AP news article slanted against atheist activism

The national religion reporter for Associated Press, Eric Gorski, apparently motivated by an increase in the number of campus affiliates of the Secular Student Alliance "from 80 in 2007 to 100 in 2008 and 174 this fall", authored a recently published article titled "Atheist student groups flower on college campuses". The news article is well written and presents facts about atheist campus clubs with a neutral, even sympathetic, tone. Yet the article's selection of quotations and focus also has a pronounced bias against non-establishment of monotheism activism. Mr. Eric Gorski selected quotes from atheists that promote the article's underlying theme that confrontational activism and anti-religion sentiment are positively correlated negatives, in contrast with a more cooperative, and therefore positive, example of activism disliked by anti-religion atheists that focuses on other general concerns of liberals (in this case more civic equality for gays).

Mr. Gorski asks "Should student atheist groups go it alone or build bridges with Christian groups? Organize political protests or quiet discussion groups? Adopt the militant posture of the new atheists? Or wave and smile?" If only because of time and resources constraints, these are some of the choices of focus and emphasis that atheist groups may, to some extent, confront. But Mr. Gorski over dramatizes these choices by presenting at least some of these choices as being in conflict with each other when, in fact, they are all mutually compatible and self-consistent.

The article cites one atheist campus club that decided to join a liberal religious group in supporting equal legal status for gays as exemplifying a controversy among atheists over whether to work with religious groups. Here the article focuses on an alleged conflict between such cooperative activism and the anti-religion sentiment of some atheists. It then cites that club's decision to avoid taking a position against a university chapel's religious symbols because some members "fear repercussions and don't think a fight is worth it." A club member who was identified at the start of the article as exemplifying the "wave and smile", "happy face of atheism" is quoted as supporting that decision on the grounds that she is uncomfortable with "calling out religion as wrong." That quote incorrectly conflates lobbying a secular educational institution to exhibit neutrality between various religious and non-religious viewpoints with "calling out religion as wrong".

The article then quotes an organizer for the Secular Student Alliance saying "college students can be a little more susceptible to the more reactionary anti-religion voices, partly because it's so new to them. My impression is after a couple of years, they mellow out." Maybe after a couple years a more pro-religion atheist will become more anti-religion in orientation? Like the question of atheism versus theism, answers to questions regarding the nature of the influences of religions on societies should not be regarded as predetermined, fixed conclusions, but subject to weight of the evidence evaluation and discussion. Either way, surely the sentiments for and against religion are separable, and indeed separate, from the sentiment for civic equality between different religions and between atheism and theism. Independently of how pro-religion or anti-religion we are individually, groups of atheists can be, and arguably we should be, willing to be a little confrontational, and even a little militant, on behalf of such civic equality while also waving and smiling and joining with theists of all religious orientations for debate and coalition politicking.

Christian Smith, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame and "a principal investigator on the youth and religion study" is quoted at the conclusion of this article. He is cited as asserting that campus atheist groups are better off without militancy. Young adults are taught their entire lives to be nonjudgmental, that different points of views are OK and that there is no one truth, he said. "If I were advising atheists and humanists, I would say their long-term prospects are much better if they can successfully create this space where people view them as happy, OK, cooperative, nice people."

Those atheists who appear to some people to be confrontational and militant on behalf of promoting more civic equality and/or who do think that what is true is sometimes singular and exclusive to multiple competing falsehoods are also happy, cooperative, nice people. Indeed, contrary to what Christian Smith says, most adults, young and old, including most religious adults and most theists, justifiably think truth is sometimes singular and exclusive to a competing multitude of falsehoods. Furthermore, most such adults justifiably prefer that others share their own insights regarding which is which. There should be no acceptable double standard here with regard to atheists. The real issue is not how firmly or exclusively one holds to any particular belief, but whether the belief is properly justified and held in proper proportion to the overall weight of the evidence.

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket

Library of Congress Historian promotes George Washington myths

In May 2005, Dr. Marvin Kranz, historical specialist, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, was interviewed by Senator Durbin about the history of presidential inaugurations. About three and half minutes into the interview Dr. Marvin Kranz says "George Washington took the first inaugural address, and when he was about to take the first inaugural address he said 'where is the bible?'. Nobody had a bible. He wanted to take it on a bible." About four minutes into a video on the Library of Congress web site page titled Presidential Inaugurations: Historical Insights, George Washington's First Inauguration Dr. Marvin Kranz says "Washington said he wanted to take the oath on the bible".

I don't think so. There is no eyewitness evidence that I am aware of that supports the assertion that George Washington "said he wanted to take the oath on the bible" or said "where is the bible?". If he had wanted a bible he could have brought one with him. The first chief justice of New York state, John Jay, was also the second president of the American Bible Society. It is possible that he thought that the swearing-in lacked legitimacy without a bible and made the initial request that one be provided for the ceremony. Chancellor Livingston, Grandmaster of the New York Masons, apparently sent someone, maybe fellow Mason Jacob Morton, to the nearby Masonic lodge to fetch a bible. George Washington's only role here was probably as spectator to all of this. Unfortunately, when it comes to George Washington, it appears that religionists have introduced a number of propaganda myths, and those myths have been repeated so many times that even PhD historians employed by our Library of Congress have been repeating them.

The truth is there is no known eyewitness account stating who requested the bible so we don't know. The first account that I know of which claims Jacob Morton was the person who obtained the bible and the red velvet cushion from the Masonic temple is found on page 124 of Washington and His Masonic Peers by Sidney Hayden, 1867. That is a long time after the fact, its not an eyewitness account, so it appears that we don't know who fetched the bible either. George Washington neither requested the bible nor did he append "so help me God" to his oath of office. Shame on Dr. Kranz for asserting otherwise while speaking as a government employee and historical expert on presidential inaugurations.

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket

Overview of book "Taking on the Pledge of Allegiance"

Reproduced as originally published in November 2007 Washington Secular Humanist newsletter.

"Taking on the Pledge of Allegiance" by Ronald Bishop. State University of New York Press, 2997, ISBN 0791471821

The book's Foreword, written by Nadine Strossen, has a good concise summary of both the lawsuit's assertions and the media's distorted characterization of the lawsuit. Newdow maintained that the public school policy of requiring teachers to daily lead the students in pledging allegiance to one nation Under God violated his parental rights to influence his young daughter's beliefs without the state placing its imprimatur on a particular opposing religious belief. Strossen writes "... he certainly did not seek to strip all religious references from public life, notwithstanding the widespread, overblown media accounts that mischaracterized his claims in these ways." "... the media tended to demonize him as an egocentric individualist who was taking advantage of his biological relationship with his daughter to advance his own ideological agenda." "... the media generally disparaged and trivialized Newdow's legal claims, implying that they had garnered the support of only a few judges on an allegedly--but actually not--extremist liberal court..." "In sum, the media coverage of Newdow's case wrongly impugned the virtues of both his legal claims and his motives in pursuing them."

Bishop starts by discussing "Frame Analysis". He says journalists utilized "several distinct frames to position Newdow as an erratic outsider who had the audacity to challenge one of this nation's most revered rituals in a time of national crisis." Next, under the title "Narrative Analysis", he promises to pay special attention "to what journalists invited their readers and viewers to think and to not to think about Newdow and his lawsuit." Lastly, "The Guard Dog Function" section accuses journalists of acting as "sentry for dominant institutions, patrolling the perimeter, searching for threats [in this case the threat is Newdow's lawsuit], and sounding the alarm when one is identified". This is the opposite of the better known "watchdog" role of monitoring "the conduct of public officials and large corporations, and expose corrupt behavior for the public's benefit" which journalists like to claim for themselves.

The next chapter discusses the history of the "Under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. This is very damning as it reveals the central role that anti-atheist bigotry had in the arguments made by the leading "Under God" advocates. With Eisenhower listening from the front pew, the Reverend George Docherty of the New York Presbyterian Church in Washington DC called atheists "spiritual parasites" that live off of the "accumulated spiritual capital of Judaio (sic)-Christian civilization" and "deny the God who revealed the divine principles upon which the ethics of this country grow." An atheists "cannot deny the Christian revelation and logically live by the Christian ethic. And if he denies the Christian ethic, he falls short of the American ideal of life." The 1954 Washington Post treated Docherty's bigoted sermon "like the act of a true hero." The New York Times also favored the Pledge revision. The Hearst newspapers went further, engaging in a relentless nationwide campaign to promote the revision to the Pledge. It is clear from their pronouncements that the advocates of "Under God" considered the addition of that phrase to be necessary because it was a statement of the Christian, or Judeo-Christian, character of the country and, ironically, to emphasize the difference with the Soviet Union whose government established atheism as a component of its official governing ideology.

This chapter also details the blunt arguments made by Newdow against Ninth Circuit Judge Nowinski who he characterized as not being the first federal judge to "have wounded America's atheistic religious minority due to contorted legal doctrine, his reliance on the prejudices of others does not save him here". Newdow argues that a federal judge must evaluate wrongs committed against dissenters "from the point of view of both the Constitution and the minorities they are sworn to protect" but he says the judiciary has chosen to "assault logic, invent sophistry, twist prior case law and completely disregard a denial of fundamental religious liberties because, as Judge Nowinski noted, 'no one wants to take that step'." resulting in disarray in Establishment Clause rulings.

The third chapter explains the arguments of both sides in more detail, pointing out the school district Attorney's failure to "address Newdow's contention that the policy and the Pledge contribute to the treatment of atheist's as second-class citizens" funded by his taxes. Newdow quoted Congressman Louis Rabaut, the 1953 author of the congressional resolution to amend the Pledge, as saying "an atheistic American is a contradiction in terms." He argued that the change made in 1954 was purely religious in nature, based on the invalid idea that "belief in God is morally superior to atheism." Newdow again slammed Judge Nowinski for his "ridiculous" statement that the Pledge would not be "perceived by [theists] as an endorsement, and by [atheists] as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices." This is followed by a description of the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Pledge policy violated all three of the tests used to evaluate Establishment Clause claims and the dissenting opinion. There is a refutation here of the media's false claim that the Ninth Circuit was reversed more often than any of the other 12 circuit courts.

The rest of Bishop's book leaves no room for doubt that Strossen's Foreword contains an accurate characterization of the overall media coverage. Reporters quickly developed a "preferred reading" of Newdow's case, "one that would not allow for full consideration of his reasons for filing suit in the first place." The misleading journalism blitz cast Newdow and those who supported him as reckless zealots trying to purge God from public life. They falsely depicted the issue as a choice between supporting or opposing the Pledge with no middle ground. "Journalists reduced his challenge and the Ninth Circuit's decision to an opportunity for jingoistic chest-thumping and pathological name-calling." "Missing was even a passing acknowledgement that freedom of religion does in fact mean freedom from religion." The media trivialized Newdow's complaint, endorsing the "ceremonial deism" defense that references to God had lost their religious flavor after decades of repetition and reassured readers that the Supreme Court would almost certainly keep "Under God" in the Pledge. The mother of Newdow's daughter, Sandra Banning, was widely depicted by journalists "as victimized mother looking out for her daughter's interests."

The full Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the 3 judge panel's decision is covered in chapter 7. The media tended to falsely depict this decision as having "backed off" from the earlier decision. The accusation that this decision was an imposition of minority atheism on the majority became prominent in media coverage. Only one newspaper, the Seattle Times, sided with Newdow and the court. The argument that parents should determine how and when their children are exposed to religious messages received almost no coverage.

On to the Supreme Court and the debate regarding Newdow's standing to bring his lawsuit, how establishment was defined historically, and the religious or non-religious and inclusive or non-inclusive nature of the Pledge with the "one nation Under God" phrase. Coverage in the print media became more balanced, painting a more complete, less neurotic picture of Newdow. Coverage on television still depicted Newdow as "a publicity-obsessed zealot, bent on eradicating religion from our lives." Journalists still depicted Banning as the "good mother" and failed to explore the considerable support she was receiving from various right wing sources while implying that Newdow was exploiting his daughter.

The book ends with a discussion "On Being a Dissenter in America". Bishop writes "If we can take anything from Newdow's story, it is this: we must, as a nation, reintroduce ourselves to the notion that anyone can mount a challenge to a policy or law that is perceived to be unjust or discriminatory." He characterizes as disingenuous the assertion that we would be better off discussing "real problems instead of focusing on battles that have no significant impact on Americans' daily lives." He asks "When did the right ... to be free ... from the endorsement of religious expression by public officials ... become a secondary issue?" "Even though ... the nation was not going to rush to support Newdow; we--and the news media--at least owed him the chance to take his best shot."

Mr. Bishop is correct, the news media largely failed America here.

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket

Philadelphia anti-discrimination covers atheists also.

Newspapers around country keep ignoring atheists when reporting government non-discrimination compliance. A recent example of this can be found in the newspaper articles reporting the City of Philadelphia decision to enforce their non-discrimination law by charging the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scouts full market price on their lease of a government building. The articles identified the target of the discrimination as gays. Many of the articles identified gays as the discrimination victims in the article headline. With the notable exception of the Philadelphia Inquirer, none of the articles reported that atheists are also refused membership in Boy Scouts.

This omission is a factual error no less than the inclusion of false claims would be. Government non-discrimination laws cover creed, not just sexual orientation, so government enforcement of such laws cannot be directed at upholding equal protection for gays without also protecting atheists when both groups are excluded from a membership organization.

The Philadelphia city resolution revoking of the $1 rent subsidy for Boy Scouts cited only "excluding participation on the basis of sexual orientation" and thus, ironically, was itself discriminatory in its failure to acknowledge that atheists are also excluded. Politics reflects public opinion and unfortunately, in this context, that means popular prejudice. Journalists, however, are supposed to look beyond public opinion and report the facts without bias which in this case includes the fact that BSA also discriminates against atheists.

Take action: Send an email to Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations and Jack Stokes, Manager of Media Relations of the Associated Press at info@ap.org. Tell them that the repeated failure to mention that atheists are denied membership in their Boy Scouts discrimination news coverage, most recently in their October 18 article Boy Scouts' Rent Hiked Over Gay Ban, is biased journalism. Tell them that they are failing to adhere to the commitment to "abhor bias" that appears in their Statement of News Principles and Values.

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket

The Media and Newdow's Pledge lawsuit

The new book "Taking on the Pledge of Allegiance: The Media and Michael Newdow's Constitutional Challenge" by Dr. Ronald Bishop, Associate Professor in the Department of Culture and Communications at Drexel Unversity, examines how the media marginalized Newdow and his establishment clause complaint after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance ritual in public schools was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion 'by framing the decision as an aberration, a radical act by a hopelessly liberal federal circuit court. Bishop concludes that journalists relegated Newdow to a rhetorical "protest zone" - he was heard but from a safe distance.'

On a personal note, it was watching the mostly closed minded misleading journalism coverage of the MICHAEL NEWDOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT decision upholding government non-establishment that motivated me to start this blog as a "Commentary on legal status of, public attitudes towards, and misinformation about atheism, atheists, and secularism in the United States."

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket

Meet the Press excludes atheist viewpoints

Susan Jacoby laments that "both atheism and secularism are still largely excluded from public dialogue about the proper role of religion in American politics." She points out that NBC's Tim Russert Meet the Press appears to have a "No Atheists (Still) Need Apply" policy when selecting people to discuss issues concerning the relationship between religion and politics. Such marginalization of atheists is a common and subtle form of misleading journalism. We need more atheist voices in the United States to break out of this marginalization.

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket

Should public school students be allowed to read the bible?

That was the question for a poll by the popular Washington DC area "nonstop news" radio station, WTOP, during morning rush hour one day earlier this month. The radio station broadcast callers giving their opinion that students should or should not be permitted to read their own bible during their lunch hour. The Rutherford Institute had filed a lawsuit against a Prince George County (Maryland) public school because some unidentified school official allegedly threatened a 7th grade middle school student with undefined "severe disciplinary action" if she didn't stop reading her bible during her lunch break (see Rutherford Institute's 9/29/2006 press release ). Which just goes to illustrate that WTOP lacks common sense with regard to claims that Christians are victims of anti-Christian bias.

Of course students have the right to read a bible during their lunch hour! Even the Rutherford Institute concedes that the public school district acknowledges that students have this right. The published administrative procedure of the Prince George’s County Public Schools provides that “students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable, non-disruptive activities.” So what is the point of WTOP's rush hour poll? I won't speculate on their motive, but the effect of this misleading journalism would be to convince people that there is a live legal controversy regarding whether or not personal bible reading in public schools can be forbidden.

It should be obvious that the right to bible reading in public schools is secure in the United States and under no threat. Not even us activist atheists dispute that students have a right to read their bibles in public schools. France may ban students from overt displays of religious sectarianism in public schools in the name of their perverse brand of "secularism", but we are not France and never will be. Nevertheless, no one should be surprised if, every now and then, there is an ignorant public school official somewhere who takes the religious right's paranoid mis-descriptions of U.S. secularism seriously and, accordingly, insists that secularism requires no bible reading in public schools. Maybe that happened here, maybe it did not (the failure to identify a school official justifies skepticism), we don't know. But that doesn't translate into a controversy over whether or not such bible reading can be forbidden.

This is not the first time I have noticed a religiously social conservative bias at WTOP. When WTOP covered two side by side rallies in front of the Supreme Court during Newdow's Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit, one by atheists and the other by religionists backing Judge Moore (the Chief Justice of Alabama who sneaked a multi-ton ten commandment display into the court building's rotunda), it kept repeating the "news" all day that atheists were harassing the religionists. I attended that rally, and for the entire time I was there, which amounted to about four hours from shortly after the rally started until the rallies broke up, there was no such harassment of the religionists. There was one incident where a speaker for the religionists raised the volume on their speaker system very high for the entire time American Atheists President Ellen Johnson was at the atheists' podium, making it impossible to hear her. The only other target of boorish behavior I witnessed was me. I repeatedly got bumped by a group of 3-4 gals who kept walking the boundary between the two rallies. More importantly, WTOP has demonstrated that it cannot be relied on to report the concerns of atheists accurately and objectively.

delicious, Digg, technocrati, reddit, stumbleupon, designfloat, google bookmark, BlogThis!, Newsvine, email this post, Pocket