Though I am an atheist, I was once in the camp of people saying that there are worse things to worry about than a couple words in a pledge I don't even have to say anymore. Let's talk about gay marriage, or rebuilding Iraq, or fixing education in our country, or fighting terrorism, before we worry about the Pledge. But there will of course never be a convenient time to worry about the Pledge, similar to how there will never be a good time to bring gay marriage to the national attention. But it must be done. And I've decided that it is wrong to have schoolchildren say that we are one nation under God every day, when it violates a fundamental belief of myself and many other Americans.
Most people in the United States are Christian, and even more believe in a God of some kind. For these people, the Pledge in the present form represents their beliefs. But what of the people whose beliefs are not reflected, and in fact, who believe in the opposite of what the Pledge states? What of their children? I have actually heard the argument regarding the Pledge case and gay marriage that the view of the majority should be reflected in national policy. I don't think I could imagine a more ignorant and biased argument. One of the main purposes of government, I, and I think many others, believe, is to protect the minorities, the powerless, from the majorities, the powerful. Shouldn't national policy reflect this belief?
Small things matter. It is no imposition for me to sit in the back of the bus, and in fact, I oftentimes prefer it. If I found out that for some reason I was required to sit on the back of the bus from here on out, I may be a bit annoyed, but, ultimately, it would hardly change the way I lead my life. But it does matter. When people believe they have the right to tell you to sit at the back of the bus, they believe they also have the right to tell you where to eat and drink and use the restroom, and where your children go to school and whether or not you should be allowed to vote
I know it is somewhat hyperbolic to compare the plight of atheists to the plight of blacks during the Jim Crow era. Blacks were and still are unfortunately easy marks for discrimination, they are always easily recognizable by those for whom that matters. Atheists, on the other hand, have the advantage that it is usually neither necessary nor appropriate to speak about religion in public. But in those times when it is necessary and appropriate to talk about your religious beliefs, atheists inevitably find themselves discriminated against. This article compares a 1953 Gallup poll which found that 53% of Americans would vote against a black presidential candidate on grounds of race alone and a 1999 Gallup poll which found that 49% of Americans would vote against an atheist candidate on grounds of atheism alone. Politicians even have code words for disparaging non-believers, much as they have code words for race. When politicians want to appeal to the racist sympathies of voters, they talk about problems with affirmative action, about their beliefs in states rights, and about welfare reform. When they want to appeal to people's bigotry towards non-believers, they talk about values. They complain that the country is losing its values, that a return to values is what will make America great again. They love to talk about family values. And while nobody believes that atheists are responsible for, say, Janet Jackson's breast flashing, or offensive rap lyrics, or violent video games, the implication is obvious. When politicians talk about values, they are implicitly talking about Christian values, and when they say that the country is losing its values, they are saying that the country is becoming less Christian. It's probably impossible to be less Christian than an atheist, so nobody could be farther from the values politicians talk about than atheists. Of course, bias against atheists is so ingrained that most politicians have no problem talking about God as the guiding light in their lives in general and their policy-making in particular. Talk show host Bill O'Reilly has no need for code words and regularly rails against the "secularization" of America, and the attack on America by "secularists". Imagine if he railed instead against the Latino-nization of America, or the African-Americanization of America, and complained that America is being overrun with Latinos or with blacks. What would be the reaction? How long would he keep his job? Imagine if George Bush talked about how his race is the guiding light in his policy decisions, and that with every law he signs, he thinks about how he is white, and how important it is to realize the goodness of being white.
So, I've changed my mind, and I now think the Pledge's phrasing is a big deal. I think it's a big deal because people are so offended that someone would want to make such a change. I think it's a big deal because most people don't think the American government or American society does anything hurtful or discriminatory towards nonbelievers, and even if they did think it was true, most people wouldn't care. It's shameful the way Americans use religion as a badge of honor and as a cudgel against the beliefs of others. It's time we faced up to that, and it's time we made some changes. There is no discriminatory practice that is too small to eliminate. Just as people should not be forced to sit in the back of their bus because of their skin color, students should not be compelled to invoke a deity in which they or their parents do not believe.
