How about some freedom from those who mock religion? (Journal-Sentinel Opinion)

[WillParkinson]

How about some freedom from those who mock religion?

Posted: July 24, 2009

I suppose it's futile for a churchgoer like me to offer a little, friendly, non-religious advice to the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, the group of atheists and agnostics and so-called freethinkers who are in the news again.

The foundation is asking a Wisconsin federal judge to keep the words "In God We Trust" off the new visitors center at the U.S. Capitol. The group also recently sent a letter to Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan asking him to prohibit prayer at the beginning of legislative sessions and has made similar requests of local politicians everywhere from La Crosse to Dodge County.

The advice: At least pretend not to think that people who believe in God are the equivalent of dogs.

The thing is, even smart people who believe in God usually have enough of a mind to believe in a firm separation of church and state. They might argue, as I would, that historical and largely ceremonial references to trusting in something other than themselves are not the same as attempts to establish any sort of state religion, but they also acknowledge there are two sides of the debate. It's true, too, that preachers should be prohibited from invoking Jesus or Buddha or Allah where our politicians make our laws. Most fair-minded people might say the freethinkers are being reasonable about that.

Until they see some of the e-mails the Janesville politician is receiving.

The foundation posted Sheridan's e-mails on its Web site the other day. I, in turn, filed an open records request for any e-mails sent to his office and was given 10.

"Yo, The Honorable Mike Sheridan . . . Why do you have to bring your delusion with you to Assembly meetings," stated one from a guy named Richard, who quickly segued into a diatribe about transubstantiation being "witch-doctor mumbo jumbo." And ended by calling Sheridan a "dog."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/51616307.html


My reply:
Good morning Mr. Nichols,

In your recent article you wrote:

"The thing is, even smart people who believe in God usually have enough of a mind to believe in a firm separation of church and state. They might argue, as I would, that historical and largely ceremonial references to trusting in something other than themselves are not the same as attempts to establish any sort of state religion, but they also acknowledge there are two sides of the debate."

If what you state is true, sir, then I must ask this: What would people say if written on the side of the building it said "In Allah We Trust" or "In Odin We Trust"?

I have heard over and over again how this is "historical and largely ceremonial", yet never have I heard why it has to be "God" then.

I believe this is more along the lines of trying to move one persons deity of choice into public view over all others. I believe that placing "In God We Trust" is akin to placing a cross on the side of a building. People can claim it is ceremonial and historic, but it's not.

I can almost guarantee you that if you placed another deity on the side of a public building there would be a great outcry. The question you have to ask yourself is "Why?"

Thank you for your time, sir.

Will Bowden
Milwaukee WI

[charlie]

1. Nicely done

Civil, reasonable, and without words like Yorkie or Pomeranian. Mr Nichols must be crestfallen :D

But seriously, the pullquote you reference sticks in my craw:

The thing is, even smart people who believe in God usually have enough of a mind to believe in a firm separation of church and state. They might argue, as I would, that historical and largely ceremonial references to trusting in something other than themselves are not the same as attempts to establish any sort of state religion, but they also acknowledge there are two sides of the debate.

Well, no. E Pluribus Unum was our de facto, if not official, motto, and was testament to our trust in unity from diversity. High concept and good enough for everybody, until the God botherers prevailed. And prevail they did -- this is from the sponsor of legislation that mandated IGWT on currency just a year earlier:

In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and to destroy freedom, it is proper for us to seek continuously for ways to strengthen the foundation of our freedom. At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and by His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail. To remind all of us of this self-evident truth, it is proper that our currency should carry these inspiring words, coming down to us through our history: "In God We Trust."

Nichols might enjoy pretending the motto is "historical and largely ceremonial", but he certainly knows better. Your point that it may as well be an appeal to Odin shouldn't sit well with him, if he's honest enough to acknowledge the motto WAS a move to institutionalize Christianity.

Here's the FFRF cartoon he mentions, BTW:

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2009/junejuly/

To say that it concurs with his letter writer that believers are "dogs" is martyrdom on the cheap.

[WillParkinson]

2. Hm. I do not see it saying the person is a dog...

I see it saying that the person will use any opening to get into the building.

Guess perception is in the eyes of the ones who want to be martyrs.

[drm604]

3. You should have called him a Cretan Hound

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/cretanhound.htm

(Yes, I know "Cretan" means someone from Crete and that the word I'm thinking of is "cretin". It's called a pun.)

[Soylent Brice]

4. to add to that

instead of starting the legislative session with a xian prayer, allow a muslim to lead the prayer.

let's see how they'd react to that as well.

Mr. Nichols is just a baby who thinks he's being persecuted. more fake outrage from a xian, pushing back on the inevitable change to come - life without fairy tales.

[and-justice-for-all]

5. I am sure Dan Barker would like to educate whomever wrote that LTTE..

and I have to agree with FFRF.

I find any Government involvement in religion disturbing and unconstitutional.