In a Dec. 7 New York Times article headlined, "In Seven States Atheists Fight for Removal of Belief Rule," Maryland state Senator and Minority Whip Christopher Shank said he believes in pluralism, but then said "I think what they [Atheists] want is an affirmation that the people of the State of Maryland don't care about the Christian faith, and that is a little offensive."
Since when is it the state's business to care about religious preference of citizens?
I think Shank is confusing government neutrality toward religion with hostility to religion. Atheists are simply pointing out that we are equal to Christians in the eyes of the law. He is escalating Atheists' rights request with his fear that Maryland citizens may not care much about religion. There is a difference between cultural religious identity and being religious.
Athist rights are in our deity-free U.S. Constitution of 1787. The only mention of religion is the last sentence of Article VI "…but no religion test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Sec. 1 of 14th Amendment says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Shank is showing he's afraid of Atheists having the same rights as he has been privileged to enjoy. Isn't that blatant bigotry? Shank is upset that Openly Secular, a coalition of 30 groups, is encouraging Atheists, free thinkers and humanists to come out of the closet. Atheists and other groups are becoming more visible, which will dispel old myths. Atheists are human beings with legitimate beliefs and values similar to the general population, definitely not the bogeyman images promoted by church dogma.
Whenever people seek civil rights, others resist by erecting emotional, religious and entitlement ploys as roadblocks. It's called privileges distress when you have a big advantage over others and you don't want it taken away or let them become equal to you.
If you look back on the excuses used for slavery and Jim Crow laws, denying women's rights and gay marriage issues you will see how often religion played a part in delaying the granting of rights.
Nan Nelson
Westminster
