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