Isn't it interesting that
offense can be used as a weapon by atheists in so many different ways. The
push by college campuses in
banning Christian clubs is supposedly based on being non-discriminatory so
as not to offend a non-Christian who may want to be president of said club.
(Huh?) Atheists are offended as seeing crosses on city property so they threaten
lawsuits to have them removed. Atheists see this danger of offense as so great
that peoples' freedom of assembly, freedom of beliefs, and freedom to their
livelihood are considered fair game. But what if it's the atheist who is doing
the offending?
Ridicule in the Guise of Prayer
According to the Sun-Sentinel, atheist Preston Smith petitioned to give the
opening invocation at the Lake Worth City Commission Meeting in Florida. You may
ask yourself how in the world can an atheist offer an invocation when they don't
have anyone to pray to? The idea of petitioning a higher authority is absurd on
atheist, which makes the request
contradictory on its face. Yet, Smith felt that he had something to say and
the City Commission obliged him and provided him with the time to open the
proceedings.
You can watch Smith's speech
here, however, a
transcript of it appears below:
Our collective atheism — which is to say, loving empathy, scientific
evidence, and critical thinking — leads us to believe that we can create a
better, more equal community without religious divisions.
May we pray
together.
Mother Earth, we gather today in your redeeming and glorious
presence, to invoke your eternal guidance in the universe, the original
Creator of all things.
May the efforts of this council blend the
righteousness of Allah with the all-knowing wisdom of Satan. May Zeus, the
great God of justice, grant us strength tonight. Jesus might forgive our
shortcomings while Buddha enlightens us through His divine affection. We
praise you, Krishna, for the sanguine sacrifice that freed us all. After
all, if Almighty Thor is with us, who can ever be against us?
And
finally, for the bounty of logic, reason, and science, we simply thank the
atheists, agnostics, Humanists, who now account for 1 in 5 Americans, and
[are] growing rapidly. In closing, let us, above all, love one another, not
to obtain mythical rewards for ourselves now, hereafter, or based on
superstitious threats of eternal damnation, but rather, embrace
secular-based principles of morality — and do good for goodness' sake.
And so we pray.
So what?
Not an Invocation
Some people were upset that several commissioners and the mayor walked out of
the room before Smith delivered his diatribe. But what I'm not hearing is the
fact that what Smith delivered was in no way an invocation; it was a
mean-spirited attack. In the recent decision by the Supreme Court that
invocations are constitutional, Justice Kennedy
wrote, "Prayer that reflects beliefs specific to only some creeds can still
serve to solemnize the occasion, so long as the practice over time is not
"exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith
or belief." Clearly, Smith's mess of a speech violated Kennedy's caution that
access to invocations should not be used as disparagement. Smith didn't want to
offer a prayer, he wanted to mock and offend as many people who believe in
prayer as possible and he chose this as his soapbox from which to try.
Atheist Hemant Mehta (who bills himself as "the Friendly Atheist")
said "To be sure, Smith's invocation is not the one I
would've given, but that's not the point. The point is that if the commissioners
aren't happy with this, there's a simple solution: Do away with invocations
altogether. Stop wasting time with prayer and get down to business. Otherwise,
they should expect more of these in the future." No, that isn't the point.
Atheists don't get to claim offense at having to sit through prayers and then
say offense is OK because they wielded it. But it does show that this movement
of removing crosses, seeking to ban prayers, and even
barring school children from trying to help the poor is not at the fringes
of the atheists' value system.
In commenting on the unbelievers of his day, Charles Simmons put it best:
Ridicule - a fool's first and last argument.
The ridiculous is what fools remember longest. Deists in general
attack Christianity by ridicule. This is their most powerful, and perhaps their
most successful, weapon. All persons can laugh but all cannot reason. This mode
of attacking Christianity answers purposes which can be effected no other way;
for ridicule is unanswerable. Who can refute a sneer? It is independent of proof,
reason, or argument; and as well be used against facts as against falsehood.
Ridicule is no argument but rather a proof of the want of it and the weakness of
a cause.2
Smith's mockery and contempt for the privilege
of solemnizing a civic meeting should be derided. If you don't believe in prayer
then please don't petition to pray before a town meeting. To do what Smith did
is offensive to the values of the Constitution and even other atheists should
rebuke him for it.
References