|
The
Atlanta Freethought Society was invited to submit an essay for
the "Other Voices" public forum in the Faith &
Values section of the Saturday Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Ed
Buckner wrote the following piece which was published on July 5,
1997 under the heading "Religion not the only basis for
morality."
Rights
for Atheists? Why?
by Ed Buckner
Arguing
politics is one thing; arguing religion is another. This is
about politics (maybe I'll get a chance later to argue about
religion). Some letter writers to "Faith and Values,"
like some religious believers everywhere, want to restrict the
civil rights of freethinkers and atheists. They say "This
is a Christian nation," or "Unless somebody believes
in God, he cannot be trusted or moral," or "The First
Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from
religion!" or "'Separation of church and state' is not
even in the Bill of Rights!"
This
argument has been going on since at least the founding of these
United States in 1787, with patriotic heroes like Patrick Henry
and Samuel Adams supporting the idea that good Christians are a
necessary foundation for good government. Those who believed
that then, however, lost the argument. The Constitution could
have included language invoking religion or God or declaring
that this is a Christian nation--all earlier governing charters
did claim power in the name of at least one god-but the framers
created a "godless" Constitution instead. The ultimate
power invoked was "We the people . . . ." The winners,
with leaders like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John
Adams, included orthodox Christians, Unitarians and Deists, and
maybe even an atheist or two. They did not set up (and had not
tried to set up) an anti-Christian or an anti-religious
government, but they knew that the only path to religious
freedom for all is a neutral government. As Madison had noted,
if the same evidence that convinces you that your religious
preference is the right one does not happen to convince someone
else, that is between that other person and God (if there is
one). Governments cannot decide such things unless we give up
religious freedom for everyone except one favored, politically
powerful, group. And even if you are in the winning group now,
your group could lose political power next year or at the next
election.
The
Constitution and First Amendment do not include the words
"Separation of Church and State"-but the idea is there
just as much as "freedom of religion" is (those words
cannot be found there, either). This is a nation with many
Christians, but it is not a Christian nation if by that you mean
one with a pro-Christian government. Great Britain is a
Christian nation in that sense, though with proportionally far
fewer believing Christians. As Thomas Jefferson himself noted,
there are moral atheists just as there are moral believers, so
religion must not be the basis for morality. And if there is no
freedom from religion for those that choose to have none, there
cannot be any secure freedom of religion for anyone.
All
of us tend to think that we are right when it comes to religion
(including those of us who believe it is not possible to know or
who conclude that all religion is pointless or worse). But
religious truth is not subject to majority vote nor can it be
determined by force or by political processes. People have to
work it out for themselves and governments are fairest and work
best if they leave it up to individuals. As Jefferson put it in
1782, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such
acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury
for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It
neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Opinions
expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of the Atlanta Freethought Society. |
