Quote:
Originally Posted by Toymented
No reason for atheists to apologize, I see we agree on that. But the rest comes off as insecurity.
|
Was it insecurity when "under God" was put in the Pledge? Is it insecurity to start Congressional sessions with a prayer? Is it insecurity to end a political speech with "God bless the USA!"? Maybe, but I suspect that to the extent that it is not heartfelt (and it may occasionally be, even for politicians), or pandering (most common), it is an assertion of the dominance of religion. If someone ended a political speech with "Everyone be the best you can be, 'cause there's no God to bail us out!", that would be viewed with shock and horror, and possibly be the end of their career.
Quote:
|
When you see straight and others don't, use it to your advantage. Don't waste resources trying to convert the masses. Market forces are at work here.
|
Theists own the market. There is only one (admitted) nonbeliever in Congress, and he only admitted it recently, after years in office. And he's an ornery guy.
Coincidence? No. George H. W. Bush felt perfectly safe saying that he didn't think atheists should be considered citizens or patriots. Who would be willing to say the same about, say, Quakers? Even though, for the type of person anxious to denigrate another's patriotism, Quaker pacifism would seem to be a more logical target. In this sort of environment, the type of person willing to break through that attitude is either going to be an ornery bastard or a saint. And there aren't many saints in Congress.
The semi-anonymity of the web has made it easier for atheists to "publicly" discuss the role of religion in society, so such discussion can be a lot more fair. The non-abrasive tone can be heard. But where has that penetrated into the national discourse? Can someone without what you term "insecurity" get equal time, much less a favorable forum in the national media?