opinions, but an actual major historical error)?
Good history proceeds mostly on evidence.
Jim Lindgren
Really? News to me. Well, unless religion is carried in the blood somehow. I wasn't raised Christian or Buddhist or animist or anything at all.
I think there's a grain of truth in this sentiment. Prejudice against religion is clearly different from racial/gender prejudice, since people have control over their beliefs but not over which race/gender they were born. However, religion is strongly influenced by the environment in which one was raised. A religious Christian may not agree with the precise beliefs of a religious Jew, but he can say, "Well, he's Jewish because he was raised that way. At least he has a good religious core and recognizes the importance of faith." They can imagine that, but for the details of their upbringing, the two of them are not all that different. (You say tomato, I say tomah-to, you say Jesus, I say Yahweh ... let's call the whole thing off!)
While this is true among various faiths, it is not (in my experience) true of atheism. Most atheists I know (myself included) were raised in a particular faith, but chose to consciously reject it. Atheists can rarely hide behind the "I was just raised that way" excuse -- most have actively decided that people of faith have it completely wrong. Naturally, religious people don't take too kindly to this.
Cheers,
Ari
This is counterintuitive. How many public discussions took place about the religious beliefs of various candidates as compared to discussions about the lack of faith of candidates? I can't recall a single candidate attacked as an atheist or an agnostic, at least not in the public domain. I can certainly recall attacks on candidates for their faith, especially for the big bugaboo, "too much faith".
Your view, in itself, seems to be a matter of faith.
Can you please provide some evidence for the claim that "they want to make it so that no one can celebrate Christmas"?
Snort. Maybe that's because an atheist/agnostic candidate in America can't get elected to any office more important than county dog catcher. You know, because believing in an invisible magic friend/wish-granter is apparently more important to the voting public than intelligence or experience, a fact that we need not look farther than King Jesus Bush the Lesser to confirm. Oh, but he speaks about his faith with such conviction!
I am an atheist who loves Christmas. We always drive a long way to go to a tree farm with a good selection, so we can cut down a great tree. We have a terrific ornament collection (and I picked up the 1971 Biedermann ornamnent this season on Ebay). I play Christmas (brass) music on the CD player, and we sometimes sing carols in the car. One of our Jewish neighbors (a 4-year-old) loves to come over to see our tree. And so on.
Indeed, my daughter converted to Christianity in high school after she read Dante. We don't interfere with this in the slightest.
Christmas just doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to many others commenting here.
I rest my case. Tolerance indeed.
Most atheists are no more militant than most Christians, Budhists, or Hindus (I deliberately leave out Islam here, they DO seem to have an overly large percentage of militant followers).
But this "poll" is basically flawed. It doesn't make a distinction between atheists and agnostics (as do most of the people posting here), considering them both to be the same thing.
Atheists believe religiously in the non-existence of god, agnostics keep an open mind until they get solid evidence one way or the other.
"Maybe that's because an atheist/agnostic candidate in America can't get elected to any office more important than county dog catcher. You know, because believing in an invisible magic friend/wish-granter is apparently more important to the voting public than intelligence or experience"
Not true. If you're smart enough to fake the right religion you can go places.
Look at Billy the Kid Clinton and his suppreme commander wife as prime examples. Believers in the twin gods of Marxism/Leninism they veigned Christian beliefs to get to the White House and made it. They might even make it again, giving the first (de facto) female president of the USA her third term in office (something not allowed under US law btw.).
A closer look would find many religious events mean different things to many different people. To some they represent the nominal value (commemorating a birth or a miracle), to others, members of the faith or not, it represents a focal point for the social bonds of the community, or simply, as with Jim, the trappings of the season.
We're complex enough that they can have multiple conflicting meanings simultaneously (as in, "that time of year when the Christians put out really nice decorations and music and food, which is very good just as it's getting dark and cold, but they sometimes go overboard, forgetting or ignoring not only that not everybody celebrates their holidays, but also that not so long ago they were trying to convert us with violence, and even now our children are losing their heritage to competition with the mainstream majority culture.")
A theist's views of how society is organized will be shaped by his religious tenets. He would like to see a society that respects his religion and that foolows its falues. A conservative religious person faced with a choice between Dorothy Day and a conservative atheist certainly will have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Conversely, a liberal atheist would have the same dilemma. But, all other things being equal, most of us will vote for a candidate who validates any given belief of ours.
At a school in Wisconsin, the teachers were so afraid of getting attacked by the ACLU, that they had the children sing "Oh, Cold Night" instead of "Silent Night". And numerous towns have had to scale back or abandon their plans for a Christmas display for fear of being sued by the ACLU. That is, in essence atheists trying to stop Christians from celebrating Christmas.
What are you trying to accomplish with this thread? Critical thinking skills are not valued in our schools and society. You simply point out another example... and to no great end, I might add.
President Bush, Senior, went even further, suggesting that atheists shouldn't even be "considered citizens." As far as I know, at least the current Bush hasn't suggested that.
That is obviously going way too far. I don't think you see anyone suggesting that now. For most Christians, the issue is atheists forcing their agenda on us, not any desire to deprive atheists of their citizenship. The founding fathers meant for this to be a Christian country, but they also meant for citizenship to be an inclusive right.
"'Can you please provide some evidence for the claim that
'they want to make it so that no one can celebrate Christmas?'
At a school in Wisconsin, the teachers were so afraid of getting attacked by the ACLU, that they had the children sing "Oh, Cold Night" instead of "Silent Night". And numerous towns have had to scale back or abandon their plans for a Christmas display for fear of being sued by the ACLU. That is, in essence atheists trying to stop Christians from celebrating Christmas."
It is, more accurately, Christians electing to scale back state-sponsored involvement in religious celebrations out of fear of potential litigation.
Whether I would agree or not with a particular decision to sue in the cases you mention a) depends on more facts than are provided, and b) is irrelevant in any event. Arguing that the State should not sponsor religious observances is not the same as arguing that Christians should not celebrate Christmas.
Like Lindgren, I am an atheist who celebrates Christmas, because it's a convenient time for a holiday, because I was raised doing it, because my whole (extended) family does it, and because I like it. Needless to say, the religious overtones of the holiday have no meaning for me, but that's not so different from those Christians who adopt pagan symbology in their Christmas celebrations (such as the Christmas tree) without attributing to it the original meaning.
Nor is it so different from Christians electing, in the first instance, to celebrate the birth of the Savior in late December, during the time of traditional feasts and celebrations, despite the fact that there is no evidence suggesting that Jesus was actually born that day.
As a Christian, I'd be much more comfortable voting for an atheist with Mr. Lindgren's view of the Constitution than for some "it's a living, breathing document" liberal who goes to church every week.
The devil is in the details as they say. :)
As to prejudice against athiests, absolutely, it's clear that it exists in shockingly high degrees.
Obviously, most Christians realize that. The calendars of that era were highly irregular and there is really now way to know for sure what day Jesus was born on our calendar. And, yes, I've heard the argument that most likely the date was chosen to coincide with the pagan solstice festivals. Be that as it may, it is the day that millions of Christians celebrate the birth of Christ and, as such, it should be respected.
It seems to me that the typical formula of a poll question, one in which the neither agree nor disagree option represents true neutrality, has not been followed. I believe it is more than likely that in haste and incomplete comprehension, many of those who answered in that fashion believed they were answering that an atheist is no more fit or unfit than anyone else.
I think it is possible that if the word "fit" was used, it is possible for the results to have a mirror image effect in which roughly 30% of the respondents believe atheists are unfit and 42% believe atheists can be fit for office.
First of all, I don't believe any school has ever been legally prevented from singing Christmas carols. If those teachers did that, they were being silly, or trying to make a political point. That is no one's fault but their own.
As far as government Christmas displays, I'm not sure what the law is, but I know we have a pretty big tree here in Washington.
In any case, what's up with this idea that celebrating Christmas requires government involvement? You don't think private celebration is enough? You need the government to be involved, in an overtly religious manner? You must believe in a very big and powerful government.
I mean, that's tragic, really. When were you last able to celebrate Christmas, before atheists stepped in and ruined it?
Basically, you draw a hyper-exagerated conclusion from hyper-exagerated facts. It's called hype. Talk about people making a big deal out of petty injustices! If there is a group in America that is pushy in their beliefs, it certainly isn't atheists. You never even see them in public life!
1) The ACLU consistently supports the rights of students to distribute religious literature in school, including, for example, the distribution of Christmas candy canes with religious messages.
2) The ACLU has filed suit in support of a second grader who wanted to sing "Awesome God" in a talent show.
3) The ACLU supported two women in their wrongful termination suit against a greyhound racetrack; the racetrack had fired them for refusing to work on Christmas.
4) The ACLU argued on behalf of a Christian church that wanted to place advertisements on Boston public transit; the ads decried the secularization of Christmas and even declared Christianity as the "one true religion".
You might think that the ACLU (or individual state chapters) argues for some strange things, and in some cases I might even agree with you. But to conflate the actions of the ACLU with those of atheists (or conversely) is misleading.
I've yet to see evidence of any atheist attempting to prevent Christians from celebrating Christmas. Your examples do not speak to that question.
I think you're making an unfair comparison based on those polls. If the question were asked, "Would you vote for a qualified atheist candidate if nominated by your party?", I suspect you'd get upwards of 90% saying, "Yes," too.
Party loyalty is pretty strong among some folks, and can override other concerns. :)
Moreover, it's fallacious to argue that anyone rejects the "separation of church and state," does not accept a specific policy of those who support separation. In other words, even if you reject the broad (and often meaningless) label of separation of church and state, that tells us nothing about whether you support pray in schools, government funding to religious organizations, etc. I think Hamburger is right (and I know Laycock thinks he's right) that proponents of separation try to get a lot more historical mileage out of that phrase than the record justifies. But even if that's true, it doesn't follow that a proper reading of the First Amendment doesn't support holding school prayer unconstitutional, etc. Hamburger makes this leap.
I'm perplexed why you think Professor Laycock lacks Hamburger's research skills given that he is one of, if not the, leading scholar in religious liberty and has penned a number of law review articles that discuss, in depth, the history of the religion clauses. In his review of Hamburger's book, he simply assumes that Hamburger's fact gathering is correct because there's no need to quibble with the minor details. Your response seems to assume that if Hamburger's facts are correct, his thesis follows. You're wrong.
No one said celebrating Christmas requires government involvement. At issue is whether the government is allowed to acknowledge a prominent and enduring cultural event.
Kipli, as a rule the ACLU is hostile to America's historical and cultural religious roots, especially when it comes to Christianity. Noting a few exceptions to the rule does not disprove the rule.
Here's one from our archives from a few years ago, noting a few examples of the ACLU double standard on religion in public institutions:
God Bless the ACLU
David Limbaugh wrote a book full of examples of religious intolerance from the left.
At this point, I think that preserving Christmas will require government involvement. That's why I was happy to hear on the radio that the House is considering a Christmas Protection Act to ensure that cities, towns, and companies can have Christmas displays without being sued. There will also be some kind of federal matching funds for local displays if the bill passes. So if this is an issue you care about, I recommend that you call your representative and ask him or her to support this measure. (Note: I don't think it has been formally introduced yet, but hopefully it will be soon.)
As a committed Christian who believes there's nothing whatsoever in the US Constitution that prohibits Christmas displays on public property, public school Christmas pageants, etc., -- "federal matching funds"? -- no way, not a chance. That's a terrible idea, for several reasons having nothing to do with religious content.
>At issue is whether the government is allowed to acknowledge a prominent and enduring cultural event<
Is that what's at issue? Has it been stated that the government may not acknowledge Christmas or any other prominent and enduring cultural event?
The very strongest secular position I have ever seen advocated is that Christmas should not be promoted by the Goverment to a greater extent than other similar non-religious events. Just like the Ten Commandments should not be emphasized beyond their actual social or political significance, simply in an effort to promote religion. This is as rabid as the atheists get. I have never heard anybody claim that Christmas or the Ten Commandments or anything else may not be acknowledged, even by the government.
My question is this: Why do you feel a need to exagerate so much? The level of exageration on these issues reaches absurdity. "We can't even acknowledge Christmas." "We're not allowed to pray in school." "They're forcing their atheism on us." These kinds of statements are blatantly dishonest, simply serving to make people angry. Do you think this kind of exageration is the best way to serve the conservative cause?
Not so long ago? What, like last week?
I'm not sure this poll is very important. It's too theoretical to measure actual attitudes - it's like all those polls that got hyped during the last election comparing President Bush to an "unnamed Democrat."
What use is that? What does it prove? This poll is forcing its respondents to be single-issue voters on religion, because that's all they're being told. Giving people only one characteristic of a theoretical candidate is of course going to encourage people to think in stereotypes of that characteristic, and to the extent that capitol-A Atheism has a public image, it's of noxious nags like Michael Newdow.
The high positives for Jews and African-Americans reflects people's widespread acknowledgment of the historical injustices those groups have been through, which makes negative opinions of them instinctively distasteful. Atheists don't have an equivalent history.
This poll is a very blunt instrument. Any resemblance to how people actually decide who to vote for is purely coincidental.
Of course, this may simply be a function of the widespread belief that atheists can't get elected: politically ambitious atheists assume they can't be honest, so they aren't open about their lack of faith. It's kind of like being an originalist for a Supreme Court nominee.
Oh, good lord. The O'Reillyization of the country is complete. Cook up a fake controversy and suddenly congress wants to start subsidizing tree farmers.
First, I think the atheist and reincarnation sets are necessarily disjoint but there might be some subtle reason they are not that is escaping me at the moment.
My point was the distinction between two presumably moral people. The first is someone who sees moral rules as begin the result of some lawgiver on high who will punish you for your transgressions in the afterlife (unless you say you are sorry or purchase an indulgence). The second would have had to arrive at their moral code through some other means, a simple one is the golden rule. However, this later person would not have the benefit of redemption if they violated their morals which were freely adopted.
This all gets at the questions of whether a coerced moral actor is truly acting in a moral manner. I know that I want my kids to do the right thing for its own sake, not because I will become angry with them. Add to this the promise of forgiveness for failing to adhere to that moral code, and the whole thing just strikes me as a bad basis for investing public trust in a person.
Remember the context of this discussion was the catagorical statment that "I see _______ as unfit for office."
I agree that may be going too far. But something needs to be done to protect people from these ACLU lawsuits.
"I think a Christmas Protection Act is actually not a bad idea. Look at how litigious our society has become. It's really getting to the point where people are sueing just because their feelings are a bit hurt. If this is introduced, it'll help protect those businesses who are currently being intimidated out of using the word "Christmas".
Businesses are not state actors; no matter how expansively you read the establishment clause, I am unaware of any reading that extends to private businesses.
Arguing over abstractions is always difficult. If you have examples of specific businesses that have been "intimidated out of the using the word 'Christmas'" by the threat of suit, either by the ACLU or otherwise, please post them.
However, in the abstract, my sense is that businesses avoid exclusive references to specific religions for very solid, BUSINESS reasons. There are, after all, a non-trivial number of non-Christians out there, and since the objective of a business is generally to get as many people to purchase their products and services as possible, it makes sense to try and get non-Christians to buy in to the idea of a "Holiday Season" that they can celebrate (and buy gifts for) as well.
For example I come into the second category - I do believe in various stuff, which just happens not to include gods.
I think that it has been obvious to politicians for a long time now that their chances of getting elected, esp. to national office, are much, much, greater if they profess to follow an established religion. Luckily for all of us here in the U.S., that religion can now be Roman Catholicism, Judaism, or Mormonism, and not just Protestant Christianity.
If you believed them, I've got some swamp land in a place called White Water I'd like to sell you.
But businesses always used to reference Christmas, and seemed to be doing fine. They also reference Easter (for now, anyway) and seem to have no problem making money off of that. It just seems like there's a very oppresive atmosphere occurring, and I think that if a business or government office wants to use the word "Christmas", or include a nativity scene in their decorations, they should be able to do so without fear of reprisal. Something like a Christmas Protection Act would at least remove that fear. Nobody's saying that they couldn't also put up menorahs or any other seasonal decorations, but they shouldn't be intimidated out of using Christmas-specific greetings and decorations.
The bottom line is this:
1) He rejects "Separation of Church and State" as a founding metaphor. And it's too important and central to liberal democracy to do that. He rather seems to argue against a more rigid, ACLU absolutist notion of the doctrine and does not really distinguish between the absolutist notion of separation and what separation might mean in a more general, realistic sense. But a proper understanding of the history and philosophy of not just America's Founding, but of liberal democracy in general, shows that Separation of Church and State is too important to our system to reject as a metaphor.
2) In reading the Constitution, in context, it was revolutionary for its time in the way that it took a "hands off" approach to religion (didn't empower religion in a document that was b/n explicitly enumerated powers), did not covenant with the Christian God or really mention God at all, and protected religious rights in Art. VI and the First Amendment.
3) Thus a "Separation of Church and State" of some important sort, clearly is found in the Constitution, just as a "Separation of Powers" is also clearly found in the Constitution.
4) But wait, neither the terms "Separation of Church and State" or "Separation of Powers" are found in the Constitution.
5) And, just as we clearly don't have an absolute "Separation of Powers" we also don't have an absolute "Separation of Church and State." Think about the many ways in which the Powers of government do and must cooperate together.
6) Finally, just as Separation of Powers, in the real sense that we have it, was a revolutionary enactment of liberal democracy, so too was Separation of Church and State.
Liberal democratic theory, as articulated by Hobbes, Locke and our Founders, draws a clear distinction between duties and proper roles of both the state and religion (thus separates Church and State). Militiant Islam, for instance, draws little or none. And we know what those societies are like.
Before liberal democracy, in the West, it was similar to Islam. Indeed our pre-liberal democratic colonies in America saw fit to write the text of the Bible wholesale into the civil law. And the disastrous results were Biblical codes which among other things had the death penalty on the books for openly worshipping false gods and burning witches at the stake.
Founding natural rights theory holds that all men, including atheists, polytheists, Pagans etc. have full free and equal rights of conscience, as well as "all men are created equal" etc.
This theory, properly understood, meant the end of those biblical civil codes where the Church and the State were one.
It may be true that our original founding didn't fully secure the "rights of conscience" in a constitutional sense (the First Amendment, and much of the Constitution didn't even apply to the states). But neither did it secure full rights for blacks! Slavery, something antithetical to liberal democratic theory, was preserved by the original Constitution.
But just as the liberal democratic theory spelled the eventually end of slavery, it also mandated full disestablishment of all state established Churches (the last of which took place in 1833 and w/o the need for a civil war) and some type of meaningful separation of Church and State as well. See Jefferson's VA Statute on Religious Freedom and Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, for two natural rights documents on how any government should and must treat religion.
Maybe that's because the phrase appears nowhere in the constitution. The founding fathers never meant for a band of extremists to, in effect, outlaw the celebration of religious holidays. We're letting them take away our heritage. That's why people of faith need to get behind legislation to protect Christmas from the ACLU.
Maybe "hostility" and "bias" are the wrong way to frame the issue. Most of us crazy fundies don't hate atheists (or gays or Muslims, etc.) but we might want to discriminate (in the best sense) as to who governs us.
You must feel lonely.
"But businesses always used to reference Christmas, and seemed to be doing fine."
Attitudes, demographics, and markets evolve. If you told me that, as a business owner, dropping "Christmas" and adding "Holiday" would increase my sales 1 percent, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Some businesses wouldn't (and, notably, some businesses don't.)
"They also reference Easter (for now, anyway) and seem to have no problem making money off of that. It just seems like there's a very oppresive atmosphere occurring,"
What leads you to think that it's oppressive? The evidence so far identified is that businesses are acknowledging Christmas less--I'm not sure that's empirically true, but I'll grant it arguendo. Where is the evidence that this trend is motivated by "intimidation" of any kind?
"...and I think that if a business or government office wants to use the word "Christmas", or include a nativity scene in their decorations, they should be able to do so without fear of reprisal."
Agreed 100 percent, and I have no basis for thinking that, under our current legal system, there would be any reprisal for such an action. If a business owner has an irrational fear based on an incomplete understanding of the law, I can't really help them.
Anyway, one of the problems in this discussion is that "atheism" (or "agnosticism") isn't actually the same kind of thing as a religion. It really isn't even a proper "-ism" in the sense of an organized system of beliefs. Rather, it is just defined by the lack of certain kinds of belief. So, saying that someone is an atheist or agnostic doesn't really tell you anything about what the person DOES believe--it just tells you something about what they do NOT believe. In other words, it would be like using the term "non-Christians", which would not be a terribly informative label for, among others, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or so on.
That said, I have no doubt that even "non-Christians" would still outpoll atheists in the United States. Still, my guess is that the views of many "atheists" would poll better if their actual beliefs were the subject of the question, and not just their lack of a certain kind of belief. And I also think part of the reason why atheists are viewed so harshly is that in the absence of a positive statement of beliefs, people fill in the gap with all sorts of stereotypes (eg, that atheists are hostile to religion, or morality, or democracy, or free-market capitalism, and so on).
The people who don't play with an imaginary friend are the lonely ones? Huh.
Amen. I hadn't thought about Easter, but doesn't Thanksgiving have its origins in giving thanks to God? What's next, are businesses going to be pressured to celebrate the spring equinox instead of Easter? Is the ACLU going to pressure us to celebrate Ramadan instead of Thanksgiving? Sure, it sounds like hyperbole now, but imagine how people 30 years ago would have laughed if you'd told them that in 2005 celebrating Christmas would be frowned upon by so many liberals and secular humanists.
I'm not saying that Christianity itself is under attack yet, but this is the sort of thing that has to be nipped in the bud. A bill that would preserve the rights of Christians to publicly affirm the most important holiday of our faith wouldn't infringe on the rights of anyone else, and it would send a message to the intolerant that in American democracy, the majority rules. Last time I checked, the overwhelming majority of America was Christian.
I laugh at people saying that today. For all the hysteria on the right about "liberals and secular humanists" crusading to exterminate Christmas, or even disparaging it, I've yet to see anyone on the left actually living up to that bogeyman image. I am amazed by the enormous amount of outrage among the oh-so-victimized Christian majority over what is, from what I can tell, an entirely artificial and baseless controversy. No one is persecuting Christians in this country, and no one is trying to steal Christmas.
Very few liberals and secular humanists "frown upon" celebrating Christmas. Most of them, I would imagine celebrate Christmas themselves.
They frown upon government institutions endorsing one religious holiday to the exclusion of others, AND if dealing with the private sector, for instance, a privately owned department store, a lack of inclusiveness -- saying "Merry Christmas" but not likewise references to Hannuka, Ramadan, Festivus, or whatever. Simply stating "Happy Holidays" seems to be more polite, given that you don't know whether any particular customer does in fact celebrate Christmas. But ultimately, if it's the private sector, it's the choice of the business.
Personally, I am an not a very religious person and I celebrate Christmas and I can feel comfortable doing so precisely because Christmas has equal secular and Pagan elements to it.
Banning Christmas carols in schools is stealing Christmas. Banning Christmas displays at department stores is stealing Christmas. Banning use of the phrase "Merry Christmas" is stealing Christmas. The extreme left is trying to steal Christmas. And it's up to us to stop them.
As a Christian, I feel increasingly duped by the Republicans in Washington. They count on our votes, but when it comes to the issues that matter to us, they seem to always be caving into the left. If I don't see a bill protecting Christmas from the ACLU by January 1, they can forget about my support in '06 and '08.
They'd still laugh at that now. No one is frowning upon celebrating Christmas. Celebrate away. Go to church, pray, listen to music, put up your tree, decorate your house - and of course, above all, spend thousands of dollars on tawdry gifts, because that's what Jesus would want. What people are "frowning upon" is the government sponsoring what they - and most people - see as a religious holiday. How would you feel if the White House started erecting Saturnalian symbols instead of a Christmas Tree? A 100-foot-tall menorah?
The really funny thing is that so many avowed conservatives are all for government's role. I guess people only belive in small government when that doesn't conflict with active endorsement and validation of their arbitrary beliefs.
As part of the school's effort to promote reading, students were asked to bring in a book to read (silently) for a half hour of each day. A friend's son brought in a book that so horrified the teacher that he was told that he could not bring it into the classroom in the future. What was this disgusting book? The Bible.
Now, I admit, this was a liberal controlled county of California. Things may be different where you live. But the ACLU has certainly accomplished their goals of intimidation and fear.
Let's hope this is last Christmas that the ACLU ruins.
A friend of my wife worked as a teacher in the same district, and another teacher who didn't know her very well started off the school year with the question, "Ya got any fundamentals this year?" This teacher meant "fundamentalists" but since ignorance isn't a bar to teaching school...
One of my professors when I was in school let slip at a departmental event of some sort that she had started to attend church. Now, she was a very liberal feminist, and I would guess that she was probably attending a very liberal church. But she confided in me that there was a bit of razzing from other faculty members about attending church. Not really persecution, I guess, but it says a lot about the fierce contempt that is so common in the academy.
Ah yes, the infamous "X Out Xmas" Act of 2001. Perhaps XOXA went too far; I can see how a mandatory minimum 20-month prison term for saying "Merry Christmas" might offend people. But perhaps I misremember. Could you provide some sort of citation to a law, or a case, or anything that would "ban" the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas"?
"But the ACLU has certainly accomplished their goals of intimidation and fear."
This is the sort of mouth-frothing hyperbole that makes Christians' claims of persecution so baffling. It's not hard to look up the ACLU's record; it spends an enormous amount of time, energy, and money defending religious freedoms and has, to my knowledge, neither attempted to nor succeeded in convincing public schools that Bibles are verboten. Wacky and ridiculous claims of persecution by shadowy cabals sap the strength of your serious arguments.
Where were Christmas carols banned? Why don't you just make some more stuff up?
Ok, maybe Smithy is joking. Unfortunately it's impossible to tell.
If the family in residence at the White House was Jewish, I wouldn't have a problem with an oversized Menorah or Dreidel, having a giant Gelt designed for a centerpiece, and having the first family handing out chocolate coins. I'd probably get twitchy if it was a Roman Catholic family doing that, though.
Citations, please.
No offense to you personally, but those must be some pretty woefully misinformed or ignorant people if they think they can get in trouble for caroling.
Still, I think Congress has to do something to preserve Christmas traditions. It makes me sad that there is no Christmas dislays in the parks anymore and that children don't sing Christmas carols in school.
There are two interpretations to this poll:
1) The majority of people don't know many proclaimed Atheists..
a) and don't trust a view point they don't understand
b) and don't trust a group they don't think they know
c) and don't like a group whose most vocal members like to call their belief system derisive names
or d) and don't see a large contribution to scociety by Atheists (Newdow not withstanding)
2) The majority of people think that the only reason people act morally is a higher power... either as an inspiration, a guide or an enforcer.
(And how many people do you see hit the brakes on the highway when they see a cop car? Even if they're not speeding, but because they might habitually and have to double-check their speed?)
It seems like most people find the second interpretation is getting the most airtime here, and not much of the first. Any thoughts?
If you are allowing your Christmas to be ruined by ACLU boogeymen, I'm afraid you have bigger problems.
What on earth is it you think carolers in your neighborhood are afraid of? Murderous ACLU thugs? Is there anything you won't say?
You sound like somebody who simply has a disregard for the truth. Where did you hear that most schools have banned Christmas carols? How do you know this is a "fact"? I seem to remember "honesty" being a Christian virtue, but sometimes I wonder.
This is the sort of wild hyperbole that is so confusing to the rest of us. How could you possibly believe that your grandchildren won't know what Christmas is? Are you really afraid that the evil atheists will prevent you from telling them? Or do you believe that you require the assistance of government to educate them as to your religious beliefs and cultural practices?
If people are afraid of liberal stormtroopers rubbing out Christmas in homes across the country, it's not because it's actually happening. I haven't seen anyone here, or anywhere else, cite a factual instance of the prohibition of private celebrations. And if there was such an instance, I think it's pretty clear from the record of groups like the ACLU that liberals would be as outraged as conservatives.
Rather, I think the fear is generated by this strange persecution complex; for some reason, some Christians seem to be very eager to believe that they're being persecuted, and tell each other scary stories and anecdotes to reinforce that perception.
Do they prevent you from having a Christmas party? Do they force you to go their Solstice party?
I see this issue as a speech issue--we are not trying to exclude your expression of Christmas--we simply don't want it to be the only message out there.
The Editors:
Earlier you claimed that "black skin isn't culture; gender isn't culture." You don't really believe that--is was just a rhetorical soundbite. Race, creed, gender are all HUGE contributing factors into creating American culture.
Remember that the freedom to believe includes the freedom not to believe.
It is abundantly clear that if a public school started the school day with mandatory prayer that they would be breaking the law, as the Supreme Court has ruled. (I would make the argument that this violates the freedom of religion clause, not the establishment clause.)
But what if a public school has a Christmas play (these used to be quite common, even when I was growing up in California in the 1960s) that tells the story of Christmas? I don't know that the ACLU has ever filed suit to prevent this, but I can see how with their fanatic zeal to remove all expressions of Christianity from public institutions that they might do so--and school administrators know also that they might be the case. There is at least a plausible question as to whether such a play constitutes a violation of the rights of non-Christians whose kids are at the school--and that's all that is required for the ACLU to achieve its goal.
What about my daughter asking if they could sing "Silent Night"? It would have been one explicitly Christian song among a number of secular Christmas songs. I can't imagine any basis for the ACLU to win such a suit--but who wants to spend tens of thousands of dollars of school district money fighting such a suit? The ACLU (like a lot of lawyers) achieve their ends by the knowledge that they sue at the drop of a hat, and even when they are clearly in the wrong, the courts go along with them.
My favorite example of this sort of nonsense being accepted by the courts is where the plaintiff claimed that seeing a Ten Commandments monument in a public park caused her "physical pain." Instead of accepting this claim, the judge should have reminded the plaintiff that there are penalties for perjury. If she genuinely felt physical pain from seeing this (which could be determined, I suppose, by measuring pulse), then it was time to have her see a psychiatrist. There are some things that offend me, and I would not want to see them. But they don't cause me physical pain.