Are Atheists engaged in a war against Christmas?

In the Dec. 21st Macomb Daily I read an article by William Rusher bemoaning how Atheists and the ACLU trod upon Christians habit of putting religious holiday decorations in public view.  The article hit deeply enough for me to write this response to the Editor.  Sadly, I cannot find the article online to provide a link, but the Editor did reply to me and included the text of the article which can be read HERE.  He also indicated he would find a way to publish my reply.
 

Great news, on Dec. 31st my article appeared with nominal editing in the Macomb Daily.  A scan of the article can be seen HERE.  However, the text below is my original submission and easier to read (by nature of being text rather than a scanned image).
 


I have just finished reading William Rusher’s article Atheists, ACLU step up war against Christmas. Overall I get the feeling that Mr. Rusher is thoughtful of Atheists if not sympathetic. However, there are several conclusions he arrives at that I think deserve redress.

First, he somehow gets the idea that Atheists want all references to Christmas removed from "Public Square." This is simply not true. Atheists, by nature of their minority are very tolerant of public display of religion. It is government (all extensions) that is best served by a lack of religious endorsement. An Atheist doesn’t care if a department store displays a nativity scene, a Christmas tree, or a menorah. A department store operates in the "private" sector and has the freedom to express their ideas and spend their money just like we as individuals have. But an Atheist does care if those items are on display at City Hall or a police station. If any branch of government displays any religious icon, everyone subscribing to a different belief feels like second class citizen. Furthermore, tax money is collected from all people (Jews, Hindus and Atheists included) and should not be spent on Christian holiday decorations, or the electricity operating them.

Second, Mr Rusher alleges that the American Civil Liberties Union endorses an interpretation of the First Amendment that forbids the slightest taint of religion in our public life. Again, this is misstated. The ACLU wants only to remove the slightest taint of religion from our government.

Third, while giving an alternative interpretation of the First Amendment, he reasons that it only forbids the Federal government from establishing an official state church, and follows up by saying "as several of the original states had done." This is grossly misleading. He presents it as if the Founding Fathers intended an official church and it was somehow taken away. What he fails to point out is the problems that caused by state churches and why this became the first sentence of the First Amendment. Any student of history knows that the more entangled religion and government become, the bloodier it is for the people.

Fourth, he says that in the 20th Century the Courts adopted a stricter view of the First Amendment and have been enforcing it with increasing vigor. The facts, however, are contrary to this position. It was 1938 the motto "In God We Trust" was emblazoned across every piece of coin the U.S. minted. In 1957 the motto replaced E Pluribus Unum as the national motto and started appearing on paper money and it appeared on all money by 1964. It was 1956 when "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Likewise in 1956 the phrase "so help me God" was added to the end of oaths taken for public office.

Fifth, he concludes only Atheists benefit from the First Amendment. It sounds like he feels since Christians are an overwhelming majority, they have the right to dictate to the will of others. An Atheist responds "Of course Christians want less religious tolerance, they are the ones doing the imposing."

Number six is not really an objection to what he says, rather an observation of what he says. He estimates that 10% of the population may be Atheist..."heavily represented in various intellectual elites." So he is saying the smartest people are Atheists. I did some research on this subject and found Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Abe Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson (actually most of the Founding Fathers) to be Atheist (by contemporary standards). Let me repeat what he concludes: all the smartest people are Atheists....hmm...I wonder why that is?

Lastly, he suggests that since a certain amount of public religious behavior is tolerated, that we disregard the wishes of the Atheist. What if we had applied that same logic in regards to black Americans in the 1950s and 60s?

At the end, however, he summarizes that it is a token of goodwill when someone wishes someone else "Merry Christmas." Indeed, an Atheist enjoys when someone chooses to bestow goodwill on them in a way that has personal significance, just as Mr. Rusher would welcome someone wishing him "Happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or even Happy Winter Solstice."
 

 

The opinions expressed here are mine alone.  Care to comment?  Click HERE

back to Essay Index