Additional fine print: abusing a hated minority can be hazardous to persons prone to high blood pressure. Please consult your doctor before you begin any program of vigourous intimidation and marginalization.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
An And nice red uniforms1 production
The context is the month following the horrors of September 11. A nation grieves. Sporadically, fingers are pointed at the usual scapegoats. Atheists and secularists of every stripe, bizarrely (and blatantly inappropriately, I have to say), are on the list. An atheist writes a column commenting she feels a bit left out in the many explicitly religious public memorial gatherings. A letter writer responds with the usual bigotry (all the evil is the atheists' fault), and suggests that all such rabble be run out of the country.
It's gratuitous to comment that this is unworthy of a people who once stood as a shining example of what a secular society could be. And I know (as I comment below) there are better among them. Nonetheless, I gotta weigh in here. My response, posted to the paper within days, follows.
Dear Editor:
Re the gentlewoman who feels the atheists should be deported, quite seriously, sir, do let's consider the practical considerations of her suggestion.
So. The law is to be, that if you believe in a god -- and really, any god will do -- you can stay.
Some of us, of course, would present no ambiguity in this regard. We call ourselves atheists. We're pretty definite about it. We can safely be banished from US holdings, I'm sure, with no danger of any mistake being made.
However. What of those who believe in several gods? What's to be the verdict on this? Just wondering.
What of those who worship entities traditionally viewed as hostile to the god described in the Old Testament? How does the reader feel on this issue? Can Satanists stay?
What of mystics and soothsayers that seem to believe in things one doesn't generally exactly see, but which they may or may not call gods? Seems to me there are matters for legal determination here.
What of persons professing a traditional religious practice that isn't particularly clear on the question of the existence of a god? What ever shall be done with members of sects of Buddhism, as an example, in which this question is rather vaguely answered?
And is it valid to deport persons of no faith forthwith, or is it more seemly to give them some fair period -- say a few months -- to leave the country, or to convert to some acceptable creed? This worked rather well in some respects with the similar case of the extradition of all Jews from Portugal, in 1496. Many, many converts were made, though many by force, and a few by torture, it's true. And yes, it's true, there was an ugly matter of the odd death by auto da fe not long after this, when the populace, still unappeased, became rather suspicious of the sincerity of these conversions. I'm sure we could works the bugs out of the scheme this time, though. No need to make that particular mistake twice, surely.
What of children not yet indoctrinated into a particular religion? Shall the state insist they choose one by a certain age -- let's say, for argument, sixteen? After which, if they are unable to make up their mind, or are careless enough to say, unaware of the consequences, that they suspect it may all be bunkum, they too shall be banished?
What of persons once of a traditional faith experiencing doubt, whose doubt is so significant that they feel they are becoming atheist in spirit? Shall they be detected and purged once they cross a certain critical threshold? Shall it be considered acceptable that they stay as long as they insist they'd actually like to believe, and continually provide evidence to a state-approved spiritual advisor that they're doing their best in this regard?
Or did the writer have more in mind only the expulsion of particularly mouthy, self-described atheists, who write columns and letters to the editor, and refuse to remain politely invisible? The US could really deal with it all quite expediently, if this were the case, and just make it illegal to say one doesn't believe in a god. As it's already effectively forbidden to say this in many public offices anyway, it should probably make for the most seamless transition.
Shall atheist foreign nationals be permitted entry to the country, or is this merely a concern with respect to actual citizenship? Will Richard Dawkins, for example, never again speak at the Smithsonian? Will you stop him at the border and demand he pick a religion from the approved list, or get out?
Besides complexities of theology and law, you may find, with the obvious economic advantages of living in the US (though it might seem unlikely to those of you who only hear from the loudest and proudest among us -- that is, again, those who write to and for newspapers) that some atheists become less than forthcoming about their actual atheism once this new law is enacted. They may profess to be signatories to a creed that avows belief in a god or gods, though actually believing not a single word, purely in the interests of hanging onto their social security numbers. What's to be done about them?
Quite seriously, considering all of this, your country clearly needs some form of court for determining precisely what is and what isn't an atheist. Clearly as this is a matter for deportation, the definitions must be taken seriously, and a rule of law established. It's a practical matter, purely.
May I suggest some form of roving judicial body for the determination of these questions? It could travel the country, looking for persons outwardly professing to be of some faith or other, but with works by Bertrand Russell hidden in their basement bookcases. It could study all of their personal letters, and, if necessary, examine them on questions of doctrine, by whatever means the law allows, so that it could be more clearly determined who is, and who is not, atheist. Certainly, as the letter writer avows, this wouldn't infringe religious liberties, since, as long as you believe in some god or other, you'd be let be, right? Certainly this isn't a law 'concerning the establishment of religion', or anything so odious. Oh, far from it.
May I also suggest the name for this body?
Might I suggest 'the Inquisition'?
Unless that's already been used.
In all seriousness, to all who read this of no faith, and to all of tolerant nature, believers or no, writing from outside your country, I know there are better among you than this. I do not take this reader as a typical American, you need not worry.
But this letter does cause me some concern. While I don't imagine anyone's going to successfully agitate for the actual explusion of all atheists anytime soon, it does give me pause. Just what else might be legislated, in such an atmosphere?
You know very well, I am sure, that 'In God we trust' appeared on your currency, and 'one nation under God' in your pledge of allegiance not in the 1700s, as is implied by this reader, but in the mid 1950s2, in the McCarthy era, another time, not so long ago, when some of the best of you feared (quite understandably) the price you might pay for opposition to such sentiment.
E pluribus unum disappeared that decade, sadly, appropriately, when it was replaced by the newer motto. For what it's worth to you, I have to say, I, for one, miss it.
The world mourns with you, since September. More than five thousand3 are dead, murdered, ultimately, by an irrational, intolerant hatred.
Do keep this in mind, however:
It would be a poor memorial to the victims of this attack to adopt a central tenet of their killers.
If you are tolerant, if you are people of conscience, now, I'm afraid, is apparently the time. Speak up.
I do not wish to remember such voices as these as the voice of America.
Respectfully, and in sympathy,
Notes
1 Monty Python, natch
2 Actually, the history is a bit more complicated, though this is the original text I sent. "In God We Trust" actually appeared on the coinage (as opposed to the paper currency) generally since the early 1900s (and very briefly on an 1864 two cent coin). It made it to the paper currency in the 1950s, however, at about the same time as the 'under God' was inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3 I believe that estimated number had already been greatly revised down by this time; possibly, I missed this, but this, again is the original text.
-- AJM (sent) 23 October 2001, (posted) 2 July 2002