The Atheist Agenda

By Emily Cadik

Emily Cadik

Driving down Interstate 45, about 30 miles north of Houston, one can look out the car window to see a replica of the statue of Michelangelo's David atop an Oshman's sporting goods store at the Portofino shopping center. While this paradoxical blend of commercialism and classical art is amusing on its own, there is much deeper irony here; one can see upon closer inspection that David's genital region is adorned with a large alabaster fig leaf. A local right-wing religious coalition, offended by David's lack of clothing, somehow associated this with a projected spread of homosexuality and, by yet another leap of logic, linked this to a likely increase in child molestation. After they made vocal objections and threats to boycott the shopping center, this homage to their "religious" values was installed. However, the fig leaf now has the unintended distinction of drawing even more attention to David's nether regions and making him look more virile. In that sense, the coalition's agenda backfired. But the fig leaf does serve as a permanent reminder of the omnipresence of religious influence in society. This presumptuous guardianship in the name of religion, though seemingly inane, indicates the great successes of religion in controlling so many aspects of public life. In a country where religion is so pervasive, growing up as an atheist is quite a challenge.

My parents are both atheists, which has led some to suppose that this would make my decision to be an atheist easy. But this is not the case. Being the only atheist kid on the block is an onerous experience, because atheists experience discrimination unlike that of other minority groups. Though every minority experiences some form of discrimination, the tormenting of atheists is much more subtle and, consequently, much harder to address. Fortunately for atheists, they cannot be identified at first glance and can thus avoid that particular burden felt by many groups. However, most minority-outreach and tolerance programs do not extend their compassion to atheists, since the atheist's predicament is one of personal choice and thus held in lower esteem than most minority groups. For example, most people consider discrimination toward Jews and Muslims bigoted and ignorant, but they accept intolerance toward atheists. When people claim that atheists have no morals, that they hate America and its founding fathers, or that they are not actually protected by the law, few rally to the atheists' defense.

Atheists also are ostracized through the omnipresence of monotheistic thought in what should be a secular society. Despite the constitutional prohibition against any "law respecting an establishment of religion" and the guarantee that religious ideology be excluded from civic, tax-supported institutions, religion manifests itself in nearly every aspect of society. While monotheism, specifically Christianity, is not an officially sanctioned state-run religion, the government sanctions its integration with state institutions to the point where it is a seemingly permanent fixture of our democracy. Evidence of this is ubiquitous: "In God We Trust" engraved on our currency, the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the minutes of silence held by many public schools, the prayer in Congress, state mottoes invoking deity, the Ten Commandments found on plaques in courthouses and other public buildings. The idea behind each is that God has a place in government institutions, and supporters of such ideology argue that our founding fathers incorporated God into our founding documents. In response to allegations that this is unconstitutional, some have actually argued that the expression "freedom of religion" does not guarantee freedom from religion. They imply that as long as one has any sort of monotheistic belief, no matter how absurd, he/she is protected by the law, whereas the one who chooses atheism is not. These misguided patriots claim: "If atheists do not like the integration of religion and government institutions, they can simply take their depraved beliefs elsewhere." Or they could join the Church of Scientology, because even belief in a religion merging Christian dogma with extraterrestrials warrants more protection under the law than atheism.

Some also argue that our founding fathers incorporated God into our founding documents, and this is justification for tributes to God in all parts of public life. In fact, the Constitution contains no mention of God--a deliberate omission by authors who understood the importance of protecting the new government from the grasp of religious zealotry. (Perhaps those who believe God is in the Constitution are confusing it with the Declaration of Independence, which is not the basis for our government.) Evidently, the idea of a secular government, though upholding the original intent of the founders, is not popular in America. Consequently, atheists are bombarded with references to a deity whom they believe is nonexistent; it comes not only from society, but also from the government that is supposed to shield them from such infringements.

Society's lack of tolerance for non-religious thought can also be seen in the scarcity of nonreligious public officials. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in reference to the "under God" clause in the Pledge, claimed "that doesn't sound divisive." Michael Newdow, the California atheist suing to remove the clause, replied, "That's only because no atheists can be elected to office." Though no federal law specifically prohibits atheists from holding office, the religious ardor of the majority of Americans ensures the validity of Newdow's assertion. When Howard Dean was the presumptive Democratic nominee, a Newsweek interview about his proposed policies and qualifications for president ended with the question: "Do you see Jesus Christ as the son of God and believe in him as the route to salvation and eternal life?" The interviewer asked this question only after rumors circulated that Dean was not acceptably religious. With such a limited number of questions, the inclusion of this question gives as much import to religion as to Dean's plans for running the country.

But the emphasis on religiosity in those running for office is nothing new. No nonChristian, much less any proclaimed atheist, has ever held the office of President of the United States. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center reveals that 52% of Americans express reservations about voting for a candidate who has no specific religion, as opposed to one with a particular faith, even if that candidate's ideology best matched their own. Although officials are elected to deal with policy issues rather than religious ones, Americans prefer religious beliefs similar to their own when choosing a candidate. This pattern is discouraging to an atheist with aspirations to be a qualified and capable elected official, but who suspects that Americans demand that their leaders' religious views and political views go hand-in-hand. One hoping to hold government office would be wise to keep atheist views quiet.

Perhaps both a cause and an effect of the scarcity of conspicuous atheists, the misconceptions surrounding atheism are startling and often amusing. There exists a dearth of atheists who identify themselves as such and who are willing to discuss their beliefs, which I realized when I was told on multiple occasions that I was the first atheist that some people have ever met. This position afforded me the opportunity to explain to such people that atheism and ethical behavior are not mutually exclusive--a concept that many people cannot seem to grasp. They are unreceptive to the idea that one can be highly moral without religion, though they cannot actually demonstrate why the desire to be helpful, honest, compassionate, and responsible is necessarily acquired through belief in God. As a volunteer at a Hand-Me-Up Shop, I worked alongside a group of Mormon missionaries who, despite my attempts to explain that I had no ulterior motive in wanting to help disadvantaged people, were not convinced that I would consider doing so except out of love for Jesus or some other deity. This demonstrates very little real faith in humanity, and was insulting to me personally. Their comments led me to believe that they would probably be receptive to arguments that I am a moral person because I hold some God-based religious belief even if it were not their own, but would be unable to comprehend how I could live a moral life and still support the notion that God might not even exist.

Moreover, many do not understand how parents could possibly instill a sense of morals in their children without simultaneously instilling in them a belief in God. As I was growing up, my parents showed me the virtues of the aforementioned values while at the same time making clear to me that religious beliefs should be decided upon when I felt I was ready to do so. Recently, I was discussing religious upbringing with some friends. They were debating what to do in the case of a mixed marriage--would they raise their kids Christian or Jewish? When I asked them why they had to pick one or the other and why they could not just let their kids decide, they suggested that morals are simply too difficult for children to understand and accept if not embedded in religion. Their logic was similar to the missionaries, in that they found such good unlikely to emerge from humanity were it not for belief in God. As a highly ethical atheist, I find these insults to character and to intellect are all too common.

Such prejudices toward atheists were widespread in the town where I grew up, The Woodlands, Texas, which epitomizes Christian suburbia. Until high school, members of my family were the only atheists I knew, so I was usually the first nonChristian friend that some of my friends had ever had. This caused great distress to the parents of some of my friends, who expressed serious reservations about having a nonbeliever befriending their children. At the time, I rarely admitted that I did not believe in God--I merely claimed that I was still figuring things out. And although they must have noticed that I hesitated to attend church with them the morning after a Saturday night sleepover, they persisted in inviting me to religious events at every opportunity, or asked me if I'd like to lead them in saying grace whenever I joined them for dinner. Either they could not conceive of a child or a family who did not participate in religious activities, or they hoped their efforts would sway my beliefs. In either case, it became clear that atheism was not welcomed.

Atheists frequently find themselves in similarly uncomfortable situations, since most ceremonies and formalities involve religion to some degree. Graduations, convocations, funerals, court trials, and sometimes even typical school days involve some form of prayer. While atheists are supposedly free to opt out of praying, the peer pressure and the disapproving glances are undeniable. When atheists choose not to bow their heads or fold their hands or make whatever gesture is appropriate for a moment of prayer, they are considered disrespectful; in fact, at these moments, it is the atheist's rights that are often directly disrespected. Exercising the right to practice religion freely is accepted and even encouraged, until one chooses to practice no religion at all. This judgment is coercive, to say the least.

I encountered this disdain during the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in high school. Since I'd been reciting the pledge from a young age, it did not occur to me until my later high school years that all along I had been acknowledging God in my morning rituals. Shortly after, I ceased reciting the "under God" clause. This did not go over well with my teachers. Teachers assumed my decision was meant to be deliberately disrespectful, but when I tried to explain my motives, they were generally dismissive. They acted as if anyone who chose not to participate in such an "American" ritual was deliberately rebellious, insolent, and unpatriotic.

Essentially, atheists are one of the least cherished components of the melting pot that is America. Sadly, because religion and government are so deeply integrated, and most of society is content with this, a drastic change of attitudes is unlikely in the near future. The fig leaf on David in Portofino is certainly not the first, and presumably will not be the last, of its kind. We atheists will persist in raising awareness of our situation in personal ways--in the form of discussions, civil disobedience (abstaining from the pledge), and vocal objection to government actions.

Emily Cadik is a sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, majoring in government and a liberal arts honors program. Emily writes, "I am the PR Director of University Democrats, the treasurer of Voices for Choice, and I have two internships--one with the Texas Democratic Party and one with Protex, a progressive nonprofit that works for criminal justice reform, tax fairness, and universal health care.

"I focus both my education and my extracurricular activities on politics, in hopes that I will someday influence public policy, showing that it is entirely possibly to be a hard-working, productive, and helpful member of society and still be an atheist. Indeed, I want to fight for freedom in many forms--freedom of speech, freedom of sexual orientation, freedom over one's body, and freedom from religion."

Emily was awarded the Phyllis Grams Memorial award, a $1,000 scholarship prize, in the Foundation's annual college essay competition.