>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <06eb01bf0f97$563bc820$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Just who are the bigots here? >Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 18:08:44 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Atheist Alliance International >The Democratic Alliance of Autonomous Atheist Societies >P.O. Box 6261, Minneapolis, MN 55406; www.AtheistAlliance.org >Representing the Atheist-Humanist Viewpoint in Public Affairs >NATIONAL CONTACT: Marie Alena Castle, President >5146 Newton Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430; 612-588-1597; >mac@mtn.org >LOCAL CONTACTS: Refer to list at end. > >Commentary (989 words) >OCTOBER 2, 1999 * For immediate dissemination as news, letter or op-ed >piece > > >Gov. Jesse Ventura-an Honest Politician in Trouble for Being Honest >ATHEIST COMMUNITY ASKS: IS DISHONESTY A RELIGIOUS VALUE? > >By Marie Alena Castle, President, Atheist Alliance International > >Jimmy Carter upset his fellow religionists with a Playboy interview in >which he talked about having lusted in his heart. Now comes Minnesota's >Gov. Jesse Ventura in the November issue of Playboy to one-up Carter >big-time. Ventura's statement: "Organized religion is a sham and a crutch >for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers," brought screams >of outrage from across the theological spectrum. It did not help at all that >he qualified this statement by saying he was expressing his distaste for >intolerant religions. It helped even less that Ventura went on to advocate >legalizing prostitution and decriminalizing drugs. It got worse when he >justified, but did not condone, the Tailhook incident. > >This was not what organized religion, long secure from questioning, >wanted to hear. But Gov. Ventura spoke his mind, and he did it >honestly. The Bill of Rights says we have a right to express our >opinions, but it is now clear that religious organizations cannot >abide any opinion critical of them. Why not? If they are convinced >religion is not a sham and a crutch, shouldn't they welcome rather >than prevent opportunities to prove it? Political beliefs, often as >strongly held as religious beliefs, are not exempt from criticism. >Why does not the same hold true for religion? > >And so organized religion circles the wagons and beats the drums of >propaganda, driving honesty back to the realm of lip service, the abode >of all political virtues. And the politicians hear those drums and, true to >form, take up the beat, sacrificing honesty to political expediency. > >The drumbeat invokes a caricature that drowns out the context of >Ventura's comments in Playboy. It drowns out the context of Ventura's >opinions on religion. It drowns out the context of Ventura's views on >social problems-views that, if allowed to be debated openly, might >produce reality-based policies not favored by religious traditionalists. > >Check these contexts and you find not the caricatures being drummed >into public consciousness but an honest person dealing honestly with >reality and raising honest questions about how best to deal with it. > >Consider the situation in Vietnam that turned Ventura into a religious >skeptic. Organized religion demands that Ventura apologize for telling >the truth about that experience. Where are the demands that they >apologize for exploiting those poor people? Even now, does anyone >doubt that we will soon see televangelists ranting about Ventura, >begging for money from our own uneducated, often desperately poor >people to help "save" America from the likes of such honest politicians? > >Organized religion demands that Ventura apologize for saying the >religious right tries to control people's private lives. Where are the >demands that religion butt out of these areas where they have no >business? > >The demands for apologies become truly mean-spirited with the suggestion >that, should a tragedy occur involving many deaths, the non-religious >Ventura could not credibly offer words of sympathy and healing. The >drumbeat reinforces the dishonest claim that only religious people have >the moral grounding to understand human suffering, that only through >religion can we find solace and comfort. > >Ventura says he cannot stand intolerance, and his actions have matched >his words. Yet now, accusations of "Bigot!" mount, and the drumbeat >attempting to drive this "enemy of the people" from office summons and >reinforces an age-old form of religious dishonesty. Religions scream in >protest over Ventura's justifiable reaction to religious exploitation, yet >religions have for centuries fomented a relentlessly dishonest and >mean-spirited bigotry toward the non-religious. > >Religionists who see bigotry towards them in Ventura's comments do not >see any bigotry towards the non-religious in the Boy Scouts of America's >slanderous policy for admission: "The recognition of God as the ruling >and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgement of >His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship." > >They do not see any bigotry towards the non-religious in the Veterans of >Foreign Wars and the American Legion insisting that god beliefs be part >of the definition of patriotism and refusing membership to atheists, no >matter how many battles they were in. > >They do not see any bigotry towards the non-religious in the remarks by a >Catholic official, (reported by the media on June 6, 1995) regarding the >alleged persecution of the Catholic Church in China: "If a person has no >religious beliefs, he can't be a moral person. If he's not a moral person, >he cannot live in a moral society." > >They do not see any bigotry towards the non-religious in the remarks by >Rabbi Daniel Lapin at a bipartisan prayer breakfast opening the 100th >Congress: "This is to remind us that nothing has the ability to unify >people as much as common devotion to God, except perhaps hatred of >him, as seen in the evil doctrines of socialism and atheism." > >They do not see any bigotry toward the non-religious in the statement >made by former President George Bush in a campaign stop at O'Hare >International Airport on August 27, 1988: ". . . I don't know that atheists >should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. >This is one nation under God." > >To use Sen. Trent Lott's criticism of Ventura: "Can you believe (any of >the above) would say such an insensitive, bigoted thing?" Lott added, >"The enemies are out there." Who? Anyone who raises honest questions >about religion? > >This is not one nation under God, it is one very pluralistic nation under >the Constitution, which includes the right to freedom of speech. >Ventura's speech raises issues that should be discussed openly - the >Sacred Cow status of religion, the appropriate legal status of prostitution >and drug use, the propriety of the methods used for military training. >Ventura is not always right-some of his comments are incredibly ignorant. >But he can be educated, as we all can, if the drumbeat of religious >propaganda does not drive our society deep into an Inquisitorial mindset >where dishonesty is the best-and safest-policy. > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------