The Last Prejudice
by David Eller
Philip Jenkins has written a book entitled The New
Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. While no doubt those
people have their own "cross to bear," it is hard to believe
that claim in view of the evidence. After all, we have had a Catholic
president and had another running for president last year. More likely,
atheists and humanists are the last acceptable prejudice. |
Case
in point: recently a Denver newspaper printed a cartoon of a theater
marquee with the name "Godspell" crossed out and "Whateverspell"
in its place, with a character on the street saying, "Some wacko
atheist was offended and the next thing ya know
" Now, I
can laugh at myself (and others) as well as the next person, but this
item insults atheists and trivializes the cause of such people as
Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the "under God" federal
suit. |
Atheists do not want to rename god or erase every reference
to such an [imaginary] entity. Churches are free to talk about god(s)
all day, individuals and families can pray to him/her/it/them, and
moviemakers and playwrights can dramatize them to their hearts' delight.
However, the serious issue is what stance government can take and
how it can use public resources to do so. The answer is - not at all.
Constitutionally, the government cannot endorse one religion or any
religion; it cannot "establish religion." That means official
declarations like America being "one nation under God" are
illegal, no matter if you believe it. This is not a wacko atheist
idea but a constitutionally sound and important one.
|
|
The issue is not about "offense." What offends
someone is "in the eye of the beholder." Personally I was
offended by the huge gross "pro-life" display at the Auraria
campus last year, but apparently others quite liked it. Issues like
the Pledge, prayer in school, or "faith-based" services
on the taxpayer dime are not matters of "offense" but of
constitutional law and governmental neutrality. And please remember
- and look up, if necessary - that most church-state separation cases
have been brought not by atheists but by theists: Mormons, Jews, Unitarians,
Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc. |
Which takes us back to the text of the cartoon. I wonder
what would make an editor, a cartoonist, or any clearheaded American
think that calling a group "wacko" would be acceptable?
I wonder if a cartoon condemning civil rights and referring to "some
wacko blacks" would be acceptable? Or one condemning feminism
and "some wacko women"? Or condemning Judaism and "some
wacko Jews"? Or finally one condemning abusive priests or Mel
Gibson and "some wacko Catholics"? The point is that we
would not tolerate such name-calling and hateful speech in regard
to any other minority. So why atheists?
|
I put it to you that atheists are the most acceptably
discriminated group in America. A recent poll showed that less than
half of Americans would vote for one, less even than for a gay candidate
and much less than the 94% who would accept a Catholic one. Perhaps
the true test of American ideals is the reaction to cartoons like
the one in question, courageous men like Newdow, or those of us who
disbelieve in the central tenet of many people's lives. The day we
are accepted, America will have lived up to its promise. |
|
|
|
|
|
Send us an Email
Or write to us at:
Freethinkers of Colorado Springs
P.O. Box 62946
Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2946
Phone: 719-594-4506
|