Lucky for you, the U.S. is not a Christian nation

In the United States, we’re supposed to have a strict separation of Church and state.  Our founding fathers specifically established our country as a secular nation that was neutral on religion. The very first part of the first amendment reads, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ No where else in the Constitution (our system of laws) is religion mentioned (artfully crafted messages to King George don’t count).

In other words, the government is not allowed to tell us how or when to worship.

Nonetheless, some people wish the United States were not a secular nation. They’d like the U.S. to adopt a national religion, which they think will be theirs. I say, let’s play along. 

If we’re going to establish a state religion, the obvious question is: which religion should it be? Traditionally, that answer was ‘whatever the leader’s religion happens to be’. However, we live in a democracy so perhaps it should be majority rule. Fair enough.

At first glance, it may seem as if the majority of citizens would welcome the United States officially adopting the Christian religion. According to the latest data by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, that group makes up 78% of the populace, if you count all Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and their offshoots. However, the dissimilarities between those groups is so great that it would be meaningless to lump them together. We're going to have to be a little more specific if we expect our citizens to follow any particular set of laws. 

Within Christianity, the largest religious affiliation is Protestant (44%). Great, we’re all Protestants. Of course, different Protestant denominations have quite different rules. I mean, do we all have to speak in tongues like the Pentecostals? Can we not go to the doctor like Christian Scientists? Do we have to be pacifists like Quakers? Or what about one of the other two dozen Protestant denominations? They disagree on some pretty fundamental things, like whether gay people can be ministers, whether you can shop on Sunday and whether your faith requires you to handle venomous snakes. Maybe we need to look at the biggest subgroup within Protestantism and go with that. That means we all get to be Baptists (11%). I hope nobody minds that we will no longer be baptizing infants.

Except, hold on a minute, if we’re no longer considering all Protestants as one block, that gives Catholics (24%) a considerable lead. In fact, even the unaffiliated (atheist, agnostic and ‘nothing in particular’-16%) outnumber the Baptists. Since we said we’d go with majority rule, I guess the United States will be a Catholic country. Evolution and cosmology are in, contraceptives and divorce are out. 

The 76% of the country who aren’t Catholic probably aren’t going to be too happy about this, and I suspect that a fair number of people who are Catholic won’t be that excited about it either, once the government starts enforcing Catholic dogma. But there’s one thing I do know. Religious people will find the new regime a lot more oppressive than we atheists will. 

Don’t forget, once the government establishes a religion, all citizens would be expected to follow that religion. If that’s not the one that you happen to adhere to, you could be in big trouble. Face the consequences of the state for failing to obey their religious laws, or face the consequences set forth by your particular religion.

Even if we went with majority rule, at least three quarters of the country would be deeply unhappy with any particular set of enforced dogma. The fact that there are so many factions within each denomination (which I didn’t even address) suggests that only a tiny minority of people would actually agree with any particular state religion.

As an atheist, I may consider being forced to attend Mass to be a nuisance and a waste of time, but I won’t lose any sleep over it. Depending on the penalties, I may even choose to lie and pretend that I find the rituals meaningful. Again, it’s no more than an annoyance to me. If you’re forced to practice a religion that you strongly believe will result in divine retribution against you or your loved ones, can you say the same?

The great thing is that, thanks to the wisdom of our founding fathers, we don’t have to have these battles of conscience. As long as the government is secular, we can all practice our own religions as we see fit. Once again, neutrality means we all win.

Wherein I compare the secular community to the GOP

You don’t often find parallels between the atheist community and the Republican party. However, recent events place them in a surprisingly similar light with respect to their potential members.

Let’s look at the atheists first.

In recent years, secular, atheist and humanist women have rightfully demanded that they be given a greater voice within their communities. This culminated in the Women in Secularism 2 conference, which took place in Washington, DC last month. I wasn’t in attendance, so my information comes from the multitude of blogs and tweets about the event. According to most accounts, the opening speaker, Ronald Lindsay (President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, which sponsored the conference) chastised the attendees for trying to silence men. I say ‘most accounts’ because Lindsay feels otherwise.*

This isn’t the place for a primer on the problems women and minorities have faced within the secular community. I bring the story up to compare it with a similar event, this time courtesy of the Republican party.

The GOP lost the last presidential election by five million votes. Much of that loss was due to their particularly poor showing among younger voters (teens and twenty year olds). The College Republican National Committee (CRNC) put out a report explaining why this was so. Briefly, young people don’t think the GOP cares about them or represents their interests. 

How did the GOP react to this news?

Here’s one example, courtesy of Bill O’Reilly:

So why should I care about this study, or why should the Republican Party care about a bunch of kids who don’t know anything?

In case it isn’t clear, the CRNC’s report was conducted by and for Republicans. It’s explicit purpose was to help the GOP regain the trust of younger voters. From the report’s introduction: 

We believe that Republicans can win young voters but that it will require a significantly different approach than has been used in recent elections. In this report, we propose what such an approach would entail and offer research-based insights that can guide Republicans wishing to find success with a new generation. 

Let’s compare O’Reilly’s comment to one by Lindsay: 

[They] assume you should never question, you should never argue back, because the person from the marginalized group must have the expertise.

As with the GOP, the people who were complaining about Lindsay’s talk at Women in Secularism 2 genuinely want their community to flourish. Their goal isn’t to aid and abet the enemy. They want more people to join their ranks. Scolding them for informing you about the feelings of people you need to court in order to stay relevant is shortsighted and unhelpful. While there are many effective strategies for growing a community, having a tantrum about dissenting views is not one of them.

Lindsay doesn’t speak for all secularists anymore than O’Reilly speaks for all Republicans. However, they are both in positions to guide their communities toward greater inclusion, something both organizations desperately need right now. The question is: will either group listen?

*Lindsay's full Women in Secularism 2 speech.

Neutrality does not mean the atheists win

A Muslim, a Christian and an atheist went into a community center...No, this isn’t the start of a joke, but of a real conversation that took place not long ago. I’ll be playing the part of the atheist.

A Muslim friend of mine mentioned that, until recently, board meetings at her work in a public facility had begun with a Christian prayer. However, people had complained and the board had agreed to stop the practice. A Christian friend had listened to this and agreed that it made sense not to have explicitly Christian prayers. She could understand how such a practice would be alienating to non-Christians like our mutual Muslim friend. However, she pointed out, you can’t have no prayers at all because “then the atheists would win.”

Really? If no religion is favored, that’s a win for atheism? It’s not as if the board meetings would start with someone saying, ‘Before we begin, I’d like us all to take a moment to acknowledge that there are no gods.’ 

My Christian friend’s attitude pervades our culture. When the U.S. Army recently ruled that their weaponry could no longer bear references to bible verses, this was taken as an attack on Christianity. Never mind that these inscribed weapons were being used in Muslim countries. Not exactly a good PR move.

By the same token, Christian groups often oppose efforts to prevent school bullying or to promote understanding and acceptance. Any attempt to curb their ability to proselytize or force others to accept their viewpoint is seen as persecution. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association went so far as to claim that “anti-bullying policies become a mechanism for punishing Christian students.”

You know you hold a privileged position in society when you think that not being allowed to bully others is a form of discrimination.

The reality is that it isn’t just the atheists who win when no religion is promoted. We all do. When no specific religion is mentioned, each person is free to think about their own particular religion and no one feels excluded. 

Good news for atheists

Perhaps you’ve heard the good news. According to Pope Francis, even atheists can go to heaven.  Of course, as an atheist, I don’t believe in any afterlife, let alone heaven. It’s a bit like being told I get to go to Middle-earth. Nevertheless, I think most atheists are pleased by the surprisingly favorable shout-out.

I don’t claim to know what prompted the Pope to make this rather extraordinary pronouncement. Perhaps he thought this news would entice the growing numbers of atheists to join the Catholic church. Though even if we did secretly believe in heaven, a common misconception about atheists, thanks to Francis’ homily, we don’t need to join the church to get there. We just have to do good deeds. If that's not a win-win situation, I don't know what is.

Whatever his motivation, the announcement did not sit well with church officials. The Vatican is busily walking back this statement from their infallible leader. Apparently, when he said atheists could get into heaven, what he really meant was that they could get into heaven after converting to Catholicism and accepting Jesus. 

To be honest, I don’t mind either way. I think it’s nice that the Pope acknowledged that we atheists exist and that it’s possible for us to be good people. That’s progress.