Pete's Blog

Hemant Mehta (whom I've referenced once before on my blog) posted yesterday about prayer happening at President-elect Obama's inauguration. He started off saying:

A couple weeks ago, Barack Obama picked Rick Warren to deliver his Inauguration's invocation prayer. The gay community was (rightfully) mad. At the same time, Obama announced that Rev. Joseph Lowery would give the benediction prayer. Lowery is a little better on gay issues, but he still opposes gay marriage.

Atheists were mad that prayer was being used in the inauguration in the first place: Why was he mixing church and state? (We even filed a lawsuit.)

Then, later in the post wrote:

What's the problem?

There shouldn't be prayer at these government gatherings in the first place.

Many are public events funded by taxpayer money. They should be free of religion.

He concluded the post urging his readers to donate money to atheist organizations.

First, as I've said before on this blog, I don't think it's inconsistent to let religion inform your sense of morality in a democracy. It's a democracy so the people should choose people who will accurately represent them. So, obviously I don't have a problem with God-language, prayer or religious overtones occurring in official government proceedings and documents. That said, I still wanted to make a simple case for why religious elements are not logically inappropriate in a government that has a separation of church and state. So I commented,

You said there's no place for religion. Why's there a place for no religion (i.e., atheism), then? Government should function on a type of charitable pluralism, not a secularism where everyone is so scared of controversy that they cannot even ask what religion another person is.

The reality is that there are many religions. Assuming that atheism is true, and running government as though it were (i.e., devoid of God-reference), does not solve the problem. (Just as assuming Christianity is true, which I think is accurate, and christianizing government would not work either.)

Basically my method is that whenever a freethinker (i.e., an atheist) says there should be no God-language in a democratic government, I want to respond back, "How would you take it if I said, 'There should only be God-language'? Or, to phrase it another way, 'There should be no non-God-language—atheist-language' (since atheism means no God). Are you trying to force your worldview on me, now?" I got mixed reactions.

First, "Government should be free of interference from all religions. Atheism is no more a religion than science is a religion." Again, how is this different from a theist saying there should be no interference from atheists? The logic of this rebuttal is inconsistent.

Next, someone quoted this from my comment: "Why's there a place for no religion (i.e., atheism), then?" And asked, "Do you even know what you're saying? I sure don't." Fun, fun.

The last one that was obviously directed at me said,

Pete: we're not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies, we're trying to disentangle them from religion entirely. I'd be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious as I am that it is pro-religious.

The goal is neutrality.

This person seems to think that the only way to stay neutral is to have no religion. Hmm, if an individual has no religion by decision, what is he? An atheist! He seems to say that the only way a government proceeding would be atheistic would be if it were anti-theistic (opposed to God, or, more specifically, opposed to theism, belief in God). He said, "we're not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies, . . . I'd be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious. . ."

Those are my quick rebuttals. I published more comments on Hemant Mehta's blog post which essentially give these responses.

All-in-all, I don't know why it's an issue. If a Jew were to pray at the inauguration it simply would not affect me. Rick Warren praying at Mr. Obama's inauguration, in their minds, shouldn't affect them, since they believe it has no true impact.

Lastly, Jefferson said that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. This same man had no problem reading Scripture (from his softened bible) at government proceedings. No one actually knows today exactly what he meant when he said that there should be a wall of separation, but it seems pretty obvious to most, that he wanted to protect the government from becoming the wing of a church.

A final word: Listen to Mohler talk about charitable pluralism and the following Q & A time.