Endorsing Atheism

The following letter appeared in USA Today online for June 30, 2005 after the US
Supreme Court decisions regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in Texas and
Kentucky.

Displays should stand

I'm disappointed with the Supreme Court's rulings that ban the Ten Commandments from
courthouses in some circumstances ("Court to politicians: Thou shalt not promote religion," Our view, The Ten Commandments debate, Tuesday).

In popularizing the phrase "separation of church and state" in 1802, Thomas Jefferson didn't intend that social and political issues be divorced from codes of morality. He merely meant that government is prevented from establishing one church as the "official" religion.

The Ten Commandments are not the private domain of any one church. On the contrary, they are universal principles that already existed in the first democracy of ancient Greece, albeit in a primitive form, according to what the ancients called the "unwritten law."

The U.S. government would not, therefore, be endorsing one religion were it to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courthouses and on public property. In fact, it would be endorsing atheism were it to outlaw the public display of the Ten Commandments. Such an endorsement of one belief system — in this case, atheism — is what the Founding Fathers were really against.

Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ontario


The reasoning in the above letter does not allow for a position of state neutrality on the question of religion. It tries to equate neutrality on the part of the government with the advocacy of the position opposed to that of the writer. It is if the writer is not aware of the concept of a referee who takes neither side but tries to adjudicate fairly according to the rules of the game.

Some theists would like to tilt the rules in their favor and then have the government umpire the laws. This is like declaring that the Toronto Blue Jays must score two runs for every one that the New York Yankees score before they can be declared the winner of the game. Now, play ball!

If the Swiss are neutral it means that they do not pick sides.

If the State were to endorse atheism it would mean that they would ban all forms of religion or open State proceedings with a saying that mocked God or actively take other steps to make it difficult for religious people to practise their beliefs. In a democracy, they do not nor should they.