What the FFRF Does Right and What It Does Wrong

Being a godless heathen and member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I was disappointed to read that it is among the plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to prevent prayer at Barack Obama's inauguration later this month. I say "disappointed" because this seems a fool's errand to me. When the FFRF moves to prevent teachers from promoting religion in the classrooms of public schools, I cheer; I backed them in Hein v FFRF when they sought to take on the Bush administration's faith-based funding program; and I fully support the group's efforts to help out non-theistic members of our military who want to be able to practice their non-religion within the confines of the service without threat.



But going after the inauguration just seems pointless to me. I'd rather they help out average folks on the ground than go after ceremonial theism. While it'd be nice to see our presidents stop swearing an oath to an imaginary deity, it'd be nicer still to have atheists in the military not have their commanding officers verbally assault and threaten them. Godless soldiers put their asses on the line just as much as any believer in Yahweh does. Granted, the plaintiffs, including Michael Newdow, have some good points. For instance, they object to the "so help me God" bit of the Presidential oath. Indeed, the oath is in the Constitution for all to read:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Invoking Yahweh didn't become par for the course until 1933. (Just as "In God We Trust" wasn't added to our currency until 1864 and "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.) So none of the presidents whose faces are carved in stone up on Mount Rushmore said "under God" when they took the oath to uphold our Constitution. But having Barack Obama do so doesn't bother me as much as having Intelligent Design taught in public schools, the feds showing favoritism to Christians, or having military personnel who are not Christian getting grief for their beliefs or lack thereof. And so reading about this lawsuit and the kinds where they sue to have Christmas trees removed from state houses, I just sit back in frustration. (Let me be clear, I think the FFRF should sue when they encounter officials who think that government property becomes the sole domain of Christians just because it's December.)



This frustration was exacerbated when I listened to a recent episode of FFRF's radio show, Freethought Radio, hosted by the Foundation's co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker. In one segment they played the part of the interview Rick Warren did with Larry King wherein he said that he could not bring himself to vote for an atheist. Barker then chimes in by saying that this is unconstitutional. But it isn't. Barker refers to the "No religious test clause of the Constitution. However, this clause is not meant to dictate the conscience of individual voters nor to coerce them into voting for one person or another. It's about candidates, not voters, and it disallows laws requiring candidates to hold particular religious beliefs as a prerequisite for running for office.

I don't have the full Freethought Radio archive at my disposal to cite more examples, but I do want to note that, the more I listen to it and the more I learn about the Founding Fathers, the more the show grates on me. They have fascinating guests and point out issues which I feel are important. In addition, I generally share their secularist views and, as I remarked above, feel they fight some very important fights. But I think they do a disservice to the cause of secularism by trying to ground their views in those of the Founding Fathers as they do by portraying them as strictly secular and anti-religious as they themselves are.

Gaylor and Barker would do well to remember that none of the FFs were atheists. If you're going to be critical of religious people of the 21st century for having a belief in the supernatural, then you can't overlook the fact that the men who founded this country gave credence to the supernatural as well. Some of them may have held reason over revelation, but they didn't discount the latter altogether. Likewise, Washington and others didn't go around proclaiming Jesus his lord and savior at every turn and instead used terms like "natural law" and "Providence", but that doesn't make their views on religion the same as Gaylor's or Barker's.

Another thing that occasionally bugs me when listening to Freethought Radio is how Gaylor and Barker prove all-too eager to portray themselves as simply carrying out the collective will of Jefferson, Madison, and other FFs who, contrary to the notions of the FFRF co-presidents, did not have simple, unfaltering views about religion and its role in American society.



It would behoove them to consider views such as those expressed by my Internet friend Jon Rowe in his post "America Was Founded to be A Religious Not a Christian or a Secular Nation" in which he tries to demonstrate that the FFs felt that a multitude of religions "were 'sound' and valid ways to God". Rowe lists: "Orthodox or unorthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam, certain forms of Deism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Native American spirituality and pagan Greco-Romanism". Elsewhere Rowe talks about how certain FFs thought that the country they were founding would have what he calls a "civil religion". While there were many different "ways to God", religion in general was thought to be essential to a free society as it would impart morality to its citizens.

I am a secularist just like the FFRF folks; I wouldn't have joined the organization if I weren't. It's just that I wish it would try to argue its case less on the "we're doing what the Founders wanted" and more on the benefits of having a wall of separation. While some elements of the so-called Culture Wars are chimerical, I'd still rather be fighting a war of words than an actual war. Freethought Radio is at its best when it demonstrates the harm that can be caused when religion or one particular vision of religion wields power and when certain religious groups would deny to others the rights they themselves enjoy in moves that certainly run counter to our prevailing notions of freedom and equality. And while the erstwhile preacher Dan Barker is incredibly nuanced when it comes to talking about Christianity, it would be nice if he and Gaylor could be equally nuanced when speaking about the Founding Fathers and their visions for this country.