How atheists — and Satanists — are flipping right-wing Christian bigotry on its head

[phantom power]

One of the interesting aspects of all this is that we basically have no cultural grammar to deal with the concept of "right to not have a religion." In this respect, Satanists literally have firmer claim on certain rights than I do as an atheist. The old "you have freedom of religion, but not from religion" meme. In its more extreme form, we see millions of people who literally can't grasp that atheism is not just another kind of religion. They don't have the mental vocabulary for it.

Michael Newdow, who unsuccessfully sued in 2005 to have “under god” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance at his daughter’s school, got new inspiration from the recent rash of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. RFRAs prohibit the government from substantially burdening religion without a compelling interest, which supporters see as protecting pious Christians against substantially burdensome homosexual wedding cakes.

But Newdow argues it applies just as much to atheists, who are forced to handle money bearing “In God We Trust, “ which they certainly don’t.

“Imagine if Christians had to carry on their body something they disagree with religiously, like ‘Jesus is a lie’ — how long do you think that would stand?” Newdow told ThinkProgress. “But atheists are so denigrated in this society that people accept this without a second thought.”

“Under god” and “In god we trust” were both added during the midcentury red scare to ward off godless communists who apparently were thought to have a vampire/garlic relationship with deistic invocations. (“In god we trust” has actually existed on money since the Civil War, but became the nation’s motto in 1956.) Until now, challenges to the two phrases were made under the Establishment Clause; the arguments haven’t impressed judges, who don’t find the inclusion of “god” to be establishing a particular religion.

But the substantial burden/compelling interest test is a lower bar than the First Amendment. “There is obviously no compelling government interest in having ‘In god we trust’ on our money,” Newdow wrote. He plans to file in multiple state courts where RFRAs have passed. Though a similar tactic failed in 2013, Newdow believes the burden test has gotten looser since the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, a major case in which the high court found in favor of religious objectors over the government’s compelling interest.

Newdow’s strategy depends on whether atheism is defined as a religion for the purposes of pluralism, or whether by opposing religion it sits beyond religion’s constitutionally enumerated protections. Whether atheism in fact counts as a religion is less than clear, and is being adjudicated on a case-by-case basis at the local level. Two recent conflicts—both, coincidentally, from the upper Midwest—have indicated a lean toward yes.

A judge recently fined the city of Warren, Michigan $100,000 for excluding an atheist from its nativity display, arguing the atheist’s freedom of religion had been violated. The city’s mayor had argued that atheism was the absence of religion and therefore was not covered.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/how-atheists-and-satanists-are-flipping-right-wing-christian-bigotry-on-its-head/

[Art_from_Ark]

1. "In God We Trust" was first added to US money in 1864

It's actually a variation of a line from The Star Spangled Banner, written in 1814:

"And this be our motto, 'In God is our trust.'"