I found this article from The Orange County Register to be quite amusing. Apparently, as the article summarizes, a group of atheists are suing Saddleback’s founding pastor Rick Warren in order to block him from referring to God at the inauguration of President-Elect Barrack Obama. A couple of things that make this interesting:
1) From what I’ve studied, individual atheists heavily dislike being identified by a singular agenda. I will fault to referring to atheists as a class of people in this short article, since we are clearly discussing a group of (relatively) similar people (atheists) against another group of (relatively) similar people (Christians). Nonetheless, just as atheists do not believe in God, they do not believe in organized beliefs of relatively any kind. I do not believe that atheists as a whole are being hypocritical here, just the 11 or so atheists who are apart of this lawsuit. The very fact that these individuals have united under a common agenda or belief (that God should not be mentioned) goes against the very foundations of what they are supposed to stand for. Of course, it’s hard not to label a group who are united by their lack of unity, but that’s the seemingly obvious problem for those atheists whom subscribe to that theory.
2) I will readily admit that I believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. On a fundamental level, I passively disagree with any marriage of the two. In my mind, nothing would be scarier for myself or this country than a president who runs things according to his own (naturally) interpretation of faith. I would much more readily vote for a moral atheist for president who looks at things concretely and subjectively than an evangelical Christian who promises to do everything by the Word of God (think: Bush).
That rant aside, I do readily agree that mentioning God in an inauguration speech deeply insults and infringes on the rights of atheists in this country. Conversely, I also agree that not mentioning God deeply insults and infringes on the rights of Christians in this country. While the atheists argue separation of church and state, Christians argue tradition. Both, in this case, are valid arguments. If you don’t believe “tradition” to be a valid argument, just wait until the atheists play that trump card if religion is suddenly introduced to a government ceremony where it was previously absent.
In essence, the second portion of my rant is that atheists are wanting to embrace the same right that they currently are angry at the Christians for having. This is just another example of both sides hating on the other for completely hypocritical reasons. If a person was trying to truly embrace the “correct” and “moral” sides of this continual argument, you would be stuck in the middle as both have glazed over the rights of the others in order to advance their own agenda. In actuality, it’s just sickening.
My opinion? There’s no such thing as “equal rights” in this country. Atheists are never going to have equal rights to Christians, and vice versa. If the scales were ever tipped in the “favor” of the atheists, they would be embracing the same rights that they claim are unfair for others to have. So who is right? Neither side; they are both wrong. Obviously, with the inauguration looming, tradition will hold. Does it suck for atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and other American citizens whom do not participate in one of the three monotheistic faiths? Completely – and it is unfair to them. However, these citizens also need to realize they live in a global community – and “tolerance” is a concept that seems to be forgotten on both sides. If we ever become advanced enough in this country to consider a non-Judeo-Christian president, and then that president is forced to swear on a book he/she doesn’t believe in (The Bible) then that is when the argument against God and the Bible will have a foothold, and that is when the practice will cross the line from tolerance and custom to strong-armed majority rule and wrongful enforcement.
Posted by sharoute 
