New at Reason

David Weigel | April 4, 2006

Cathy Young prays for Christian activists to show a little less self-pity.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← High Court Pooh-Poohs Perturbed Padilla Appeals… | Main | You'll Watch Eurovision And You'll Like… →

See all 47 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|4.4.06 @ 9:27AM|#

In 2nd grade, about 1960, I got kicked out of school for refusing to say the "Pledge of Allegiance." T' Hell with them.

To be sure, there are atheists who are militantly hostile to all religion, and reinforce negative stereotypes of nonbelievers.
Since religion is stupid and evil, that's a positive, not negative, characteristic.

|4.4.06 @ 9:27AM|#

From SF-Chron:

In fact, the Texas Republican [DeLay] fell from power because he is a Christian.

That, at least, is the view of Rick Scarborough, convener of a conference this week called "The War on Christians."

"I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ," Scarborough said, introducing DeLay on Tuesday. When DeLay finished, the host reminded the politician: "God always does his best work right after a crucifixion."

Oh, Rick, that's right. DeLay was persecuted because he's christian. He was singled out. Nobody else in DC is christian. Nope. He's the lone martyr.

The fact that someone could say something like that with a straight face is unbefuckinglievable.

So, how come nobody laments the obvious discrimination against the nonreligious? I'm not gonna advocate playing the victim card, but, if any group is being "persecuted" in this country, it's the nonreligious. And even that is a stretch.

|4.4.06 @ 9:38AM|#

Church is a draw for the self-pitying types.

|4.4.06 @ 9:51AM|#

I find that most of the "War on Christians" is in fact being waged by other christians, as it always has been. That 85% figure can be misleading. Sure, most americans self-identify as Christian, but does a "born-again" type consider Catholics to be real Christians?

VM|4.4.06 @ 9:52AM|#

What happened to the days when people were frowned upon for those public, �berpious displays of religiosity?

the really sick, sad thing is that fundies actually believe they're persecuted. but they sure can whine. and this from the "grow some" t-shirt crowd in the 90s. i guess they forgot to grow some. or they got the wuss-PR firm that the "heather" crowd used in the 90s.

sissies. they can take their friggin imaginary friends and go sit over there. you know, give them the time out for the duration. they can froth and spank and talk to their imaginary friends and grovel and everything, and the rest can go about their business, not caring how freakin pious the fundies pretend to be. ah, wilderness!

|4.4.06 @ 9:57AM|#

"People who bash the religious right seldom object when faith is invoked to protest war, poverty, or racism."

"War".. maybe. "Poverty and racism"? Please.. there are hardly any more knee-jerk words in the English language.

|4.4.06 @ 9:58AM|#

War is good for absolutely nothing.

|4.4.06 @ 10:25AM|#

I wonder if there is any legimate poll numbers that can determine whether most Americans think that there is actually a "War on Christians." I can't imagine that most of the American public agree that Christians are getting persecuted. This whole "War on Christians" thing is so ridiculous, their argument has so many holes it's laughable.

I will say this though, it makes shows like the O'Reilly Factor and Scarborough Country very entertaining.

|4.4.06 @ 10:27AM|#

Correction:

legimate is supposed to be legitimate

|4.4.06 @ 10:32AM|#

Good article. My Sunday School teacher (Presbyterian Church, USA) once told us that being told "I'm not interested" isn't persecution. He also said that being rejected because you're a rude jerk isn't persecution either. These guys need to learn the difference between losing important political and economic rights, including the one allowing you to stay alive, because of your religious beliefs and simply having some people not like or agree with you. "Get a life" applies.

|4.4.06 @ 10:35AM|#

So, how come nobody laments the obvious discrimination against the nonreligious? I'm not gonna advocate playing the victim card, but, if any group is being "persecuted" in this country, it's the nonreligious. And even that is a stretch.

It might be a stretch that we're "persecuted" but it's pretty obvious that if there is one thing an American won't trust it's an atheist. (BTW, the feeling is mutual, America!)

|4.4.06 @ 10:41AM|#

Once, conservatives used to deplore the left's cult of victimhood and ridicule the obsession with real or imagined slights toward women, minorities, and other historically oppressed groups.

Charles Sykes, author of A Nation Of Victims, the premiere tome of the conservative bashing of the "culture of victimization" has his own radio squawk show here in Milwaukee. Yes, he's on the "War On Christians" bandwagon too.

|4.4.06 @ 11:08AM|#

Jim Henley|4.4.06 @ 11:11AM|#

Once, conservatives used to deplore the left's cult of victimhood and ridicule the obsession with real or imagined slights toward women, minorities, and other historically oppressed groups.

So were we libertarians the biggest suckers in the world for believing conservatives actually meant that shit, or were we the biggest suckers in the world for some other reason?

|4.4.06 @ 11:17AM|#

There is a nugget of truth in some complaints of anti-Christian bias. Many people in the academic and journalistic elites do turn up their noses at anything that smacks of faith. Some activists, courts, and public officials have misconstrued the prohibition on state establishment of religion as banning any mention of religion in the public square, from a tiny church with a cross on a city seal to a reference to God in a high school graduation speech.

Yes because it's so horrible to demand that chuch and state be seperate and that Americans give up this religion stupidity once and for all.

I agree that church and state should be seperate, but I don't agree that religion should be banned from the public square. All speech is protected (except death threats blah blah) even if you don't agree with it. Free speech does not protect the speech that we love, it protects the speech that we hate.

|4.4.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Today's religion threads have me too angry to do anything coherent right now, I'm stepping away to calm down before I post again.

|4.4.06 @ 11:20AM|#

I appreciate Ms. Young's approach, very even-handed and measured. (She's obviously been reading her Volokh.)

However I was once under the impression that Reason stood not just for free markets but also for free minds. I can see justification for rendering unto Caesar (the churches) what is Caesar's (nonsensical theistic beliefs held on a personal [versus political] level), but I would love to see a column here once in a while that pulled a good ol' Col. Robert Ingersoll on the Christianists, inter alia. Or is the stranglehold by the Religious Right on the American conversation so tight that even we as unabashed counterculturists must bow and scrape in our own backyards?

Religion is bunk.

There, I said it.

And people who have rejected it based on reason and logic are perhaps smarter than those who continue to believe.

Oh no!!

|4.4.06 @ 11:31AM|#

If there is a war on Christians, please call me when they bring in the lions...

Maybe they'll make a show for Animal Plantet. With Steve Irwin feeding Christians to the crocodiles.

Amy Phillips|4.4.06 @ 11:31AM|#

You know, I'm about as atheist as they come, but after reading this thread, I can sort of understand why religious people feel hostile towards atheism. I mean, it's one thing to not believe in a god, or even to actively try to convince others that there is no god. It's quite another to call other people's opposing beliefs, even beliefs that sometimes lead some people to behave badly, "stupid" or "evil."

I'm not saying that there aren't some religious folks who would feel threatened by atheism no matter what we do. But it's much easier for extremists to paint atheists as a threat to their way of life when some among us are actually threatening to "demand... that Americans give up this religion stupidity once and for all."

When other people try to encroach on my rights using their religious beliefs as an excuse, that's wrong. But the majority of religious people in the majority of cases aren't trying to do that, and telling them that their most deeply held beliefs are imaginary and stupid doesn't really make them feel all warm and fuzzy about standing up for us, nor does it help combat the misconception that all atheists want to take away their rights to practice their religion.

I guess what I'm saying is, the idea that Christians are a persecuted minority is clearly just false. But when atheists, an already much maligned minority, denigrate the beliefs of others just because some people who hold those beliefs are idiots, it just adds fuel to the "War on Christians" fire.

|4.4.06 @ 11:37AM|#

His persecution consisted of being disciplined by a commander for saying sectarian prayers at a sailor's memorial service.

Hang on a sec. Now, it's hard to see exactly what the situation was without more of the story, but if a person can't pray to his chosen diety at a freakin memorial service, that DOES seem to be a violation of freedom of religion, and justly can be called persecution.

|4.4.06 @ 11:43AM|#

Yes because it's so horrible to demand that chuch and state be seperate and that Americans give up this religion stupidity once and for all.

Demanding the separation of church and state is not horrible, but demanding that Americans or anybody else "give up religion once and for all" is.

Persuade, don't demand.

|4.4.06 @ 12:03PM|#

Jennifer's right, and her advice applies to both sides.

I think the moral to this story is that if you're an asshole, people will be mean to you in response. Play nice with others.

|4.4.06 @ 12:04PM|#

linguist,

What if the Chaplain said a prayer at the service of an atheist?

In Memory of Atheists in Foxholes: http://www.mindspring.com/~alutiiq/atheists-in-foxholes.html

|4.4.06 @ 12:15PM|#

Hak,
Either you believe in the Bill of Rights or you don't. If people are not going to be allowed to pray, then we might as well just toss it.

Your link has nothing to do with this particular incident, though of course I agree with you that atheists shouldn't be mistreated either.

fyodor|4.4.06 @ 12:21PM|#

Amy Phillips,

You're right that insulting Christians adds to their sense of victimhood and is not the nice thing to do. But I think the larger issue is that every one of us has had to face his or her beliefs and values being ridiculed in a non-nice way at some point. If you're advocating for civil discourse, fine. I think there's pros and cons between keeping things civil and spewing some unabashed nastiness sometimes, myself, but certainly I see the merits of the civility argument. But let's be careful about how we apply that. If we're not applying it across the board, it's not worth applying it at all. That is, Christians don't deserve any more protection from nastiness than anyone else! And I'm not saying you're saying they do, I'm just saying that the way you jump into this particular discussion to say that you can understand why Christians react the way they do would seem to imply that. That is, why would you understand their sense of victimhood more than anyone else's? Because like I say, we ALL get our ideas called stupid and evil sometime or other. So what's so special about Christians that we should hold back from saying such things about them? Make your argument for civility across the board if you must make it, not selectively.

|4.4.06 @ 12:26PM|#

linguist,

The problem is that the Chaplain is not praying openly as a mere citizen but as a government employee - that is an arm of the government. Also, remember that part of the Bill of Rights includes the "establishment" clause. So one has to ask, do you believe in the Bill of Rights? Or just in selective portions?

The link was obviously not supposed to bolster my statement.

|4.4.06 @ 12:28PM|#

linguist,

In other words, the constitutional implications of his prayer are far more reaching for him as a naval chaplain than they would be for a citizen offering a prayer. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the speech rights of government employees as government employees are not as broad as those of citizens as citizens, and for obvious reaons.

|4.4.06 @ 12:29PM|#

"Hang on a sec. Now, it's hard to see exactly what the situation was without more of the story, but if a person can't pray to his chosen diety at a freakin memorial service, that DOES seem to be a violation of freedom of religion, and justly can be called persecution."

The problem is if the dead person's religion was different.

For instance, consider a Baptist's memorial service, where a Satanist gets up and says a prayer that the deceased's soul will be welcomed into the arms of the devil's minions in hell.

Or a service for a Jew or Buddhist, where an evangelical gets up and says a prayer that the deceased's soul will be welcomed into the arms of Jesus.

It's a demonstration of disrespect for the deceased, and possibly of his family and friends. It's like when the Mormons pull their silly posthumous conversions of non Mormons.

It's also, frankly, rather distasteful showboating.

Amy Phillips|4.4.06 @ 12:36PM|#

Linguist:
Young's description of the Lt. Klingenschmitt case is highly misleading. The vast majority of media coverage of his case is from conservative Christian publications that describe the case using inflammatory language, which may be where that description came from. The few objective sources covering the story report that the Lieutenant was not prevented from giving a religious prayer at a memorial service. He performed a memorial service, wearing his Navy uniform, at which he told the audience that for anyone who does not accept Jesus, "God's wrath remains upon him." After several members of the congregation at the service complained about the content, the Lieutenant was reprimanded by his commanding officer, who reminded him of a Navy regulation that asks uniformed religious officiants to consider the diverse views of their audiences during public prayer.

Basically, the Lieutenant was asked not to give public sermons in uniform telling people that they're going to hell for not sharing his religious beliefs. We can debate whether or not that's a fair rule, but it should not be categorized as the Navy preventing him from praying in his chosen religion.

|4.4.06 @ 12:37PM|#

It's a demonstration of disrespect for the deceased, and possibly of his family and friends.

I think that in their minds, it's probably a show of love. At any rate, are you arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to do this? Isn't this yet another one of those things that, though we may not like it, we can't stop it without losing some rights of our own?

The problem is that the Chaplain is not praying openly as a mere citizen but as a government employee

Then your problem isn't with religion or its practice, but the fact that we have chaplains at all. I can see your argument on establishment grounds.

However,the story cited did not note that the person who was disciplined was a chaplain. I got the impression he was another soldier. What say you to that situation?

|4.4.06 @ 12:39PM|#

Basically, the Lieutenant was asked not to give public sermons in uniform telling people that they're going to hell for not sharing his religious beliefs.

Thank you for elaborating, Amy. In my first post I wondered what the full story was. Young might have explained that better.

|4.4.06 @ 12:39PM|#

Amy Phillips,

Its exactly those sort of regulations of government employee speech that have been upheld time and again by the Supreme Court.

|4.4.06 @ 12:44PM|#

linguist,

If he's merely speaking as a citizen, whether he's a soldier or not, that's perfectly within his speech right. Its when he's speaking as an arm of the government, or where that appears to be the case, that the problem arises. (The test the Supreme Court has created is way more complicated than this, but you get some of the overall parameters of how the test goes.)

Amy Phillips|4.4.06 @ 12:46PM|#

Oh, and the deceased in this case shared the officiant's Christian religious beliefs. The Bible passage in question, which condemned those who don't believe in Jesus, was apparently one of the deceased's favorite lines.

Amy Phillips|4.4.06 @ 12:55PM|#

If it makes any difference to anyone, the deceased in this case shared Lt. Klingenschmitt's brand of Christian religious belief. The Bible passage in question, which condemned those who don't believe in Jesus, was apparently one of the deceased's favorite lines. And the Lieutenant is a Chaplain.

grylliade|4.4.06 @ 12:56PM|#

And people who have rejected it based on reason and logic are perhaps smarter than those who continue to believe.

What about those of us who have accepted it based on reason and logic? Or at least see no reason based on reason and logic to demand rejection of it? Y'know, it is possible for intelligent people to come to different conclusions based on the same evidence many times.

As for the "free minds" part of the motto demanding bashing of religion . . . I don't see it. I can't imagine that "free minds" means "you must follow this belief system to be free." It means that you're free to believe and think whatever you want. Do we theist (or deist, for that matter) libertarians need to turn in our decoder rings? Are our minds insuffiicently "free"?

|4.4.06 @ 1:33PM|#

If I said something like:

"The history of the Middle East is nothing more than a lot of imbecilic squabbling about dirt and fairy tales."

Would that be wrong?

___

There has been some rather interesting skirmishing on the "military and religion" front at the Air Force Academy in the past few years

Tim Cavanaugh|4.4.06 @ 2:51PM|#

What happened to the days when people were frowned upon for those public, überpious displays of religiosity?

What happened was that the first person to frown on überpious displays of religiosity was later crucified.

|4.4.06 @ 3:34PM|#

What happened to the days when people were frowned upon for those public, �berpious displays of religiosity?

Wait, doesn't the bible say something about the meek inheriting the earth?

DeLay, ousted as House majority leader after being indicted for money laundering and conspiracy, was touted as another victim of religious bigotry, targeted for being outspoken about his faith, and his legal and political woes were compared to a crucifixion. (Isn't that offensive to Christians?)

Yes, very much so.

|4.4.06 @ 3:47PM|#

linguist writes: "Then your problem isn't with religion or its practice, but the fact that we have chaplains at all. I can see your argument on establishment grounds."

Except that military chaplains are provided with liturgical material for a wide variety of faiths, from Buddhism to incredibly obscure faiths. I think the Church of Satan used to be included. Might still be. That's probably why it gets around establishment issues.

Military chaplains aren't there to proselytize their own faith, they're there to serve the troops. Chaplains who seek to serve themselves by proselytizing and boosting their own conversion score are not fulfilling the purpose of having chaplains in the first place.

|4.4.06 @ 4:13PM|#

True John, and I've been researching this: no chaplain is to be forced to observe the tenets of the other breeds.

I don't know whether chaplains are a good idea or not (though I would imagine when you're talking about possibly dying in service I bet there's a huge demand for religious services) but I do see how, at least, it's a point that could be debated.

The chaplain who claimed to be persecuted has been a voice for the rights of other religions, BTW. He lodged a complaint that a Jewish servicemember was not given access to kosher food. He also went on a 16-day fast to get the military to affirm that saying, "I pray this in Jesus' name" is ok. I didn't find anything on specific memorial service speech, but it appears the military was not planning to re-up him. (They did after the fast.)

Viking Moose|4.4.06 @ 4:15PM|#

Tim:
:)
touche.

[bows respectfully and backs away]

:)

(but then again, borrowing from Sam Clemons, i would also have thought the first two disciples were indeed "david and goliath")

cheers!
VM

Larry A|4.4.06 @ 5:28PM|#

Now, the right is embracing a victimhood cult obsessed with slights toward a group that makes up 85 percent of the American population.

Well, not exactly. As Cathy later hints, while 85% of the US population identifies itself, on the generic level, as "Christian," Christians are by no stretch of the imagination "a group."

Shoot, you can't even get all the branches of most big-name denominations in the same room without theological food fights.

In fact, since Constantine "ended" Christian persecution in 313, thousands of Christians have been martyred. Almost all of them were killed by other Christians.

|4.4.06 @ 7:16PM|#

Jon H: "I think the Church of Satan used to be included..."

From their web site:

In December of [1967], Anton [LaVey, the founder of Satanism] was approached by Mrs. Edward Olsen who wanted the High Priest to perform a funeral for her recently deceased husband, a Navy man killed in a traffic accident near San Francisco's Treasure Island station. Both she and Edward Olsen had become members of the Church of Satan, despite his Baptist-oriented upbringing and his earlier membership in Youth for Christ. When he'd entered the Navy, seen more of the world and married a sexy brunette, he realized Satanism was a more realistic way of life. "He believed in this church, said Mrs, Olsen, and it is in this church that he would have wanted his funeral."

Though the Navy officials were a bit nonplussed, they agreed to Pat Olsen's instructions without much discussion, considering it their duty to comply with Mr. Olsen's last request with dignity. There was a chrome-helmeted honor guard in attendance at the ceremony, standing rigidly at attention alongside the black-robed witches and warlocks wearing their Baphomet medallions. The sailors held an American flag over the coffin while LaVey recited a eulogy emphasizing Edward's commitment to life in choosing to walk the Devil's path. To end the funeral, the Navy guard fired three volleys with their rifles, and a Navy musician played taps after the mourners shouted, "Hail Satan!" and "Hail Edward!"

Even though the Archbishop of San Francisco was upset by the whole affair, immediately sending an outraged letter to President Johnson, most San Franciscans, including Naval officials, felt Olsen should receive the same consideration as any other Navy man. The response from the White House was actually quite fortuitous for the widow and her young son. Olsen, a machinist-repairman third-class was erroneously referred to by White House aides as chief petty officer. Mrs. Olsen was able to use those letters to file a claim for a posthumous promotion for her husband and receive higher survivors benefits. LaVey credits demonic intervention for Mrs. Olsen's good fortune. Because of the sharp increase of declared Satanists in the military, Satanism was soon outlined as a recognized religion in the Chaplain's Handbook for the Armed Services where it remains today, the description updated every few years by the Church of Satan.

In reading their history to get to this point, one of the items I passed was the baptising of LaVey's daughter, which included this comment:

Today, LaVey probably would have been charged with Satanic child abuse - there were no such legal avenues for religious hysterics in 1967.

Apparently, they feel persecuted.

|4.4.06 @ 9:25PM|#

No pun intended, Smoking Penguin, but damn. That's absolutely, correctly, and precisely how the Navy should have done it. In 1967.

|4.4.06 @ 9:43PM|#

Objectively, I can't really see much difference between theists and atheists; both views require belief systems. I do understand the dislike of religion, though, since the internal inconsistency of any particular religion is astounding. But to deny the possibility of a supreme or superior beings existing outside our realm of existence takes faith.

The universe is an amazing place. The fact that there is any such thing as existence amazes me! This universe exists, so I can't deny the possibility of other types of existence. Studying quantum mechanics led me away from atheism and to agnosticism. Trying to understand the weirdness of this universe led me to open my mind to many possibilities.

I wonder, thoreau, did your study of physics affect your faith in any significant way?

|4.5.06 @ 8:32AM|#

Eric the .5b: that's pretty much what I thought, they deserve credit for respecting the wishes of the deceased.

I wonder if it would have been different had the first Satanic Navy officer died in the 80's. Or, as P Brooks pointed out in an earlier post, at the Air Force Academy, which is apparently now a hotbed of Christian fundamentalism.