Jim Crow Heathen

It is one thing for Administration to meet with groups of varying viewpoints, but it is quite another for a senior official to sit down with activists representing some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation

Council Nedd — Chairman of the religious advocacy group In God We Trust.

Reading between the lines, what Mr. Nedd really meant was: It’s OK for the administration to meet with religious groups, but meeting with a group representing atheists, agnostics, or secularists is not acceptable. Get it? Our’s does not count as a legitimate viewpoint. In fact, bigots like Nedd and his ilk are so frightened by the notion of non-believers even being acknowledged in this nation, that they need to brand them as “hateful” just to ensure that nobody mistakes what is normal and acceptable—i.e., religiosity—and what isn’t.

And this is how it is in the United States. The last group against whom discrimination is not only acceptable, but actively encouraged, are non-believers. Think I’m full of it? Well numerous polls have shown that most Americans consider atheism to be sufficient reason, by itself, to vote against a particular candidate. In other words, a professed non-believer will never be president of this nation. In fact, many Americans believe that atheists and agnostics should be barred from teaching in public schools, barred from attaining public office, and, if the criminally stupid shenanigans at our military academies are an indication, barred from serving in our military.

“So keep ya’h heads down non-believers. Know yer place and don’t git uppity. Don’t act like y’all have the same rights as the faithful, and nobody’ll have a reason to teach ya’ a lesson.”

15 thoughts on “Jim Crow Heathen”

  1. Never say never. There are more atheists and agnostics all the time. That’s why the conservative religious get their panties all in a bunch about it. Of course, right now you still have to pass the faith test. And how about secular news outlets reporting how many times the president has attended church and such, even when no one has asked?

  2. Zenyenta! Long time, no read. On the topic: I couldn’t care less how many times Obama…or Bush…or Clinton…or anybody attends church, and I’d like to believe that nobody cares that I don’t. Sadly, it just ain’t so.

    Holte… Ironically, even atheists have faith. It’s not [a]theism for nothing. ;-) Probably why I’m an agnostic. No faith here either.

  3. The last group against whom discrimination should be acceptable and actively encouraged are the Widgets! Left-handed reactionary orchid-growing good at rollerblading Widget scum.

  4. There are still scattered laws on the books in different places in the USA that require stated belief in God in order to hold office. Of course, they’re Unconstitutional, but will not die easily.

  5. Holte… You know I never parsed the word that way. Is that the real root for the term? Well, either way, I find agnosticism to be the only logically defensible position. Atheism IMHO takes just as much faith as theism.

    Mr_Blog… OK I totally don’t get the reference.

  6. Blueberry… You know I’m a Texas again, right? (Just got my license switched over last week.)

    Is our fair state one of those states? Not that I would ever be able to hold office. I am reliably informed that, should I ever attain public office, most of my friends will emigrate, and not because I’m an agnostic. ;-)

  7. oooh, not sure if Texas is one of them, but it’s a fair bet we can’t get elected to any kind of statewide-responsible because of unsavory heathenism (and my latest blog post should ensure that I can never run for office). I doubt if Austin cares though (for local office anyway). Our mayor is a UU (or used to be) which doesn’t require belief in god(s). I don’t remember religion being brought up in local debates of that kind.

    So, you are here? Brownsville? San Antonio? Austin? What did I miss?

  8. This is one of the Right’s favorite talking points, using the “Hate” label on anyone who disagrees with them. Sarah Palin says anyone who disagrees with her is a “hater.” Homophobes were “shocked” that gay people reacted with such “hatred” towards Proposition 8 in California.

    So when Pat Robertson jumps for joy like a 4-year-old every time a natural disaster strikes, it’s Love.

    When a secular group pleads for tolerance, it’s Hate. OK, I think I’ve got it now.

  9. Blueberry… We’re back in El Paso right now, but in about a month we’ll take to the road again, and Austin is one of the places on our itinerary.

    When a secular group pleads for tolerance, it’s Hate. OK, I think I’ve got it now.

    Tom… True! But interestingly the narrative that the religious nuts are using against the non-believers, though it does include the “hate” label, is much more focused on propriety, morality, and exclusion–almost exactly the same as the tactics employed to keep blacks “in their place” for generations.

  10. By demonizing non-believers, they have effectively cut us out of the national dialogue. I’m sure that if more people stood up and proclaimed their non-faith loudly, those who hide their true feelings would feel it’s okay to stand up and say “I don’t believe either.” That would strike at the pocket books of people like Council Nedd, effectively stripping him and Bill Donohue of the power they crave.

  11. Personally I don’t believe it’s anyone’s business one way or another what religion a politician is. I mean if we have, (and will defend to the death) our religious freedom, what the Hell does it matter anyway?

  12. Lew… What’s the percentage? I’ve read everything from about 10% to 25%. Wouldn’t it be something if that latter number was the true number. Give the zealots something to worry about!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *