I’m not the praying kind, but this example I found on Greg Laden’s blog strikes me as rather familiar. I do believe I’ve heard the sentiments from a great many apologetic quarters before.
A Prayer to the Faith Based
I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to offend you,
And you didn’t even ask for this but
I’m going to put in a plug for your beliefs
So that you won’t get too mad at me as I utter words
With which you or someone you know may not agree,
(No matter how utterly wrong you may happen to be)It is good that you are religious
And I will personally defend your right to believe
Whatever it is you do in fact believe,
And I affirm that it is OK to put
Phrases regarding your beliefs on my money
And for you to assume that
I will swear to your godwhen I am on jury duty
when I am drafted into the army
when I am elected to office
when I am in the witness stand
and whenever else I must affirm
that I am moral and will not lie.i Will Capitalize Your Word for God
And the Name of Your Holy Book
And Other Entities and Documents
As You Dictate These Rules To me.I offer this pandering to your particular beliefs,
regardless of what they may happen to be,
despite the fact that your cultural ancestors,
the mavens and leaders of one church or another,
burned at the stake or otherwise humiliated mine,
The early scientists and freethinkers,
I affirm this because I cannot at the moment
Remember where I put my spine.Amen.
Hey, it made me snort out loud. I think it represents well the attitude the theistic evolutionists want us ferocious militant types to take.
How about bite me, god-boy, instead?
“Theistic evolutionists vs. ferocious militants” strikes me as somewhat of a contrived duality. I think other paths are available. ISTM that showing people the joy of scientific understanding is the important thing, and that either smacking them frontally with “If you believe in God, you’re wrong!” or kowtowing by saying “Oh, belief in God is lovely, I believe too, let me show you His plan called Evolution,” are detours of questionable relevance.
Do you suppose it’d be acceptable for me, as an atheist, to say the following when asked to swear on the bible for something:
“Actually, no, I’m an atheist. Can I pick a different fictional character to swear to? I’ve always thought Gandalf was pretty honorable. Got a copy of LOTR handy? I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Gandalf. How’s that?”
I’m not sure I’d be put on many juries, were I to attempt that.
Sure, if your intent were to have an atheist like me decide that you just were trying to be a twit …
I have not yet been called for jury duty, sad to say, and personally I would like to try it out at least once.
Scott Belyea sounds just a little like the above-skewered apologists. Apparently it’s better to creep around the slumbering giant than to poke it with a stick and watch its weak, useless limbs flailing impotently.
I was called to jury duty in Chicago, told them I was an athieist, so they just had me affirm that what I was about to say was the truth etc.
It might be different down in Alabama though.
In most, possibly all, states you are not required to swear on a bible But your children may be required to make a pledge to the Abrahamic god each morning in the public school they attend. There is also a good chance that their science teacher has a cross on his or her desk, that they are required to learn christmas carols, and to make easter and christmas cards to take home at certain times of the year.
What my prayer concerns is the concept of “ouchless rationality” …
(http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=69)
It is not the worst problem in this world, but it is deeply annoying…
In this country, you are allowed to “affirm” if you are not a “believer” ……
Way too sensible.
“Actually, no, I’m an atheist. Can I pick a different fictional character to swear to? I’ve always thought Gandalf was pretty honorable. Got a copy of LOTR handy? I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Gandalf. How’s that?”
The problem is that the bible says that it’s wrong to swear by God’s name, or by various other religious icons, or to swear by / on anything at all. “Let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no” says Jesus.
So while you are covering the idiotic nature of the farce, you are missing out on the whole hypocrisy angle. You’d have to think of a fictional character who would hate the very idea of anyone swearing by his name.
I actually used to be a proper christian so I naturally refused to swear on the bible (or anything else) and was given the option to “affirm” the one time it came up — which was getting my first degree.
All of this dominionist crap is really nothing to do with what’s written in the bible. American “christianity” seems to be little more than a civil patriotic cult with bible based scenery. No real christian would ever swear on the bible.
You might as well title this ‘A Prayer to Non Sequitur’, since much of it doesn’t follow from the facts.
I get annoyed like the next guy, but that doesn’t justify spreading misinformation in order to protest that annoyance.
Non-believers do *not* have to affirm belief in order to vote, to testify in a court of law or to serve in the armed forces. Moreover, it is not a rule/law that one capitalize things like Jesus or the Bible, it’s just common practice. Surely capitalizing the Illiad or the name of Homer would not be seen as an affirmation of the Greek pantheon!
Now, the author does have a point when they refer to ‘In God We Trust’ and I was surprised that they didn’t also mention ‘under God’ as added to the Pledge. But it’s hard to see how complaining about things that don’t happen could ever help make a case against things that do happen. As it is, the whole thing sounds eerily reminescent of Christians who somehow convince themselves that they are an oppressed minority group.
Scott Hatfield: “Non-believers do *not* have to affirm belief in order to vote, to testify in a court of law or to serve in the armed forces.”
When I interned at ARL, the last line of the oath that I had to swear/affirm was “so help me God.” The one swearing me in thought it was a bit odd that they still had that in there.
I just became a U.S. Citizen and to my recollection was not given any opportunity to voice my oath concerns. I had my fingers crossed during that portion of the oath so I’m still an atheist, right? Wait a minute…”fingers crossed”…that sounds vaguely God-fearing. I might be in trouble.
“I have not yet been called for jury duty, sad to say, and personally I would like to try it out at least once.”
Careful…I got called for jury duty three days after i wondered aloud why I hadn’t.
I’ll ask for a copy of the constitution if I am asked to swear on anything.
I met a Canadian scientist working in the U.S. whose children were required to swear allegiance to the U.S. every morning. There didn’t seem to be any way to excuse citizens of other countries.
Of course they could have mumbled, “and to my Queen and country” but….
I’ve been trying cases for over 20 years, and I can’t recall the last time I saw anybody put his or her hand on anything before swearing or affirming. (Some judges or clerks ask “do you solemnly swear or affirm…”) Of course, most of my trial work is in the NYC area, not in America. On the other hand, my wife, who practices largely in the Bronx, says she sees Bible-swearing all the time.
I practice in Riverside County, California, and when people are sworn in to testify, the clerk ends with “so help you God.” There isn’t a whole lot I can do about it yet since I have not had to take any oath and have not had a client object.
Scott: “You might as well title this ‘A Prayer to Non Sequitur’, since much of it doesn’t follow from the facts. ”
The context of this missive is cultural, not legal. You are correct that it is a matter of tradition and not law.
Our culture does indeed have a tradition of expecting religiosity, typically christianity, or at least spirituality. For the broader context see the original post in which the prayer was first uttered. (murmured, really, more like murmured).
Over on the other thread — probably comment #300 — I noted again the story of Stephen Girard. Girard came to America first in 1776, and finding Philadelphia didn’t regard atheism as a capital crime as his native France did, he stayed. By 1812 he was among the richest people in the world — and it was his money that held our freedom in the War of 1812, when the U.S. otherwise ran out of money to finance the second war against Britain, to keep our freedom.
I don’t mind a little polite deference to religion in public places — but, please God, hold on to your atheist spines. Fighting for freedom is good for everybody, all the time. There’s a difference between being polite and caving in.
Don’t cave.
I’ve been sworn in to the military 5 times (I guess they really want to make sure that you’re sure). Once when I signed up, once when I was actually inducted, once when I became an officer, once when I joined the Regular Air Force, and once when I joined the Reserves. And I may be missing one that I don’t remember. What I would remember for sure is if there was any god talk in the oath. There isn’t. Never did understand why it’s considered to be proof of being truthful.
Greg, Monado,
at least in the state where I grew up, the school could *not* require a minor to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or put her hand on her heart or even stand up during the recitation. Ditto, national anthem at school assemblies.
Coerce, sure. What little kid wants to publicly opt out of “normal” expected behavior — before high school, anyway? But the teachers couldn’t require it.
Duh — what good is a loyalty oath if everybody HAS to make one?
(For the record, nobody said a word about my staying seated and silent in high school. Teachers, admin, peers, nobody.) (Nice blue state, even way back then.)
But on the OTHER other hand, being, y’know, Canadian would certainly provide a social “excuse” for not standing up and pledging, sufficient for the other kids to not sneer at you.
The thing that amazes me is the grown-ups who, presumablly, went through that as kids, yet have (apparently) forgotten that the whole excercise becomes meaningless to the kids forced to participate. You have to recite the same chant out loud — in unison — at the speed of the slowest kid in class (agonizing to an ADD kid who normally talks at 350 words/min)– *every* freakin morning. It loses its punch.
It ends up as heartfelt and thoughtful as the automatic chant when the principal walks in the classroom: “Gooooood mooooorniiiiing, Missssussss Muuuuurgatroyyyyyyd.”
Yet somehow, the flag-wavy gr’ups want to require the the how-to-pretend-to-conform lesson. Parroting the official position with apparent conviction (and a straight face) is an important skill in totalitarian societies, I know. But it’s not subversives like me pushing to require the pledge (as useful BS practice); it’s the apparently sincere citizen-patriots.
There really were such gr’ups agitating for required pledges in MORE schools, in New Hampshire when I lived there a few years ago. The arguments in favor pretended that the kids (in grade school — starting around 5 years old!) would learn to take the pledge to heart, and become more fervent patriots. The public arguments, anyway.
I’m not hopeful that anyone here can rationally explain to me what these alleged adults were thinking.
“I’m not hopeful that anyone here can rationally explain to me what these alleged adults were thinking.”
They weren’t thinking it consciously, but the subtext generally seems to be that they would prefer a totalitarian society that protects them from scary different people. Hence patriotism must be compulsory.
Just a little dispute with Ed Darell …
He said: “and it was his money that held our freedom in the War of 1812, when the U.S. otherwise ran out of money to finance the second war against Britain, to keep our freedom. ”
Erm, in 1812, as nearly happened in the Civil war, certain blohards tried to deliberately pick a fight with the UK.
They didn’t succed the second time, because Lincoln, and Prince Albert, had enough sense to stop it. See the Wikipedia entry on the “Trent” incident, named after the ship that was stopped.
This didn’t work the first time, mainly because we were in the middle of a titanic struggle with Boney, and one addtional irritation was NOT needed.
The war of 1812 was a disaster for all concerned, and completely unnecessary and avoidable.
Canada won the war of 1812, eh.
No. What happened was that the UK, in need of sailors to fight against Napoleon, and who never really accepted the fact that Americans were no longer British subjects, had this nasty habit of stopping American merchant ships and forcing the sailors to join the British Navy at gunpoint. The US didn’t like that and declared war.
In the Trent Affair the issue was also a bit more subtle than you make out — the Trent was carrying “Confederate diplomats” that were trying to get European powers to enter the Civil War on the Southern side. Obviously, the US didn’t want that to happen. Yes, stopping the Trent (a UK ship) was technically against international law, but it did have the desired effect — no third party ever entered the conflict.
Steff Z: Yet somehow, the flag-wavy gr’ups want to require the the how-to-pretend-to-conform lesson. [of reciting the pledge]
You hit the nail on the head Steff Z. A big part of public ed. is about fostoring conformity.
The military oath does conclude with ‘so help me God.’
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm
The War of 1812 and the Trent affair of the Civil War a both a bit more complicated that stated. Impressment of sailors was a factor in starting the War of 1812, but France also did not respect US freedom of the seas either, leading the the ‘Quasi-war’ in the 1790’s. Since Britain had control of the seas, they were more likely to restrict trade.
It is interesting to note that while the impressment of sailors and other violations would have the most impact on New England, and New England was mostly AGAINST the war. The vote to declare war came mostly from the South and the newer states in the west.
As for the Trent affair, the issue was settled by release of the Confederates, and a paying of restitution to Britain. “One war at a time” was Lincoln’s quote as he settled the issue.
Steff and others:
I think we are largely in agreement here. This discussion (and the poem etc.) is not specifically about the law requiring oaths on bibles or “to god” etc. It is about coercion and cultural/social expectation. But the law is related. There are a lot of things that are “against the law” or “required by law” but only some of those thins are linked to the practice of enforcement or protection. The law says I can’t steal your stuff or follow you home every day (stalking) and if I do those things I get nailed for it. The law also says I can’t make you practice my religious ways. But on a day to day basis, I can coerce you if I happen to have the power.
Technically, we are protected against this kind of coercion, but that is only technically. In fact , coercion of one kind or another happens several hundred million times a day in schools and in other contexts, and only now and then something is done about it.
GTL
“As it is, the whole thing sounds eerily reminescent of Christians who somehow convince themselves that they are an oppressed minority group.”
It’s lovely how Believer Hatfield follows his non sequitur with a false equivalence between victims and oppressors that pretend to be victims.
the joy of scientific understanding is the important thing
More basically, the truth is the important thing.
truth machine said: [quoting Jud] “‘the joy of scientific understanding is the important thing'” [/quoting Jud]
“More basically, the truth is the important thing.”
Hey there, tm. :-)
Re “the truth is the important thing:” Well yeah, but there are truths about more and less relevant matters. In discussions of evolution, ISTM that truths concerning religion can indeed be relevant in discussions with those who take religious texts (in the US of A, most often the Bible) or beliefs as “authority” or “evidence” that evolution did not occur, was not responsible for producing humans, etc. Those are often less interesting discussions (at least on a scientific level; politics are another matter) to me personally, since I regard appeals to religious “authority” or “evidence” re evolution as unworthy of serious consideration, on a par with citations to Joshua 10:13 to dispute a heliocentric solar system.
I prefer discussions that teach me things about evolution I didn’t know before (e.g., I’m now lucky enough to be reading Sean Carroll’s “Endless Forms Most Beautiful,” which provides a wealth of fascinating detail that is largely new to me; or see PZ’s latest Superclades of the Cambrian post). Religion seems to me to be pretty irrelevant to the truths about evolution put forward in these latter sorts of discussions.
truth machine:
Hey, I didn’t say that atheists aren’t oppressed. They often are! But I don’t think that capitalizing the Bible or giving an elected official the option to swear on a Bible constitutes an act of oppression, sorry. And since that’s the way I feel, I find the claim that such acts might be truly oppressive to be as risible as those Christians who consider themselves a persecuted minority group….
BTW, truth machine, please note that in the same post I identified the phrase ‘under God’ within the Pledge as potentially oppressive. Does that affirmation sound like an oppressor masquerading as a victim to you? Observers interested in the ‘truth’ you claim to value might take exception to that, I think….SH
Scott Hadfield said: “I don’t think that…giving an elected official the option to swear on a Bible constitutes an act of oppression.”
So you feel the prospect of a Muslim or atheist elected official being presented the opportunity to commit political suicide by refusing to swear on the Bible in the good ol’ US of A, where elections are won or lost by a few hundred votes or less, is truly a non-coercive option? Better in my view to remove all possible coercion by having non-Bible-based affirmance for everyone. (And why is swearing on the Bible the usual and accepted practice in a nation whose Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion?)
I predict said public servant will distinguish himself and win re-election….SH
Steff Z et al: Sometimes in Canadian schools when I was grown up I was asked to sing “God save the Queen” (due to Canada’s monarchist roots). It was partially this experience that helped me come to the view that Canada should become a republic (i.e. get rid of the monarchy). So antiquate ceremonies aren’t all bad. ;)
And all the stuff about state-church seperation in the US is an example of what I call “some of the American promise”. Namely, that a lot of what the US has done is formally declare the noble and correct thing, even if while doing the opposite. (e.g. also declaring isonomy.)