MCT Campus
I’m an avowed atheist; I believe that religion is detrimental to the advancement of the human species. I dismiss all religions as merely man-made fairy tales, and it is my belief there is no redeeming virtue or practical benefit to be found in any religion. Simply put, to quote Christopher Hitchens, religion poisons everything.
It may offend people to read statements like this, but that’s OK with me. It’s OK for people to be offended.
I’d like to emphasize that point. Many people truly believe they somehow have a right to live without having to confront opinions or values different from their own. Let’s get one thing straight: You do not have the right to not be offended.
Religions offend me for a variety of reasons. When I drive past a church on a Sunday morning and see smiling parishioners spilling out into their communities, it bothers my conscience. I find it to be deeply disturbing. But I acknowledge and appreciate their right to the free exercise of their religious convictions, and that those rights are justly protected by the law. It would be wrong for anyone to attempt to take these rights away.
So, at what point do the nonreligious decide it is time to object to religious practices? Many atheists have fought legal battles against government endorsement of specific religious institutions or practices. Some of these battles have been legitimate and some frivolous, at best. An example of a frivolous skirmish is currently taking place just north of here.
At Camp Pendleton, there is a hilltop memorial dedicated to the memory of marines who died in Iraq in various engagements throughout the last decade. This memorial, which was erected on Veterans Day last year, is a 13-foot tall cross. The existing memorial was built to replace a previous one, which was destroyed by a fire. The original memorial was built by a group of marines in 2003, who put it on the hilltop before leaving for Iraq. Three of the marines who built the original cross were subsequently killed in combat. A group of Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans and the widows of the soldiers who built the original memorial carried the new cross to its current location.
This is not OK with Jason Torpy, president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, who has objected to the memorial.
According to Torpy, “No cross or statue of Jesus represents military service.” In a written statement, he continued to argue, “Military service is being exploited to secure unconstitutional Christian privilege.”
However, according to the Camp Pendleton public affairs office, “The memorial cross activity… was conducted by private individuals acting solely in their personal capacities. As such, they were not acting in any official position or capacity that may be construed as an endorsement of a specific religious denomination by the Department of Defense or the U.S. Marine Corps.”
Torpy has taken issue with this, arguing that knowledge of the memorial was akin to official approval. Torpy has posed the question, “Would they allow that for anyone else who wanted to put up something for atheists?”
This type of position is how atheists have earned a reputation for being obnoxious. As an atheist, this bothers me. Atheism is, by definition, the absence of religion. There is currently no equivalent symbol that atheists could (or would) place on a hilltop to memorialize fallen comrades. If there were such a symbol, our laws would provide equal protection for such a symbol to be displayed.
There is no place in this nation more sacred than Arlington National Cemetery. I don’t care what anyone has to say to the contrary. In the United States, there is no ground more hallowed than that place. When I visited Arlington, I was overwhelmed with solemnity and gratitude. The weight of the sacrifices that have been made by service members is incalculable, and that is all I thought about when I walked through that special place, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of gravestones, the majority of which have crosses on them. I would have to be thoroughly solipsistic to take offense at the presence of crosses in memorials to soldiers.
When I see a cross on a hilltop at Camp Pendleton, I have freedom in how I interpret that symbol. I can see a symbol of torture and oppression, responsible for untold misery and suffering through the last 2,000 years, or I can see the meaning that this symbol carries for a third of humanity. For most people, the cross is a completely harmless symbol that gives hope and meaning to their lives. I completely disagree with their position and the cross is a disgusting thing to me; but how big of an egomaniac would I have to be to attempt to ban the display of crosses, or other religious symbols?
It’s disappointing the atheist community feels the need to resort to litigious action instead of promoting a more healthy dialogue. The problem of religion will not be solved in the courtrooms.
—Kenneth Leonard is an English junior.
Loading ...
I completely agree. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for being one lone voice of reason in the increasing wilderness of insanity this country has become. As a devout Christian, I hold zero animosity for atheists, simply wondering in a personal way at those who can believe in there being no higher power as Creator of this universe (and that being only the universe we actually see or try to comprehend, never mind what else could exist). But so be it, I certainly hold no anger toward you whatsoever. Why would I be threatened by your own personal beliefs? This is why I am convinced certain seethingly angry, abusive people / groups who claim to be atheists are in fact former religious who are either personally lost or angry with a religion they formerly believed in. I think they are actually afraid. But this is not the main point. Your correct statement about atheism being an ABSENCE of religion, not a religion unto itself (!) is the major point here, as is your second point about one’s ego at thinking because I am offended by someone else’s belief i have the right to try and destroy it or all symbols of it. Everyone today seems to walk around like their own little special-interest group, and this administration has done everything in its power to encourage that sentiment in order to divide us politically, socially, economically, and religiously. We must pay attention to how we are engineered by media and politics for the larger government’s goal of manipulating us for their own purposes. We ALL have to live here together, it is not who screams the loudest who wins — that is only what your politician is telling you. You don’t need to become the vile and bitter Bill-Maher-religion-hating jerk in order to tell people you don’t see things the way they do. I do not consider hate funny, and Maher is not funny, he simply hates. And atheists certainly don’t need to desecrate a grave to prove they don’t believe in an afterlife! So…thanks for being a real atheist. I never thought I’d say that sentence in my life.
The First Amendment forbids the Government from endorsing religion in general, or from endorsing a specific religion (such as the one obsessed with crosses).
Why is that so hard to understand?
As an SDSU alum (and an atheist!), this “opinion” made me WINCE! What part of the EGOTISM of the display of religious symbols on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY NO LESS, do you NOT COMPREHEND? It is NOT the atheists who are “egotists”, but the religionists with their pathetic insecurity that persist in displaying their archaic symbols as EGOTISTICAL DISPLAYS of their bullshit religion! You have got the “egotism” perspective COMPLETELY BASS-ACKWARDS!
I’m a little confused by your use of the word “egotism” to describe the display of the religious symbol. Did the people who created the memorial do so out of misguided “insecurity” or as an “egotistical display” of their religious beliefs? Perhaps they chose what they thought of as a relatively wholesome, harmless symbol that they could use to mark a hilltop while remembering fallen loved ones? Since the motives of the people who created the memorial remain unknown, the egotism you accuse them of appears to be a reflection of your own attitude. The memorial may have been created without any religious agenda. While I, personally, don’t like looking up on a hilltop and seeing a cross, it’s important to respect my fellow citizen’s right to believe in something that may offend me. Remember, our Constitution protects freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Also, the whole point of what I wrote was that these types of lawsuits tend to be damaging to the public perception of atheism. There’s a split in the atheist community on how these types of issues should be resolved. It is similar to the differences in ideology between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in approaching racism and civil rights. Neither ideologue was completely “right” in their approach, and it will take time for rational skepticism to spread and for religious dogma to dissolve in our society.
Kenneth, John McCready is one of those pathologically obsessed with obliterating religion, filled with hatred and contempt for believers. Your attempt at rational discourse is wasted on him.
I’d realy like to know exactly what vows you took to become an “avowed atheist”. That, and the language style you use throughout the rest of your article, sound far more like a Christian apologist than an atheist.
As far as the cross, are we going to set the precedent that federal land may be stolen by individuals simply by erecting some symbol certain to divide the populace? If so, I’ve got my eye on some prime locations.
The population is not divided – we all think you’re a dick.