A Theistic Nation

That’s a dill-pickillial of a peccadillo, if you’ll pardon my Ned Flanderism. I’m referring to the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with public prayer. Again. In a recent Chicago Tribune story, prayer before town board meetings in Greece, New York have led to accusations of violation of citizens’ rights. In a similar, but unrelated, situation, a friend asked me what I thought about religious symbols on public property. He asked the basic question that if atheism relies on no symbols, isn’t the absence of symbolism tacit approval of atheism. These issues are very difficult to resolve for a number of reasons. The first non-partisan elephant in the room is the fact that we do not have an acceptable definition of religion. Universities shy away from hiring specialists in religion and we, as a society, and, more restrictively, as an academy, can’t agree on what religion is. Is atheism a religious belief system? Some would argue that it is, and that it shouldn’t be the default stance—that would favor one religion. From what neuroscience seems to tell us, atheists aren’t born, they’re made. Religion, of some description, is normal human thinking.

A further issue involves both symbols and prayers. A symbol means nothing without interpretation. As I told my friend, unintentional crosses are ubiquitous. You might have to look a bit harder to find unintentional stars of David or yin-yangs, but I’m certain they exist. Without the Christian eye, however, those unintentional crosses are just architectural features or natural spaces between corners. The same applies to prayer. If I decide to speak, it is a matter of interpretation whether my words are prayers, a guy talking to himself, or, increasingly, somebody chatting on their blue tooth phone as they walk past a church. Intention, a specific aspect of interpretation, certainly plays into the sometimes coercive power of a symbol or a prayer. Do those Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn just represent a nice piece of art, or do they bear an intended message? Do intended messages not attempt to persuade others that they are true?

Smart folk like Supreme Court justices have difficulty with this issue every time. I’m not surprised. We don’t know how to quantify religion, even though most of us are pretty sure of it when we see it. Some would argue that many eastern religions are in fact philosophies. Some would claim that atheism is the opposite of religion. Atheism is not so very far from some strains of Buddhism, however. And like it or not, people are all subject to belief. We seem to like forging ahead in the darkness on this issue. State universities hide their religious studies programs like embarrassing warts. What rational person would want to waste time studying such superstition? The Supreme Court of the United States, I might point out, just for one.

Religion or not?

Religion or not?

5 thoughts on “A Theistic Nation

  1. Brent Snavely

    …but there is one ubiquitous prayer and symbol that has Supreme approval, and so we pray in unison to the flag and worship a G/god…

    Like

  2. Nations, like people, need to be something and stand for something to survive. Like it or not, all systems of government are founded in concepts of property, and their function is to protect the power of the dominant social class. At least a government founded in Christian concepts of property allows for the unhindered existence of other religions that are not heinous to American law. People would do well to think twice before they attempt to erase traditional American identities, since something will always fill that vacuum, and I, for one, am not seeing any improved alternatives in the offing.

    Like

  3. “At least a government founded in Christian concepts of property…”
    Piper, In the first treaty into which the US entered (1797, with Libya) it clearly stated, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” Several of your founding fathers expressed similar sentiments. E.G., “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson.

    Like

  4. “Is atheism a religious belief system? Some would argue that it is, and that it shouldn’t be the default stance—that would favor one religion.” In religious debate atheism is the null hypothesis. At RationalWiki we read, “A standard response is to note that if atheism is a religion, then “bald” is a hair color, and not collecting stamps is a hobby, not kicking a kitten is a form of animal abuse and so on.”

    Like

    • Steve Wiggins

      Thanks, Philip. I like the null hypothesis explanation–nothing like reason to cool the rhetorical ardor. I’ve just been reading about this topic again; seems like it is unlikely ever to go away…

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.