(Editorial Comment from the American Heathen® radio show – Air Date 02/05/10)
Opposing viewpoints aren’t always welcome here. It really depends on the strength of the opposing argument. Unsubstantiated rhetoric, lack of credibility and integrity, play a large role in my decision as to whether an opposing viewpoint makes it to my blog. Religious dogma does not qualify as a valid opposing view. Otherwise, it’s the same old arguments, sometimes with a new twist, but never backed up by anything more than the Bible and someones “feelings”. Excluding dogma, I make every effort to recognize opposing views by evaluating them carefully and with an open mind. I don’t sweat publishing an opposing view on my blog if it is void of dogma. Ever.
A couple of weeks ago the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU.org) blog page disappeared. If anyone tried to visit it, they would get a message that said the site was down due to technical difficulties. I suspected from the get go that AU.org was most likely making a change to the way the blog is used by readers. I was sure an effort to quell, or even deny the opportunity to publicly respond to AU blog posts, was in the works. Why? Well, the blog’s comments section had seen some very heated exchanges between hard-core fundamentalists and non-believers for several months. These exchanges became a one-sided insult fest initially, the fundamentalists taking charge of the ad-hom arena as usual, unable to argue on facts and evidence. But soon, even the non-believers and secular crowd jumped on the insult bandwagon. Although, to their credit, the non-believers weren’t nearly as nasty and brash as the fundamentalist crowd. Most of the non-believer retorts were benign jabs at the intelligence quotient of the fundamentalist mentality. In any event, it became apparent that AU.org was growing concerned with some of the vitriol and decided to post a disclaimer at the head of the comments section of the blog. Censorship also played a role as some words like “socialist” and “socialism” found their way into a dirt pile of other objectionable words that were apparently considered unproductive to the AU.org agenda.
The AU.org blog comments section is now gone. None of this is surprising to me. While AU.org strives to defend freedom of religion, they are doing so as an absolute matter of survival. They are, in fact, founded by the Reverend Barry Lynn, and as such are concerned with religious freedom and faith as opposed to freedom from religion. Indeed, it is this very idea of freedom of religion that is the main focus of the organization. It is about freedom to believe in a myth. While as a matter of course AU.org is compelled to defend their religious agenda, they certainly do not go out of their way to embrace the non-believer any more than they have to. They simply must support their skydaddy belief.
Comments posted to the AU.org blog by non-believers that defended Separation of Church and State, but at the same time were critical of religious belief, may have been the impetus for shutting down the comment section. I say may have been for I do not have evidence to substantiate this. Indeed, there is also reason to believe that the vitriol of the fundamentalists may have been a contributing factor as well. I choose to deduce that the decision to shut down the comments section was the result of both camps, and the politically correct way for AU.org to walk away from controversy. But is it really surprising that a political organization, designed to defend freedom of religion, runs scared when fundamentalist bullshit, and non-believer facts and evidence threaten to undermine their particular skydaddy vision? No.
Herein lies the problem with religion. Selective belief and selective exclusion. AU.org really has no choice but to defend itself and its moderate interpretation of a skydaddy. That’s also why it embraces other moderate Christian versions and other moderate religions. But, in order to further its agenda, it also has to grudgingly embrace non-belief. I say grudgingly because after several years of reading AU.org articles, the non-believer is always referred to as an afterthought. An example of this is a common statement in a large number of AU.org articles – usually in parentheses – that reads “…and those who don’t believe”. It’s kind of like having a little brother or sister. You can’t stand them, but you tolerate them because Mom and Dad (read the U.S. Constitution) says so. You have to take them in tow, or you’ll be grounded. But, once again is this really surprising?
AU.org has an agenda. And, even though they may support the Separation of Church and State, they do so because they believe in a skydaddy and MUST defend their right to do so. The only reason they defend the non-believer is because they have to, ultimately for their own benefit. Period. To expect anything otherwise is ignorant, and unrealistic. Keep in mind that skydaddy worship is a pick and choose proposition, and it comes with blinders. It can’t take criticism, and it doesn’t work through proofs of evidence. Ultimately, any support for Separation of Church and State, from any religious organization, is not concerned with reality, but with the survival of fiction.
AU.org really doesn’t care about non-belief. To them, it is a little brother or sister that must be defended out of self-preservation. While they claim to love all beliefs, they only tolerate non-belief as long as it keeps them from being grounded. As far as freedom of speech… AU.org is a private, political, non-profit religious organization. They can do whatever the hell they want. Yeah, we don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is. Just as my blog has an agenda of facts, proofs of evidence, science, reason and logic, AU.org’s agenda is to further belief in the absence of facts, proofs of evidence, science, reason and logic. Keep that in mind. For AU.org it’s simply a matter of skydaddy convenience.

