Of Atheists and Anti-theists

There has been a lot of discussion lately of a "schism" amongst the atheist movement that I find to be quite disturbing. This so-called schism is between atheists who share the idea that god does not exist and the atheists who are against anything to do with god.

Now of course these are pretty broad descriptions so of course I invite discussion on this topic. But here is the thing, this isn't a schism of atheism or some new group called "The New Atheists". This other group are simply anti-theists. Because I am an atheists who believes in reason I will break the words down to show that this is exactly what this other group is.

Obviously both words share the base word theism, which means the belief in at least one deity. Now atheism has the prefix "a-" which means to be without or the absence of. So atheism truly means to be with the belief in any god. On the other hand the prefix "anti-" means to be against. So anti-theism is to be against the belief in any god. Looking at this analysis it appears that atheism is far more passive where one is just simply without the belief as if it is just absent from the person. Whereas anti-theism is far more active where someone is pushing against the belief.

Now you look at the two movements that are discussed in many articles about this schism (including the article at NPR.org ) and you will find that the group that ridicules religion and has much contempt for religion is more of an anti-theist than someone who simply has the belief in god absent from their lives. Activities like Blasphemy Day is more anti-theist (and quite immature). The more passive group tends to try to get the word out about the existence of non-believers. They want to show that we are just as good of people as anyone else.

Now, I don't write all of this to say that the anti-theists are bad people or doing anything wrong. However, they are making a bad name for atheists. Who cares if we're accommodating to the theists about certain issues? We're not harming anyone by doing so. We still fight for the theists to rationalize their views reasonably in public discourse by making sure that using the "god" crutch for an argument is no allowed. But we do recognize their right to exist as theists and that there is nothing wrong to believe in things unproven, its just that we choose not to believe that ourselves. If we can't admit these types of ideas that what are we even doing with the movement?

God, Our Money, and Our Pledge

I just got done answering a poll about whether the US should omit "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and naturally I said that it should be omitted. To me it isn't just the fact that I don't believe and God or religious figure has a place in the US government but the fact that the general population feels that the current pledge is the original. After proving to the many other people that answered this poll that "Under God" was in fact added in 1954 and showing them what the original pledge was, there still was no budge in their stance. I asked questions like "What about getting in touch with the heritage of the Pledge?" and "What is so bad about the original version?" but to no avail.

The religious people in this country still feel its better to have God in everything because of how important God is to this country (at least that's the opinion I hear most). Well I decided to delve into the constitutional issue of the legislation of such phrases as "Under God" and "In God We Trust". I figured since the pledge of allegiance and what is put on our money is legislated and endorsement of religion would have to be taken up by the Supreme Court. And low-and-behold it has. The case is Lynch v Donnelly and was brought before the Court in 1984. The case is directly related to the use of religious symbols during holidays but Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in his dissenting opinion, offered his explanation as to why some religious reference is allowed to be legislated. Here is his quote:

...I would suggest that such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form a "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.

What struck me was the fact that the Justice seemed to be minimize the meaning of God when used in such practices such as placing "In God We Trust" on our currency and "Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. Based on the arguments that most religious supporters of those phrases, they tend to feel the use shows a reverence to their Almighty. In reality the US government stance is that God has no religious meaning and is more a tradition that shouldn't be broken.

If this is the stance of the US government then if I were to a believer then I would want them to take the phrases aways instead of fighting to keep them in law. Since there is a diminished recognition of a higher power to the point of lacking any religious content then I would ask the government to not mock my God.