A One-Two Punch of Anti-Atheist Ignorance

This morning brings with it two examples of really bad arguments against Michael Newdow's suit to un-God-ify the presidential inauguration. I'll deal with the weaker of the two first, by Dan McDowell who writes a Boston College Democrats column for Examiner.com. I consider it weaker because the piece is peppered with such phrases as "come on" and "what is this?", which I suppose are meant to be informal and familiar, but really only make the author seem, well, twelve.

McDowell doesn't seem to really know where he stands on the issue, as he insists:

I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. It is to the benefit of both that the institutions do not get mixed up with one another.

And then tells us (emphasis mine):

Going after the word God appearing anywhere in the public sphere, including our government, is ridiculous.

So keep religion and government separate, except when it's the government. Got it.

McDowell also seems to have neglected to read beyond the cable news ticker headlines for his understanding of the story (emphasis mine):

Apparently the man who filed this suit hasn’t looked very much into the process. The use of any book, Bible or not, is the choice of the person swearing in, as is the use of the phrase “so help me God”. Quite simply, this is a huge stink over nothing at all. Add in the Constitution doesn’t explicitly require an oath, and the problem is solved.

Almost any news piece on the suit will tell you that Newdow is not opposed to Obama's personal choice in the addition of "so help me God," but does oppose its prompting by the Chief Justice as though it were an official part of the oath. Any short glance at the Constitution will tell you, however, that it is not. But I understand. Reading is hard.

The most infuriating thesis of McDowell's, however, is the last paragraph:

Stop wasting the court’s time and taxpayer money by bringing lawsuits like this before a judge. You’re just going to consistently lose anyway, as there is already a system in place that completely negates the lawsuit’s standing. Just because you don’t want someone to mention religion at all because it is a government office, doesn’t mean they can’t. Oh the wonders of the first amendment.

Take that, all those who wish to participate in our political system and change things! Some version of "you're just going to lose" has been spat at reformers of all stripes throughout human history, and we as a civilization are better off for those who ignored it. But with atheists, it seems, it's a different case. So for McDowell the College Democrat, let's hear it: No you can't! No you can't!

I might be being too hard on the guy. He may not even be paid for what he does! So let's take a look at someone who presumably is compensated for his malfeasance. From the dormitories of Boston we move to the suburbs of Philadelphia to the Intelligencer's Phil Gianficaro, who is astoundlingly condescending and dismissive of Newdow and atheists in general, and you should read the piece and wonder if any other aggrieved group could be spoken of in a similar manner without calls for the author's termination.

Particularly irritating is Gianficaro's weird threshold for a claim's veracity:

What's more irritating than offensive in Newdow's case is his lack of understanding that phrases like "One nation under God," "In God We Trust," and "So Help Me God" aren't intended to endorse or establish religion, but instead acknowledge the nation's religious heritage that dates to the days of American's founding fathers. [. . .]

God exists. Or at least people's unshakable belief in Him exists. In God they trust. Flimsy lawsuits by passionate groups of non-believers will never change that.

This nation, the very one that Newdow and his kind repeatedly drag into court, was founded on principles of religion. The Declaration of Independence references God so often you'd swear it was a Bible chapter to be found in hotel rooms coast to coast. God is mentioned twice in the very first sentence.

This is a bizarre claim that popular belief in something, or centuries-dead dignitaries' understandings of scientific truth, or a concept's mass printing on currency or books in hotel rooms (of all things) automatically makes that something true. Is this his standard for his belief in gravity?

It continues to amaze me that atheists, for no other reason than their unwillingness to believe in things for which there is no evidence, can be attacked in such a hurtful, personal manner. Obviously, because faith claims cannot be backed up by evidence, it is difficult for religious defenders to counter atheists in any substantive way. That's partly why this is the tactic that is, unfortunately, so often chosen, in phrases like this:

As long as there are trees, I guess there are going to be nuts. Some are small. Then there are coconuts like Michael Newdow, publicity hounds with nothing better to do with their education and time than to say "Let us prey."

My God that's sad.

Surely, opponents of atheism can do better than this.

[Cross-post at Bloc Raisonneur]