Religious bigotry frustrates and infuriates editor

By Joseph Gauger
Collegian Editor
April 16, 2008

Illinois State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) unleashed a furious tirade against atheism at a legislative hearing April 2. She berated atheist and activist Rob Sherman, who was testifying in opposition of Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich’s plan to spend state funds restoring a privately owned church. “It’s dangerous for children to even know that your philosophy exists,” she told him. This statement was merely one in a successive list of weathered anti-atheist shibboleths Davis brought out in a discussion that really had nothing to do with Sherman or his lack of beliefs. She asserted that advocates for the separation of church and state are neglecting the effort to keep guns out of schools. On the contrary, I contend that she is the one with misdirected priorities. Non-believers like myself are not an imminent threat to society at large.

Davis’s comment about atheists being a danger to children is predicated on the assumption that if anyone expresses even the merest doubt that there is an omniscient father figure who will punish us for being bad, society’s morals will be instantly eroded. It should be plain to see that atheists have the same moral apparatus as believers, however, with very few exceptions. Even believers exercise some personal discretion over what they think is moral. Clearly, most people have some form of moral intuition beyond what they are told God has lain down since Creation. If you can avail yourself of personal judgment on some questions, there is no logical reason why you cannot do so on every issue. It takes more consideration than consulting scripture, but I can assure you it does not result in the abolition of morality.

During her livid harangue, Davis also appealed to the “Christian nation” bromide. She expressed outrage that an atheist might try to disentangle church and state in the “Land of Lincoln” as though Abraham Lincoln was a devout Christian who ardently protected the Christian morals of the state of Illinois. Lincoln was a deist; he was critical of Christianity throughout his entire life but believed in a creator who was concerned about the actions of human beings. To anyone familiar with his writings, it is inconceivable that he would have approved of a working relationship between the government and any Christian sect. In arguments between theists and atheists there is a long tradition of claiming important figures for one side or the other as though the allegiances of dead people had some bearing on the factuality of religious claims. Davis is another purveyor of this fallacious name-dropping.

Another old favorite is the attribution of some philosophical content to atheism. Strictly speaking, atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. Davis asserted that destroying society is a central tenet in atheism, which is self-evidently ludicrous. An atheist is not necessarily a nihilist. There is no essential link to Communism or humanism or any other philosophy. Novelist and chemist Isaac Asimov was as critical of religion as he was of the Soviet government. Atheism does not even necessitate philosophical materialism. Many schools of Buddhism are technically atheistic, but this does not keep them from making claims about metaphysics. Assuming that atheists all share certain beliefs and that we are part of some monolithic political and philosophical movement is a straw man. Davis is flailing around in self-righteous opposition to a conspiracy that doesn’t exist.

There are still far too many people in this country who will not vote for a woman, or a black person or a Muslim, regardless of their qualifications. But polls consistently show that about half of Americans would not vote for a qualified atheist. How a white male can find himself a member of the least-trusted minority in a country with so much tacit racism and misogyny is beyond my comprehension. Our broken political system has finally acceded to a viable black candidate and a viable female candidate, but the prospect of putting an atheist in the White House remains unthinkable. The only atheist in Congress, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) acknowledged his lack of belief only after accumulating 34 years of incumbency.

In Pennsylvania, Article I, Sec. 4 of the state constitution says that the only religious test which can be applied for state office is whether or not one believes in God and the afterlife. This is, of course, in violation of Article VI of the federal Constitution, but it is not clear whether such a test has ever been imposed. I once asked the American Civil Liberties Union in Harrisburg about the test, and they were quick to discount the possibility of litigation against the provision. That’s fine by me. Once I have my right of habeas corpus back, we can worry about whether or not I’m allowed to sit in a polling place and help old people with the voting machines.

Anti-atheist sentiment is not the most pernicious bigotry in a country where racism, sexism,and homophobia are still ugly political realities. But there is good reason to believe that it is the most pervasive. Distrust of the non-religious holds America back from being the egalitarian country it aspires to be and fosters other forms of intolerance. The fight against that bias remains part of America’s push for equality. A vituperative religious liberal like Davis reveals how widespread the problem extends.

gaugerj1@lasalle.edu