He begins with a repetition of something we already knew -- that atheists are more distrusted as a minority than any other:
First, can history tell us anything about non-religious presidents? Consider that a few presidents in our history have been about as religious as a toothpick, even if they still believed in God (I'm thinking of the usual suspects -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, &c.). Would you say that the first two had any real discernible impact on their ability to preside over (1) and (2)? Lincoln would certainly not fit into the (2) category easily -- considering that about 1/2 of the nation was "disconnected" from him, but he's considered one of (if not the) greatest presidents. In addition, some of the more overtly religious (like Carter) have turned out to be horrid presidents. So even Medved would have to agree that being able to "connect" with the people of America by having shared views on everything in no way makes one a good Chief Executive or Commander in Chief.
Second, the ability to say, "Let us remember the sacred history of our forefathers and honor them and their achievements," doesn't require shared beliefs with them.
Third, Medved's logic is so convoluted on item three I can't even figure out what he's trying to say:
--
Now, as far as angry, vocal atheists go, there are some. And as far as the problems that they cause for atheism, there are some. Although the importance of religion in our society must not be underestimated, neither must secular America, especially the trend as it applies towards younger Americans, something I've emphasized before:
Regardless of the exact number, the number of atheists visible in politics is next to zero, and that is unlikely to change. Atheists are still distrusted and that prejudice won't change overnight. And that's a lot of why people are reluctant to use the label, even when they admit that they aren't theists. However, the idea that, as America progresses and as the levels of the non-religious and apathetic continue to rise, we won't or can't elect a President with no religion is just wishful thinking on his part. Given the demographics above, it becomes all the more likely as time goes on.
The next time Medved wants to tackle such a topic, he ought to have at least one solid argument behind him.
Despite the recent spate of major bestsellers touting the virtues of atheism, polls show consistent, stubborn reluctance on the part of the public to cast their votes for a presidential candidate who denies the existence of God.Funny that he even thinks we need reminding of that, since he's writing to an almost exclusively conservative audience, all of whom believe that already.
Meanwhile, the members of Congress may hardly qualify as saintly or angelic, but of the 535 men and women in the House and Senate, only one (the shameless radical rabble-rouser Fortney “Pete” Stark of Oakland, California) openly describes himself as an atheist. [link added]Hyperbole, anyone? First, only a moron would think that Stark is the only nonbeliever in Congress, he's just the only one with the courage and political prospects that enable him to declare it. Not that we haven't heard this sort of stupidity before over Stark. One point to make is that the members of Congress (or the church in general) who have been caught in sexual scandals or what-not are actually more likely to be right-wing "Religious Right" crusaders than lefties like Stark or Sanders or Feingold: Mark Foley, Larry "wide stance" Craig, Bob Allen, Newt Gingrich...read the whole list. And so, if claiming the religious mantle has no real effect on one's behavior as a public official, what is the thrust of Medved's argument?
An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.Okay, so tell us then, why? Here are his three justifications:
- Hollowness and Hypocrisy at State Occasions
- Disconnecting from the People
- Winning the War on Islamo-Nazism
First, can history tell us anything about non-religious presidents? Consider that a few presidents in our history have been about as religious as a toothpick, even if they still believed in God (I'm thinking of the usual suspects -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, &c.). Would you say that the first two had any real discernible impact on their ability to preside over (1) and (2)? Lincoln would certainly not fit into the (2) category easily -- considering that about 1/2 of the nation was "disconnected" from him, but he's considered one of (if not the) greatest presidents. In addition, some of the more overtly religious (like Carter) have turned out to be horrid presidents. So even Medved would have to agree that being able to "connect" with the people of America by having shared views on everything in no way makes one a good Chief Executive or Commander in Chief.
Second, the ability to say, "Let us remember the sacred history of our forefathers and honor them and their achievements," doesn't require shared beliefs with them.
Third, Medved's logic is so convoluted on item three I can't even figure out what he's trying to say:
Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him. The proper response to such assertions involves the citation of our religious traditions and commitments, and the credible argument that embrace of modernity, tolerance and democracy need not lead to godless materialism.WTF? It literally sounds as if Medved thinks that these lunatics have a point and that we ought to sit down at the philosophical table and give them the credibility and standing to engage in such debates with us. It goes on:
In this context, an atheist president conforms to the most hostile anti-America stereotypes of Islamic fanatics and makes it that much harder to appeal to Muslim moderates whose cooperation (or at least neutrality) we very much need. The charge that our battle amounts to a “war against Islam” seems more persuasive when an openly identified non-believer leads our side—after all, President Atheist says he believes in nothing, so it’s easy to assume that he leads a war against belief itself. A conventional adherent of Judeo-Christian faith can, on the other hand, make the case that our fight constitutes of an effort to defend our own way of life, not a war to suppress some alternative – and that way of life includes a specific sort of free-wheeling, open-minded religiosity that has blessed this nation and could also bless the nations of the Middle East....again, I'm lost. Is he saying that we would be "aiding the terrorists" by having an atheist president, because then one of their "points" would be confirmed? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't they often refer to us as "Crusaders" -- trying to force their culture and religion to conform with ours? And isn't the term "infidel" used to describe non-Muslims, not just nonbelievers? And isn't the "war against radical Islam" what the right-wing wants and isn't it even their own frickin' phrase? This column makes zero sense to me.
--
Now, as far as angry, vocal atheists go, there are some. And as far as the problems that they cause for atheism, there are some. Although the importance of religion in our society must not be underestimated, neither must secular America, especially the trend as it applies towards younger Americans, something I've emphasized before:
The proportion of atheists and agnostics increases from 6% of Elders (ages 61+) and 9% of Boomers (ages 42-60), to 14% of Busters (23-41) and 19% of adult Mosaics (18-22).Looking at very recent polls, around 18% of Americans do not believe in God. This trend is in line with other recent assessments of the state of atheism, and the disparity in numbers between "atheist" and "82% of people believe in God" confirms that people are still reluctant to self-identify with "the A word" despite their admission that they don't believe in God. In the largest religious self-identification survey ever undertaken, 14% of those surveyed reported "no religion" but only 0.4% explicitly as "atheist". A more recent Baylor study found only 50% of "religious nones" identify as "atheists" -- again note the disparity between non-religious persons and people willing to identify as "atheist" and/or be active in some sort of atheist organization. Another recent poll in The Nation shows that the number of nonbelievers is much higher than commonly recognized - at around 27% not believing in a God (those willing to self-identify as atheists is still much lower).
Regardless of the exact number, the number of atheists visible in politics is next to zero, and that is unlikely to change. Atheists are still distrusted and that prejudice won't change overnight. And that's a lot of why people are reluctant to use the label, even when they admit that they aren't theists. However, the idea that, as America progresses and as the levels of the non-religious and apathetic continue to rise, we won't or can't elect a President with no religion is just wishful thinking on his part. Given the demographics above, it becomes all the more likely as time goes on.
The next time Medved wants to tackle such a topic, he ought to have at least one solid argument behind him.
