On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:12:54 +1000 Joanna Sheldon <cjs10 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> As an atheist I'm offended even by "in God We Trust" and always refused to
> say the pledge of allegiance because it was not only stupid but required me
> to say the words "one nation, under God".
The post-punk Slovenian band Laibach has an interesting take on this: When asked about their attitude towards America they replies, "Like Americans, we also believe in God, but unlike them we do not trust Him." I think this is absolutely fascinating: Yes, I believe in the Ideals of the Enlightenment (freedom, democracy, happiness, autonomy, solidarity yadda yadda) but unlike the Enlightenment thinkers: I don't trust them! I'm not even sure I'd call myself an atheist. It just isn't an issue for me. Atheism seems, to me, to beg for a theistic rejoinder... I'd rather not give the theists a reason to talk.
> But the non-denominational nature of officially recognized religiosity in the
US (which is what the founding daddies were aiming for) is something to be
valued (even if it does, as someone here suggested, contribute to the hysteria
over religion in the country).
But this non-denominationalism is precisely the sin qua non of religious fundamentalism. It is the *cause* so to speak of the objet petit a of the religious right. If one wants to avoid religious entanglements, then just leave the whole thing out. Leave freedom and religion undefined, in a sense. To support religious freedom *is* to lend support (legitimize) the religious right / left / centre whatever. Under the "freedom of religion" religious institutions are protected and preserved, probably even privileged to an extraordinary degree: if we are to have freedom of religion - we'd better be religious! Yuck.
ken