RSS Feed
For Secular Americans, Lip Service Beats No Service
About a month before this recent election, some local progressives in South Carolina asked if I would help Democrat Linda Ketner in her Congressional campaign against conservative incumbent Republican Henry Brown. At first they thought I was joking when I said I didn't even plan to vote for her, and would leave blank that portion of my ballot. They ticked off a number of issues on which Ketner was better than her opponent. I agreed, even adding a couple of my own. My problem with Ketner was a 30-second TV ad in which she proclaimed her love of God three times.
I have gradually begun withdrawing support from otherwise acceptable candidates who make personal religious beliefs a focal point of their campaigns. In taking a longer view, I described how the Religious Right moved beyond merely saving souls to becoming a formidable political force. My friends discounted this reasoning. The Religious Right may have been thrown a few crumbs by politicians, they said, but mainly all they have received in return for their support is lip service. When my companions asked if I, an atheist, would settle for so little, I replied without hesitation: "YES! We'll take lip service!"
I would be thrilled to see politicians court us by accepting invitations to speak at atheist and humanist conferences, as they do at religious events. I would love to hear them say we were founded as a secular nation, with no mention of any gods in our Constitution, and speak about the value of separating religion from government. I'd be delighted to hear them defend atheists and agnostics from our detractors, reminding Americans that freedom of conscience extends to citizens of all faiths and none.
Yes, even if their words changed nothing about public policy, lip service would be a wonderful new dimension in the relationship between politicians and secular Americans--it would mean public acknowledgement that we exist. It might even lead to the occasional political crumb: an elected official hiring advisers who are openly humanist, for example. Just this minimal level of recognition could go a long way toward changing the hearts and minds of people who assume god belief to be a prerequisite for morality and ethical behavior.
Why would secular Americans like me set the bar so low? Because we have no direction to go but up. Political candidates are happy to accept our contributions, our volunteer hours, and our votes - as long as we put bags over our heads. ("Thanks," they say quietly. "You understand why I can't ...." ) They behave this way partly because they underestimate our numbers, partly because polls show that Americans fear and distrust atheists, and partly because they think we have nowhere else to go.
What has generally been viewed as the most scurrilous activity of the 2008 campaign season occurred in North Carolina when an ad put out by the Elizabeth Dole campaign accused opponent Kay Hagan of associating with known atheists, implying that Hagan herself might be "godless," and that she might have promised something in return for the support of such "vile, radical liberals." Hagan's campaign responded that she is not an atheist and, in fact, is an active Christian.
That just sets the record straight; no problem so far. But then Hagan filed a lawsuit, claiming defamation of her good name and reputation in the community.
To see why atheists might be saying, "A plague on both your houses," consider this unrealistic hypothetical: Candidate A accuses Candidate B of consorting with Jews, and possibly even being one. Candidate B says she is a Christian, not a Jew, and files a defamation lawsuit because of the damage to her reputation in the community. Of course, no Candidate A in this country, at least not in this century, would attempt such an accusation; and no Candidate B would react as if the label "Jew" were understood by all to be an insult. You may substitute just about any other minority for "Jew" in this scenario to get a sense of the secular community's reaction to the squabbling between Dole and Hagan. If merely associating with nonreligious Americans is political suicide, and being mistaken for one of us constitutes "defamation," it's not hard to imagine many North Carolina voters making the same painful choice I did on November 4: leaving that part of the ballot blank.
More than 16% (over 50 million) of Americans are nontheistic. There are more atheists and agnostics than there are Jews, Presbyterians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Roman and Greek Orthodox combined in the United States. Some of these people were Elizabeth Dole's constituents, and now they are Kay Hagan's. In fact, secular Americans are a significant and growing part of every politician's constituency, and they deserve - and are beginning to insist upon - the same consideration politicians give to other citizens.
Lip service is where it will begin. Perhaps, one day, respect will follow.
Herb Silverman is a professor of mathematics at the College of Charleston and a former South Carolina gubernatorial candidate. He is also president of the Secular Coalition for America, a member of the American Humanist Association board of directors, founder of the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, and founder and faculty adviser to the College of Charleston student Atheist/Humanist Alliance.
By Herb Silverman |
November 6, 2008; 9:19 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: An Election-Eve Call to Reconciliation |
Next: Happy 90th Birthday, Daddy Bill
Posted by: nhorwitz | November 7, 2008 11:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have been a member of American Atheists for about 15 years, and from what I've observed, the percentage of Americans in the United States who identify themselves as atheists and humanists has not increased all that much. What has increased dramatically is the number of Christians who have become inactive or disaffected with their sects.
Americans in general still seem to react negatively to the name, "atheist". I think we should start calling ourselves "naturalists", because we only believe in natural things, not supernatural things. We should add that "atheist" is our old name, much the same as "Negro" is the old name for "black Americans." It may take decades for religious people to become accustomed to our new name, but it could happen.
The name "atheist" says what I am NOT: a theist, rather than what I AM: a person who acknowledges the validity of the natural sciences, including evolution. I sometimes tell people that I am a humanist as well as a naturalist, because humanism teaches that humans must rely on only themselves to benefit living things and the environment, instead of relying on help from one or more gods that humans have invented - mostly in ancient times when the causes of natural phenomena were little understood.
Stephen Clark
Salt Lake City, Utah
Posted by: henstep3103 | November 7, 2008 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You’re asking secular voters to put their religious views (meaning their rejection of) above their ideological party affiliation. This is a bold challenge, but isn’t it more practical to vote for a candidate who is more likely to support privacy laws, environmental action, and the Constitution?
Posted by: delasol | November 7, 2008 10:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Politicians cite their faith to build an alliance of identity. Few are actually practitioners of religion. Sometimes, their behavior is the opposite of the faith they profess. Sex scandals in the White House or being responsible for deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings by going to war are cases in point.
Most Americans theoretically believe in the separation of church and state. But it is applied only in theory. Time after time in elections religion is used to fool people.
Posted by: hsnkhwj | November 6, 2008 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anything can be like a religion to anyone. There was a Doctor Who episode in which a Soviet was protected from evil (spiritism of some sort?) by his faith in Communism, as much as a Christian would be protected by faith in Christ.
Cut the atheists a break. America was obviously a place for people escaping oppression to be left alone to follow their conscience. The Puritans could not practice Puritanism in England so they went first to Holland and then to America.
We seem to have forgotten that nowadays.
The Puritans subsequently went on to set up their own intolerant regime.
Noting the current state of gay marriage in California, when compared to America being a place for people to run away and be themselves, I'd say the "Puritans" have spoiled the paradise of tolerance. Have we learned nothing?
Do your own thing in private. I can't see you.... and it doesn't threaten me. And maybe you'll become Christians anyway.
Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | November 6, 2008 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Today's Tom Sawyer, mean, mean pride...
... his mind is not for rent, to any god or government...
Rush - Tom Sawyer - Song and Lyrics
Posted by: FRIENDENEMY | November 6, 2008 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I expect "athiest/agnostic or non-believer" to be mentioned when a politian goes through the list of belief systems during a speech.
I no longer expect to be left out or used as an example of a bad association to a politian.
We are hard-working, moral, and patriotic families.
Posted by: FRIENDENEMY | November 6, 2008 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"About time some of you guys spoke up."
Yeah, it's about time that all of us spoke up a little more. We nontheists / naturalists have been pushed to the back of the bus for decades now, not daring to speak up for fear of the public ostracization we would receive. We are the last remaining minority that society feels it is legitimate to discrimate against. Hopefully with BO in the Whitehouse, the extreme RR will continue to lose political power and give way towards the advancement of the nontheist agenda.
Posted by: ebleas | November 6, 2008 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
About time some of you guys spoke up. While I don't consider myself an atheist (more agnostish/Jewish- if there is such a thing), I've also had a real problem about this. I am very distrustful of the whole religious right movement, but to be honest, even those good people who are more religiously liberal seem to think agnostics and atheists are bad for the country and the soul. It's patently wrong.
Dole's ad was disgusting on several levels- first, because it was an outright lie. secondly, because it made atheist out to be some sort of terrorist enemy of the state. The whole campaign was filled with it and I have to say, other than some very basic references to his religion, Obama did not run on the "G-d is on our side" ticket. thank G-d :-)
I think Obama is going to be a great president but I am also hoping he acts as a leader for all Americans whether or not they believe in G-d. And that he will have the same courage Colin Powell did when he spoke out about what would be so wrong if Obama had been a Muslim?
I'm sure the religious wingnuts will have a field day over here as they did on poor Tim Harrison's blog (and he is an evangelical!)
Posted by: sparrow4 | November 6, 2008 10:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
You have made a good case for the value of 'lip service' but your article totally fails to address the issue of whether you should support candidate A who is much better than candidate B but does not satisfy your need for recognition. I assume the country would be better off regarding the environment, broader health care coverage, concern for global warming, etc with candidate A. I can see no rational reason for damaging the country by helping candidate B. No rational reason for not helping someone who is preferable in some areas and, at least no worse in one area of concern to you.