L.A. Times strongly endorses secularism

December 8, 2014 • 9:04 am

As a further sign of the times—that is, of the increasing secularism in the U.S.—we have an editorial from a major newspaper, yesterday’s Sunday Los Angeles Times, that calls for an end to marginalizing atheists, demonizing them, and calling them “unpatriotic.” The editorial is signed by the “Times Editorial Board,” thus representing the consensus opinion of the paper.

Read the piece, “Patriotic Americans have the right not to believe in any God“; it will hearten you even if they did put “God” in caps, implying a specific god (the Abrahamic one) rather than gods in general.

To show you how out of touch I am, the authors motivate their opinion by citing two recent incidents, and I was completely unaware of the Mississippi bill. That one will certainly violate the First Amendment, but it’s probably just for show, to give lawmakers a chance to posture and compete at showing their love of Jesus. The Greece, New York case was of course common knowledge.

A few snippets from the editorial:

In Mississippi there is currently a campaign to amend the state constitution to acknowledge the state’s “identity as a principally Christian and quintessentially Southern state, in terms of the majority of her population, character, culture, history, and heritage, from 1817 to the present; accordingly, the Holy Bible is acknowledged as a foremost source of her founding principles, inspiration, and virtues; and, accordingly, prayer is acknowledged as a respected, meaningful, and valuable custom of her citizens.” (Bizarrely, the text says the amendment “shall not be construed to transgress either the national or the state constitution’s Bill of Rights.”)

That last statement about the First Amendment is of course the height of mendacity.

The commingling of citizenship and Christianity isn’t confined to the Bible Belt. In May, the Supreme Court upheld a New York town’s practice of opening its public meetings with invocations that overwhelmingly were offered by Christian clergy members who frequently prayed in Jesus’ name. The notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation also underlies claims, fanned by talk show hosts and other non-serious hysterics, about a secularist “war on Christmas” and the continued complaints about Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s that ended the practice of beginning public school classes with prayers and Bible readings.

And then the paper gets down to business:

We believe that entanglement of religion and government runs the risk of risk of marginalizing citizens who don’t share the religion of the majority. That is especially a concern at a time of growing religious diversity and an increase in the number of Americans who tell pollsters they aren’t affiliated with any religion. In a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 19.6% of adults said they were “religiously unaffiliated.”

. . . equal treatment for organized religions, while it avoids the evil of “establishing” a single faith, can still carry the message that those with no religious beliefs at all are second-class citizens. That is why this page has opposed even nonsectarian prayers at meetings of local government bodies. Political leaders, especially those who frequently engage in religious language, should acknowledge that there is no religious test for being a good American. Obama did just that in his first inaugural address when he said that “we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers.” We’d like to see more public officials recognize that reality; one way of doing that is to include nonreligious speakers in solemn public events. (That wasn’t done when public officials, including Obama, came together last year to honor the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings, despite a request that the speakers include a representative from the Secular Coalition for America.)

The ending is great:

Organized religion undeniably plays an important and often constructive role in the lives of many Americans. Religious figures have been instrumental in political causes from abolitionism to the civil rights movement. No one should seek to banish them from political debate. But we reject the notion that religious faith in general or adherence to a particular creed is an essential attribute of being American. The only creed to which a citizen of this country should have to pay homage is the Constitution.

You can’t promote secularism more strongly than that, and I’m enormously chuffed to see this coming from an important journalistic organ in the U.S. Now if only the New York Times—or even the New Yorker, which is always soft on religion—would say something like this. After all, it’s not like this message is strident, for it adheres scrupulously to what the founding fathers of our country intended, and during times that were at least as religious as now.

h/t: Robin

46 thoughts on “L.A. Times strongly endorses secularism”

  2. Sometimes I wonder if the founding fathers pulled a fast one on most of their fellow citizens and that American Christianity has been trying to win back the territory ever since.

    And that that may be one of the reasons why American Christians are so easily fired up and in general seem to suffer from one massive persecution-complex.

    Despite the lip service to the constitution.

    1. I don’t think that they did pull a fast one, it was explicit and widely supported. There was considerable debate in newspapers at the time with many arguing for establishing Christianity in a broad fashion, while prohibiting the favouriting of any particular denominations of Christianity.

      But the explicitly secular opinion prevailed. For example, here is Luther Martin, Attorney General of Maryland, and delegate to the Constitutional Convention, commenting on Article 6:

      “The part of the system which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, was adopted by a great majority of the convention, and without much debate; however, there were some members so unfashionable as to think, that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that, in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.”

      So, the “religious right” were there at the founding of America, but were an “unfashionable” minority who couldn’t even sustain “much debate”!

        1. Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if the phenomenon isn’t similar to what we’re seeing in the growing anti-vaccination trend. The founding fathers understood the dangers of theocracy, and having established a stable secular government, allowed future generations to be blissfully unaware of those dangers.

          1. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from history, it is that no human has ever learned anything from history. 🙂

            I’m just hoping we’re not caught in a loop.

      2. I see you beat me to it and I agree with your general point. However, its worth noting that Martin may have been downplaying the political power of his opponents. The two beliefs he notes as “unfashionable minority” views are things that later made it into Maryland’s Constitution (or at least the Declaration of Rights part of it).

        For your consideration, I give you (the second part of) Section 36 of the Maryland Declaration, from 1867, my bold added: “…nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.”

        Sounds like Martin and his fellow secularists may have won the battle in the late 1700s but had lost the war by the late 1800s, eh? Fortunately the scales tilted the other way in the 1900s, with the SCOTUS ruling that all such jury requirements are/were unconstitutional.

        1. I think your analysis is correct. As I understand it the independence period was one when religion was at a relatively low ebb. After that came the Second Great Awakening and a move to a more religious society with higher rates of church attendance.

          Anyone got decent stats on the rate of church attendance from 1700 to now?

      3. It might have been an example of where the elitism of the US founding fathers was a *good* thing. Meaning, if they had polled the masses they might have had less support for what was at the time (and still is, in much of the world) a remarkable policy.

      5. The Second Great Awakening (1790-1840) allowed religionists in many states and even in the federal sphere to co-opt the Founder’s vision. Add to that the 3rd “Awakening” (1850-1900) and the emergence of the “Moral Majority” of the 1960s and 70s, and it’s a wonder secularism still thrives in this country. So glad it does though; the tide may finally be turning.

        1. We have to remember that enlightened secular govt is a rarity in history. Most of the time it’s theocratic tribalism or monarchs who think they speak for God. Secular rationalism is like an island in a sea of superstition. This is why Greece’s “Golden Age” and “The Renaissance/Enlightenment” are such unique periods of history. TRQuinn.com

    2. I don’t think they pulled a fast one; I think the notion (of separation of church and state) had broader support than it does today. For sure there were some sects that opposed it, but many large sects such as baptists and catholics were only historically separated from direct and relatively harsh religious oppression by maybe a generation or two (and some, not even that). So they would’ve understood the benefits of separation and pitfalls of not having it in a very direct, visceral, and personal way that, say, a roman catholic in the US today may not.

      1. That would explain the difference in zeitgeist despite the same amount of religion.

      1. I dunno…one of my gods can get pretty noisy…and, come to think of it, Baihu is quite the talker, too….

        Granted, Haruman and Gabriel and Quetzalcoatl and Mary and Wotan and all those other popular gods never did manage to say a word. Outside of some really bad ancient snuff pr0n fiction stories, of course.

        b&

  6. identity as a … quintessentially Southern state

    Really? Do they really want this? Do they know what this might mean to the rest of the country and the world?

    OK, having family in the south I can kinda get it – southern hospitality and all that – but I think for everyone but them the negative connotations outweigh the positive.

    Is this some kind of stubborn pride thing?

    2. I’m pretty sure the bill sponsors know they’re bringing up the antebellum south, and they’re intentionally linking themselves and the state to that.

      For me, linking ‘quintessentially southen’ to ‘bible a founding document’ brought to mind the story of Lot and his daughters. Oh, you meant that part of the bible was quintessentially southern? Cue the banjos and inbreeding jokes.

      1. Errr, wasn’t Lot putting his daughters out for outbreeding?
        Wait … I forgot about the other episode. Incredible that the area was so empty at the time. Literally, “incredible”.

    3. When I read that I thought that it was more evidence of two Americas and made me worry about civil war.

      1. Worried about the refugee crisis getting worse than the Vietnam Draft refugees?

  7. I think you will only get a proper reading like this from California and maybe one or two other places. Sorry to say but that’s about it.

    The founders (the guys who went to Philly) were mostly a secular bunch in the later stages of the enlightenment period. They were an educated group who knew how religion controlled and screwed up Europe since forever. They wanted nothing in the document that was religious in tone and there is no god in the document.

    Please also remember these folks were not doing Democracy, this was a bad word to most of them. They were attempting to create a republic. Even George Washington, one of the lesser educated of them, had little to do with church and never belonged to one.

    I think it was Ben Franklin who said something about having a proper person to open the meetings with a prayer and Alexander Hamilton said they didn’t need any help.

      1. Vestryman was also a political office in colonial Virginia. Interesting reading:

        “When Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington attended the Episcopal Church, The rector, Dr. Abercrombie, told me that on the days when the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was to he administered, Washington’s custom was to arise just before the ceremony commenced, and walk out of the church. This became a subject of remark in the congregation, as setting a bad example. At length the Doctor undertook to speak of it, with a direct allusion to the President. Washington was heard afterwards to remark that this was the first time a clergyman had thus preached to him, and he should henceforth neither trouble the Doctor or his congregation on such occasions; and ever after that, upon communion days, ‘he absented himself altogether from church.'”
        –Rev. Dr. Wilson, “The Religions of the Presidents” (1831)

  8. I’m also ‘chuffed’ to see atheism being both addressed and supported. I waited warily for some sly little “most atheists never criticize religion but just want to live in peace” pseudo-praise dig but no, it was untainted (I personally use the capital ‘G’ when referring to a main, foundational version of God in order to be clearer in discussions which can and do involve lesser gods.)

    Because of the widespread and unwarranted credibility given to the lazy virtue of faith, many Americans seem to hate atheism and atheists … and atheists who talk about atheism. We can’t win.

    “I don’t see how any reasonable person could not believe in God; atheism makes no sense.”

    “Let me explain …”

    “Stop! Why can’t you atheists just shut up and leave us alone? We’d be fine with you if you’d only do that.”

  9. This is great to see after the recent anti-atheist vitriol in the US, and quite heartening.

    The Bill mentioned is similar to the one in Arizona earlier this year. It would allow discrimination if someone could show they were doing it on the basis of their closely held religious beliefs. Where have we heard that before? It means, not only can a photographer refuse to take pictures for a gay wedding, a medical “professional” could refuse to treat a LGBT person, atheist etc, a hospital could turn them away, a paramedic could ignore them. In Arizona it was realizing non-Christian religions could take advantage of the Act that did the Bill in. This latest abomination (I use the word deliberately) still has to get past the senate and governor, so even though it’s the deep south, there’s hope.

    1. Well, and the bit called out, that the law would not be construed to transgress the state or federal constitution, likely means that even if it were to pass, it would not be a legitimate defense for a person or institution charged with a civil rights violation. In other words, another empty political gesture to believers and rubes.

      1. The phrase at the end isn’t a gesture to believers and rubes, its a gesture to the judicial branch. An attempt by legislators to prevent the courts from finding a rule unconstitutional. And IIRC, it’s never worked in the past.

  10. The moment religion becomes mandatory instead of voluntary is the moment is ceases to be religion and instead becomes oppression. Beside, the U.S. Constitution is not based on Biblical principles. Seven of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional for starters. (Read: “What Do You Do with a Chocolate Jesus?” on Amazon.)

  11. Imo, religion has a legitimate role in criticizing the government. Once it becomes part of the government, there is a conflict of interest. Then, it becomes about retaining power. This is why secularists who are also religious (correctly) support the separation of Church and state.

    As for any move towards theocracy, all I can say do is quote, “Be careful what you wish for…”.

    1. You got it, Heather. Separation of church and state takes the power of government away from churches; it de-claws religion. And it protects religion by assuring that all faiths, not just those with gov’t approval, are free to flourish.

Comments are closed.