Apparently not when it comes to atheists who are adamant about stamping out all religion in society and within the daily lives of ordinary citizens of the United States of America.
I’ll explain in a minute. First let me say this was not the topic on my mind this evening. For the last day or so I have been gathering my thoughts on Seattle, Washington’s new minimum wage. I had planned on writing a political discourse on the pros, cons, and ethics of the whole minimum wage concept. The minimum wage is an item that impacts us all (at least economically). It may not be an item of interest to a wide audience, but it is something that most have feelings one way or the other on and I thought it would be an interesting side-bar to tackle.
However, as I sat down this evening to add this entry to my BLOG, this article caught my eye and I was completely astounded. The article, for those unwilling to follow the link, is about a Missouri High School principle, Kevin Lowery, who used several off references to “God” at the commencement proceedings of the graduating class. His remarks may be found in this YouTube video.
My first thought was “This is news? Why?” And as my curiosity peaked I read the article in amazement. NOT at Principle Lowery’s remarks, or the reaction of the students, nor even the report that the YouTube video has garnered over 84,000 views in about 5 days (I’m not sure what constitutes going viral these days, but it is considerably more views than the few hundred hits I get from the stats on this BLOG). No, the thing that captured my attention is the anti-religious organizations that crawled out of the woodwork to soundly denounce the commencement address. For me this is the height of irrational behavior within the story.
The first group cited within the FOX News Story is the American Atheists (which, ironically enough, is a 501(c)(3) – the majority of which are religious organizations)whose spokesman Dave Muscato was quick to condemn the speech by citing that it “… violated the spirit of the First Amendment separations of religion and government.” In other words it offended his perceived rights. It is interesting to me that the front page of the American Atheists site has a headline that reads: “STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS”. What rights? There is no meaning, no value, no outcome in the atheist world view, so what does it matter?
But as I have previously argued, rights must come from somewhere and I’d seriously like to know where Mr. Muscato derives his from. I know where my inalienable rights come from. God. As did the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Muscato, as a stated dis-believer in a supreme being (or beings) clearly has nowhere upon which to draw his foundation of rights. Given his world view, any rights he possesses, whether real or perceived, must clearly come from within the system and are thus subject to the rules of the system. Which would clearly follow that they are then subjective and subject to change. I could then argue that the perceived right that Mr. Muscato is clinging to was framed by what were clearly religious individuals and is therefore tainted. I speculate that Mr. Muscato might argue that the framers of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were actually trying to stamp out religion in the country by putting that amendment in. But if he were to argue this (or anyone else for that matter), I would have to go back to Dr. Richard Carrier’s question of “Are Christians Delusional?” and ask “Who is delusional now?” Because most historians today would not argue along those lines. And presented with clear and rational lines of reasoning to the contrary, one would need a convincing argument to bolster their case. Without such would be to act irrationally. No, Mr. Muscato is using a framework to defend his position that was put forth by individuals that meet his definition of flawed. I would then ask “Why is not the amendment then flawed?” Or why wouldn’t the rights he believes he has be subject to interpretation or change?
The second group that was cited with a comment is The Freedom From Religion Foundation who also stated that the commencement speech was a “serious constitutional violation” in a letter to Lebanon School District Superintendent Duane Widhalm. Here we find a similar argument in that once again an atheist group is worried about their perceived right to not have God mentioned at a commencement address at a public school.
The two questions I’d like to ask about this particular event are: (1) Why are these groups even in existence? Atheistic individuals and groups should be the epitome of the don’t care attitude. After all, it doesn’t really matter anyway. I realize they argue that they are trying to set others free, the Freedom From Religion Foundation even promotes a quote from Miguel Moore, Cleveland Artist… Humanist Chaplain that states as much: “Freedom comes from within, not without.” But I still ask “To what end?” What is the purpose behind it all? In the grand scheme of things it means absolutely nothing. So why be so adamant about a fight, that at the end of the day, doesn’t really matter who wins or who loses? You can argue that you are trying to better peoples lives, progress society or humanity, or any number of other worthy causes (some of which religion would argue as well) and it still doesn’t really mean anything because there is no purpose behind the universe. It is simply a cosmic accident given their world view.
And the second question I must ask is: (2) Who is the irrational party here? I mean really? Those who have a reason to promote an argument because they have a grounded belief that there is something more to what we see and experience and know of the physical universe and who believe that our existence will continue on sustained by a God. Or those whose very world view precludes any real meaning or outcome and whose propensity to argue the inane would be explained in their paradigm as the results of minute and complex chemical and physical reactions set into motion eons ago and are being played out by a set of physical laws of which we have no control over and can do nothing about.
Isn’t it interesting that the Atheistic Organizations want to argue vehemently against the voice of Theistic individuals amongst us and yet few Theistic Organizations want to argue that the Atheist individuals need to remain silent in any venue in society. Public, private, or otherwise?
Who is the TRUE defender of free speech here?
At a particular point in my career, I was advised by those around me that certain descriptive words were taboo and should never be used. . . .
I imagine if you’ve made it past today’s title you are probably here because my question has evoked some type of emotional response or curiosity. . . .