Al Gore Denounces the ‘Anti Religious View’

by Conrad F. Goeringer
December 7, 1999

The Vice President of the United States uses a national television program to denounce “the anti-religious view,” adding that it is sometimes “arrogant” and “intimidating.” Would he have made this type of remark about any other group? Probably not...

By now, it should be pretty evident that the year 2000 elections are sure to be awash with religious rhetoric and appeals to faith-based groups. The Republicans have basically allowed their party to become a chapter of the Christian Coalition, with hardly a GOP candidate in New Hampshire (or elsewhere) daring to defend abortion rights, question government aid to religious schools, or speak out on behalf of the separation of church and state. Forget Gary Bower and Alan Keyes; front-runner George Bush is dangerous enough, with his strident statements against abortion, and his promise to launch an $8 billion dollar federal “partnership” between government and religion as the panacea for all social ills.

Then there’s Al Gore. A former divinity student, Gore has been shuffling to the right lately faster than a Sammy Sosa homer reaches the fence. He actually got the jump on George Dubya last summer, when he proposed a “New Partnership” between church and state. While addressing a crowd in Atlanta at a Salvation Army drug rehab center, Gore paid lip service to the establishment clause, but reminded his audience that “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion...”

No, Ralph Reed is not Al’s speech writer.

Fast forward to Sunday, December 5 when Gore appeared on the CBS program 60-Minutes, for a segment with Leslie Stahl. In a discussion of religious beliefs, Gore admitted to being a born again Christian, adding:

I am. It -- it -- it’s something lampooned, you know. And I think the --what I call the anti-religious view -- it sometimes tends to be arrogant and to the intimidating side of -- of making people who do believe in God feel kind of like they’re, you know...”

Stahl eagerly provides the ending for this: put down. Mr. Gore goes on to assure the viewers this “born again” philosophy is the “core of my life. It is -- it’s the foundation of my other beliefs, my political philosophy...”

No one questions Gore’s right to his born again faith. Millions of Americans share this, and many of them put that faith into a mean-spirited activism that is rapidly eroding the separation of church and state in America. Gore mentions separation only in passing, at least in the 60-minutes interview. The target here is some undefined “anti-religious view” which is “intimidating” and even “arrogant.”

Mr.Gore, or any other politician who wants a realistic shot at holding an office of public trust, would never have made this type of remark about any other group. Those holding an “anti-religious view,” though, are fair game. Had Gore described Blacks, or Jews, or gays and lesbians, or immigrants, or the physically disabled, or any other segment of the American polity in such broad, negative views, the media would be launching its salvos in prime time leads and columns of black newspaper ink.

No such luck here, though.

No one questions Gore’s right to his born again faith. Millions of Americans share this, and many of them put that faith into a mean-spirited activism that is rapidly eroding the separation of church and state in America.

Just a few months ago, Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura was taken to task for his characterization of religious people as “weak minded” and in need of “a crutch” or other mental aids. Some anti-religious people may agree, but this characterization ignores the complexity of why exactly people -- many of them otherwise intelligent and rational -- embrace religious doctrines and rituals. Ventura was lampooned from just about every neighborhood pulpit, and much of the news media. It was not just how Ventura had expressed himself (he likely could have been more cautious in his choice of terms, to be sure), but the fact that he dared to question religion in the public square, or dissent from the accepted norms of opinion in respect to faith.

So Gore has pulled a “Jesse Ventura” of sorts. He has set up tens of millions of Americans who define themselves as atheists, agnostics, freethinkers or some similar term -- those who are pejoratively characterized as the “anti-religious” -- as bullies with swelled heads.

There are indeed arrogant, posturing and fulsome individuals who fall into this category, who are more “anti-religious” than pro-reason, and who likely do try to intimidate those who disagree with them. That is not a characteristic which is the sole monopoly of atheists or other non-believers, though, any more than every religious believer is fairly represented by Peter Popov, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, or Pat Robertson.

That’s not the issue, though!

In America -- the country which Al Gore wants to lead as President -- it is religious groups who are “arrogant” and “intimidating,” as well as many of the political activists who represent their social agenda.

I don’t see any atheist organizations or freethought groups marching into churches, disrupting services, and demanding that families read a passage of Robert Ingersoll, or spend the day watching a video of “Cosmos.” We do see many religious groups, though, invading the public schools, insisting that students in classrooms, even fans at school athletic events, participate in or be subjected to public prayer and other religious ritual.

I don’t see any atheist organizations or freethought groups wanting a hand-out in the form of government subsidies. The churches already receive special tax and accounting privileges, though, and both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush would compel millions of Americans -- atheists and freethinkers all -- to ante up and subsidize faith-based social outreaches.

Last time I looked, I didn’t see any atheists marching outside a local church demanding that it be shut down. The day after Vice President Gore was denouncing “anti-religious views,” there was an article in the San Antonio Express News about “civic and religious leaders” who are joining together to deny a liquor license to a local strip joint. Police Chief Al Philippus and Father Pat Ragsdale say they will be opposing the application, since the bar would be “incompatible” with the surrounding neighborhood -- at St. Luke’s Catholic Church -- which is across the street.

And just about every time you see a case of proposed censorship involving a book, film, television program, CD, art exhibit -- you name it -- there is usually a religious group involved, or some religious doctrine is being cited as a rational for suspending the First Amendment. A priest in Chicago even objects to the Jerry Springer show!

Imagine if atheists began acting that way. What would be the public reaction if we sought to shut down churches, padlock religious publications or radio/television stations, and demand that in the process we get government funds for our efforts? What would people think if atheists, as part of an “anti-religious” point of view, insisted that youngsters in school be subjected to a regimen of anti-Christian, or anti-Jewish, or anti-Moslem diatribes?

I’ve encountered some arrogant, head-strong, even doctrinaire atheists of a sort -- but none would have gone this far. Atheists are a mixed lot, just like any other group in society. They can ethical or dishonest, pleasant or revolting, thoughtful or impulsive. Atheists can be as human as anyone else; we share the same neural wiring, similar genes, and frequently bumble through life making the same types of mistakes. Using the term atheist or freethinker to describe one’s self is not a badge of exclusion from error, or criticism by others, any more than use of the term Christian or believer automatically renders one wholesome, moral and deserving of respect.

Look at the status of the First Amendment in America, though, and it is not the atheists, the freethinkers, or anyone else who might be covered by that term anti-religious who are threatening civil liberties and undermining the establishment clause.

The atheists are not attempting to enact special legislation that would immunize us from the civil laws which apply to everyone else in society. Many of the religious denominations in America are seeking that privilege for themselves, however, which is why they support the Religious Liberty Protection.

We do not generally presume to have the moral right, and most of us do not seek the political authority, to censor those opinions or forms of expression we find distasteful, contrary to our views, even threatening. Can the same be said of Pat Robertson, or the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights?

There is a sub-text to Gore’s remarks, though, which deserves consideration. The tone of his statement suggests that not only will religious faith be a litmus test in the year 2000 elections, but that the political fortunes of Mr. Gore, or any other candidate who so chooses, will be built in part on the reputations of atheists, those ‘anti-religious’ folks who dare question and who are easily marginalized, stereotyped and compressed into sound bites for the mass media. That strategy used to be used with other groups, especially blacks. When they organized, though, such rhetoric turned out to be a considerable liability. The scapegoating still works to a degree with homosexuals, but only in the right political district. Atheists can be become the latest whipping boys in this political game. The fact that an atheist named Madalyn Murray O’Hair helped to remove mandatory prayer and unison Bible verse recitation in the public schools has been described by some as the root cause of the fall of western civilization. Why shouldn’t some politician take the next logical step, and beat up on atheists during a national television program?

It may make good sense, especially if one’s strategy is determined by polls and focus groups. It can also work, at least if the object of the attack -- those “anti-religious” folks (read: atheists and other nonbelieving vermin) take the remarks to heart, and start to internalize the misinformation that is so much the agency of our marginalization. Or, we can organize and respond -- calmly but firmly, to the point, avoiding the appearance of being “intimidating” or “arrogant” while still standing up for our rights.

The first step is to demand an apology from man who holds the second-highest office in the land. He, and anyone else seeking the job of President, has got to be told that we have a name --many names, actually, like atheist, freethinker, nonbeliever -- and that we will not willingly be the objects of smear and stereotyping.

Al, do the right thing. Don’t wait for George to do it.

Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.