We are hearing much about the issues of religion and politics of late. Not only has there been a groundswell of religious sentiment since September 11, but the usual civil court cases continue to bring the issue to the fore - whether it's engraving the Ten Commandments in stone on a government building in Indiana or saying the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. No other issue seems to attract the same kind of passion and heat in our society.

What I hear more than anything else is the general sentiment that atheists are out to undo the constitution, shut down all churches, "turn Man away from God", and generally play havoc with Western society. Even in the face of one of the most nefarious opponents our nation has ever faced -- an opponent, I might add, who bases their view on the sacred truth of their own religion -- it doesn't seem to be fundamentalist Islam that is the popular culprit as much as it is "those darned atheists". We seem to be the 21st century fall guys.

The most troubling attitude of all is the one that uses the word "atheist" as an epithet, as though to be an atheist automatically makes one a bad person. I happen to think that attitude is merely an unthinking backlash left over from the 50-year struggle between Western capitalism and Marxist/Maoist communism. For so long, it wasn't enough to call someone a "communist", they must also be "godless communists" (meaning that all communists are godless, and of course all the godless are communists - a glaring case of faulty logic). Joseph McCarthy made political hay in the 1950s singing this specious song - and the subtle impact of his witch hunt is still felt in our entertainment industry and in the shallow, substanceless material we see on prime time network television. That backlash was also the primary motive behind Eisenhower inserting "one nation under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1957. We were desperate to set ourselves apart from the brutal Stalinist version of communism practiced in Russia.

Of course, the idea that atheists are bad people goes deeper than merely a backlash against communism. While there have been periods of history where unbelief was not looked down upon, the overwhelming influence of the Roman Catholic Church and the absolute power of the Popes served to turn atheists into the bad guys and associate atheism with that favorite childhood bogeyman, Satan. It would be safe to say that any policy of tolerance toward non-belief would have weakened the power of the Church and jeopardized their global influence. This was of such importance that the Church did not stop with simply ignoring nonbelief, they claimed there were horrible, eternal consequences for not believing. A sure sign of an insecure ideology are the scare tactics it uses.

The misperception in all of this, of course, is the broad brush that paints all atheists as evil - or at the very least, undesirable. Regardless of what a Pat Robertson or a Jerry Falwell would have you believe, unbelievers live in this society, we have friends, we love our families, we vote, we pay taxes, and we refrain from murder, robbery, rape, child molestation and other anti-social behaviors just as much as Christians. Unless one of us openly states our non-belief, you probably wouldn't be able to tell us from anyone else. So, why are we blamed for the ills of America?

The crux of the issue, I think, is a conflict in the way believers and nonbelievers view the American Constitution. For believers, it's usual to hear them claim that "America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles". They take comfort in the notion that they live in a "Christian nation", when such a suggestion would cause Thomas Jefferson to wince. To be historically accurate, the founding fathers of this nation were mostly Deists and Unitarians along with some Christians. But the system of government that they carefully designed was based on principles of secularism - they understood very well that only a secular democracy, insulated from the doctrines of any religious sect would be able to amply guarantee the freedom of all citizens to worship (or not) as they please. As Jefferson once so poignantly and simply noted, "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."

And so, if liberal agencies such as the ACLU, at the behest of individuals or groups of nonbelievers, opposes the imposition of religious rituals in tax-funded institutions, does it also follow that they are attempting to undo what is right and good with America?

No. I cannot speak for all unbelievers, of course, but personally I would oppose with equal fervor and emotion any attempt to suppress any citizen's right to practice Christianity, Judaism, or Islam as well as their individual brand of nonbelief. I served in the U.S. Army (Qui Nhon, Vietnam, 1969) instead of fleeing to Canada - not because I agreed with that war, but because I felt our principles deserved defending… even the ones that allowed people to espouse ideas I don't agree with. The ultimate test of liberty is the defense of ideas to which you do not subscribe. There is no law, nor would I support any such law, which forebade any citizen from praying whenever the mood strikes. All I ask is that I not be expected to join in their religious ritual and that my tax money not be used to publicly enshrine something I do not support.

What makes believers think that nonbelievers are not moral? Why do I continually hear their fear that, without a God, there would be no point to acting morally and no point in anything? Are they that pessimistic about humanity? They are really saying that without the threat of eternal punishment, they believe Man is incapable of moral behavior.

I happen to think that, regardless of the particular religion (or lack of it) any society practices, people will still behave the way they always behave. Certainly, the actions of organized religion in the past give us no reason to believe that putting religion in charge will improve the plight of Man - all we can show for those attempts are religious wars, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, Witch Trials and anti-Semitic pogroms. Some 95% of prison inmates profess to be Bible-believing Christians. So, on what basis are they claiming that believers are naturally more moral than nonbelievers?

I suspect part of their case might be based on the way modern Christianity has devoted itself to charity work. For the most part, secular organisations do not have the kind of reach and power that many Christian and Jewish groups do. I blame that on the fact that nonbelievers tend to be more individualistic. You will find us participating in charity drives and assisting non-religious efforts to help the needy, but for the most part we don't stick an atheist sticker on any particular cause to attract attention to ourselves. This does not mean we're not there. We are.

I also believe that Man is by nature a social animal. This has been a matter of necessity in the past, for we were once the smallest, weakest, slowest food source on the savannahs of Africa. Only by banding together and using our brains could we hope to prevail over larger, faster, better-armed predators. Forming communities thus became a survival issue, and those tendencies are still with us today. What human being enjoys being ostracized or publicly shamed in his community? What things do public pressure force us to do when we may not particularly care to attend church or a ball game or a Saturday picnic? We do many things in order to be accepted and, even more so, to be respected or loved. These things are valuable to us regardless of our particular religious philosophy. In that respect, believers and unbelievers are very similar. Nonbelievers simply don't feel the need for an external (i.e., supernatural) imposition of moral codes. We are moral because it makes sense and improves our satisfaction with our lives. Is it better to act morally without coercion or to act morally under threat of damnation?

Accepting that premise, what would possibly motivate a nonbeliever to commit crimes or indulge in socially unacceptable behavior simply because we do not believe in any gods? What would we gain from that?

I realize that I may be over-simplifying here, but it's difficult to squeeze a large and profound topic into a few pixels' worth of sound bytes. Suffice it to say that I know of no unbelievers who really want to undo America or burn any churches down. I also know of many unbelievers who have every bit as much moral integrity as most believers. It may threaten and frighten believers to hear us claim that religions are based on myths and that their deities don't really exist, but in the end those are really only ideas. Ideas don't hurt people - this nation was founded on ideas, and only by allowing free expression of all ideas can we ever truly be certain that our own beliefs are safe from tyranny. That goes for believers and non-believers alike.