I came across this outfit - OutCampaign.org
- today and feel truly ambivalent about the enterprise. I am not religious. Too many years in Catholic elementary school pretty much beat that out of me. I am astounded by the willingness of some to thrust their religion into our faces, while others endeavor to keep their religious views (what they deem) safely out of sight (e.g., Hilary is a fairly regular attendee at D.C. prayer breakfasts but you wouldn't know it). I also despise ways the media probes the convictions (a nicely homonym-ous
term in this context) of public figures. I found the Obama
immensely annoying. I suppose, because religion is neither a sufficient sign of virtue nor an automatic indicator of diminished capacity, I want to know about some public figure's religious attachments only if
it matters or plausibly might to how they will do their job. There is no presumption that it does.
All that said, I also do not care if you or anyone else is an atheist. I presume for the moment that there are no elected officials in the U.S who would willingly admit to being non-believers. I understand that atheists as a group are almost by definition low-visibility. They do other things on the weekends and various holidays. So, coordinating symbols might be useful. But for what? The very notion of atheism as a group
characteristic is a bit silly. Can we define a group solely by reference to something its members reject? (That is the problem with, say, Vegans too.) Doesn't that afford the repudiated thing (in this instance God) tacit centrality in the lives of group members? Oooops
I am not religious. That means that I think god is irrelevant to my life and how I lead it. So I don't want to spend my time denying god's existence. I want to spend my time on things that matter. Hence, no A
in the sidebar.
Labels: atheism, religion, Symbolic Politics