Was “And Non-Believers” a Big Deal?

It is a change to be celebrated, not an end. Just like getting a first member in Congress.

It’s a beginning. We should acknowledge it.

Sadness amid Joy. Just as all the non-Christians should feel with only a mention that we are part of the country, but all the rest of the ceremony laced with a context of the existence and thanks to the Christian God.

Two days in a row for me. Yesterday I was at a very nice MLK day ceremony. I had no problem with the Imam who gave an invocation of peace, not mentioning any god. But then a gospel choir which I accepted as MLK was a preacher, but the choir director lectured us about his God and then asked for hands to be raised by those who agreed – I was pleased than many hands were not raised by adults and students present, but felt for similar events with all students and lots of peer pressure.

It’s totally worth celebrating. Just because we want to go even further doesn’t mean we can’t be grateful for a step in the right direction.

On the flip side, recall that George W Bush acknowledged the nonreligious on several occasions as well. This is from Positive Atheism’s Big list of Quotations:

We know that men and women can be good without faith. We know that.

For some reason, I am not particularly grateful to him. Sometimes words aren’t enough.

Could you be more cynical? What the hell else would you expect of him in one speech. He clearly made a point to reference us and that’s an awesome start. Did you expect him to dedicate tomorrow as “national atheism day” or something? Don’t speak for all of us. As an atheist, that’s exactly at least the beginning of change that i’m looking for.

I run a site dedicated to exposing discrimination and bigotry against atheists. I see the worst of the wost every day, having people report to me disgusting stories that I doubt you will ever hear, and even I am not so jaded that I can’t see what a huge symbolic act that was. Lay off the pessimism for one fucking day.

I enjoyed being acknowledged but no doubt the only reason we were even included was due to the lawsuit to get so help me god omitted. It was fresh in his mind so he probably included it to appease us.

At least it was in a positive way

Obama’s a skilled name-dropper, so I wouldn’t expect any major policy based on the recognition of nontheists’ existence. Still, it’s a good thing. Most of what politicians say is apery and habit, so assuming he keeps it up, other politicians will pick it up too.

It’s a good thing, but it should be a completely ordinary thing. And the way to make it an ordinary thing is to treat it as if it is. We don’t need to go out of our way to applaud it. We just need to say, “well, of course: a president’s not going to leave out 15-20% of the country when he’s dividing it up by religious affiliation.”

Yes, of course this is to be celebrated loudly and with much joy.

If a politician makes even a token gesture toward atheists and no one responds, exactly what is the probability of another politician trying a similar tactic?
Conversely, what if that first politician gets positive buzz from atheists across the nation for even such a small inclusion?

bønez_brigade, that non-cynical post was written by Richard Wade, not Hermant. I stick by what I said, although I appreciate your view.

I was also pleased with that, JB. Being an SIT and seeing all sorts of ignorant people drag science through the mud and throw it in the ‘unimportant’ or the ‘downright bad’ piles simply because the can’t understand how it works or want all the evidence to just go away, it’s nice that, indeed ‘whatever it means’, he has it in mind.

It’s nice he has us as a group in mind too, whatever that may lead to.

Yawn……there was so much god mumbo jumbo that one little reference to non believers is hardly a ripple in the pond, that Rick Warren was there makes his gesture utterly meaningless, as an Australian watching and listening to it all it was like a theatrical hollywood junket strewn with platitudes and cliche’s, nothing new to see here folk’s you all go on home……………

Cynical post! I love your blog, but recognize something good when you see it. The President mentioned us. It’s great, its a step in the right direction. Chill. Peace. 🙂

It’s an issue of semantics, but I’m not a fan of the phrase ‘non-believers.’

It implies (and reveals) the notion that we don’t believe in anything, which furthers misconceptions around our beliefs.

Probably expecting too much, but I’d rather have him throw out a truly all-inclusive note that encompassed all minority faiths (atheists, pagans, wiccans, voodoo, satanists, whatever).

I think calling an atheist a non-believer is pretty insulting.

I think we should celebrate the small victories. He didn’t have to mention us and if we don’t respond, we’re in danger of giving the impression that we simply can’t be pleased (“…so why even try?”). There’s no reason why we can’t do this as well as keep up the pressure.

I don’t see Hemant’s post as being cynical. He’s asking questions and saying he is not sure what the right reaction is. If he was being cynical he’d make all those questions into negative statements about how it’s all bull. I think he wants to be open to the possibility that Obama’s mention of non-believers is the beginning of real and practical inclusion, and as any skeptic should, he is withholding his conclusion until he sees tangible evidence. That is what we are about, is it not?

Skepticism is not cynicism. The skeptic says “Let’s look for evidence.” The cynic says “I already know it’s crap even before any evidence is found.”

I voted for Obama. I even campaigned for him but I have to admit that the “non-believers” phrase didn’t do much for me. It just struck me as good speech writing. I felt it was just a way to make sure his speech was as inclusive and PC as possible, which fits his message.

I do think he will be a more inclusive president over all. I also think he will be less hostile towards atheism than many. However, one little catch phrase doesn’t make me want to celebrate.

Big things come from little things. A baby step is a step…and after the evangelistic style of your previous, a mention is a great thing!

it is not a joke that it was in fact socially and politically incorrect to identify anyone as “nonbeliever.” If you are not me, you are other. I can hardly believe that such an intelligent honest individual would not have realized that in 2009 — you can’t say that! where has he been? “and the nonbelievers” — this sounds like something dear ol’ Rush would say (again & again). We are not “non” anything. We do not identify ourselves in the negative. It was not noble of him to include these “others” for the first time-where do you think we’ve been all this time? I could say it was a left-handed compliment–but that would belittle lefthanders, and righthanders, and ambis! To include “also the nonbelievers” keeps them in their place: smaller, lesser, begrudgingly acknowledged. BTW — if you don’t believe in what I believe in, then you are a nonbeliever.