Supreme Court Prayer Ruling May Bring Atheists, Minority Religions Together, Atheist Leader Says

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/supreme-courty-prayer-ruling-atheists_n_5290425.html

Religion News Service | by Kimberly Winston
Posted: 05/08/2014 3:22 pm EDT Updated: 05/08/2014 3:59 pm EDT


David Silverman, president of American Atheists, addresses the Reason Rally on March 24, 2012, on the National Mall in Washington. (RNS photo by Tyrone Turner)

STANFORD, Calif. (RNS) This week’s Supreme Court ruling allowing sectarian prayers at public meetings dealt a body blow to atheist organizations.

That was the assessment of David Silverman, president of American Atheists, speaking Tuesday (May 6) to a group of nonbelievers at Stanford University. He then described a scenario that may raise eyebrows among some atheists: working with religious groups to fight against the ruling.

“That’s what we have to do, not only organize the atheists, but the Satanists, the Scientologists,” he said. In a conversation before his talk, he added Muslims, Jews and Hindus. “We as atheists have the responsibility to urge them and push them and get them in there to get their prayers” said at public meetings.

That’s a change for a man who has famously described religion as a “poison.” And it is emblematic, observers say, of the change that may result from the majority opinion in Greece v. Galloway, which found that prayers citing “the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross” are permissible before government business.

more at link

[rug]

1. He can raise it at next year's CPAC.

[struggle4progress]

2. Silverman is a political moron. There will be all manner of mainstream opportunities

to educate the public and to organize both religious and non-religious secularists in the wake of Greece v Galloway, but Silverman apparently lacks the basic instincts and insights to do so

I think the problem originates in the sloppiness of his analysis. Silverman seems unable to distinguish between atheism, skepticism, and secularism -- but the words designate different things: atheists form a large amorphous group, for instance, with little to unify them, whereas secularists at least have a common PoV regarding a particular approach to entangling government and religion, even if they individually adopt varying religious or irreligious stances. Silverman's lack of coherent analysis does not permit him to notice the definite political-power goals behind religious rightwing Republican rhetoric, and so he thrashes about in search of solutions without really understanding the problem. The remarks of Thomas with Scalia concurring, in Greece v Galloway, ought to excite some concerned interest across a wide-spectrum of this country's population, if people learn about it -- and so educating the public, about those remarks, would offer a way to move the conversation forward: it might be great fun (by way of example) to force various Congressfolk to address the question, whether they agree with Justices Thomas and Scalia that states could be allowed to establish official state denominations

Unfortunately, Silverman thinks in such small terms, that he can only imagine (say) forming a coalition with Scientologists -- objectively a rather small collection of people, whose "religion" is widely regarded as a cult. Scientologists, of course, are entitled to their views, and should it be necessary many of us will stand up (sighing) in support of their rights in that regard -- but a coalition prominently containing Scientologists will gain little political traction and does not promise rapid progress. OTOH probably a number of conservative Baptists across the country would oppose the notion of Thomas and Scalia that the Establishment Clause does not apply to the states and that states can establish official state churches

[mmonk]

3. It should. Actually it should bring all of us together.

The establishment clause is pretty clear.