…and this is a 
Cobb County, Georgia is infamous for its efforts a few years ago to slap a warning sticker on biology textbooks, which might have given the impression that it's full of southern yahoos. However, intelligent people and godless people are everywhere, including Cobb County, and they now have another claim to fame: a local atheist, Edward Buckner, used the opening invocation of a county board meeting to deliver a godless homily. It's not bad; you can hear it online. He spoke for all the people who do not attend church, and who do not want their government interfering in religion, and decried the 'hypocritical piety' of using a board meeting to promote a faith. He also closed by telling people that if they resented his point of view being expressed at the meeting, they should urge county officials to stop using the meeting to discuss religion and philosophy.
Of course some people were annoyed.
County board of commissioners chairman Sam Olens, reached by phone Wednesday night, said he was offended by Buckner's actions.
"Did I find his comments repugnant and insulting? Yes," Olens said. "He abused the process by giving an opinion ... rather than providing inspiration."
I do not find prayers at all inspiring, but I thought Buckner's comments were thoughtful and interesting, and a better way to start a meeting than conjuring up an invisible spirit. I predict, however, that Olens is completely incapable of seeing his prayers the way we do, as also repugnant and insulting. That we've tolerated such nonsense for so long does not mean we have to continue to sit silently while parasites mumble incantations, and it's a good opportunity for people like Olens to have the situation turned about so that they need to learn some tolerance themselves.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Monado | July 31, 2009 9:11 AM
Excellent! Maybe the next time it's my turn to say grace at a godful household, I'll thank the people who bred, produced, preserved, and transported our food.
Shades of Doonesbury's Thanksgiving grace: "Anyway, it's dead, and we're gonna eat it..."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 9:21 AM
Very nice.
Lets hope this thread doesn't devolve into what normally happens when anyone mentions state in the south east.
Posted by: Nate | July 31, 2009 9:25 AM
Loved it! More of us in the Bible belt need to request to give the invocations at our local board meetings.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 31, 2009 9:27 AM
Learn Tolerance? No! It's only the damned who need to learn tolerance! God-luvvin folk can't do no wrong - unless of course they worship the wrong god, like Allah, God, Yahweh ...
Posted by: MissyAnne Thrope | July 31, 2009 9:28 AM
This, however, has got to be the Money Quote:
“Had I stopped him before he started, he then would’ve had a federal action against the county,” Olens said. “That’s the price you pay for being American.”
Apparently, in Mr. Olens estimation, the "price" for being an American is that you can't use the power of the state to shut down the views of someone with whom you disagree.
Strange, I believe this is generally considered a feature of the American system, not a bug.
As tough as it is to be a person with a brain and reside in Cobb County, I have to say I am enormously pleased to have Mr. Buckner as a small bright light in our mutually dark cave.
Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2009 9:30 AM
And the least inspiring of all have to be prayers opening political activities. "Let's ask god for inspiration. Ok, that's done, now how can we best line our pockets and screw the public?"Posted by: Ray S. | July 31, 2009 9:33 AM
Living near, but not in, Cobb County I have to admit I'm surprised they would have let Buckner give the invocation. He's well known as a local godless activist. What could they have expected? I'm glad they got a taste of their own cooking.
Even so, they won't wake up and get the message. They have to pander to some of their more godbothered constituents, and they know the godless vote plus the vote from those who understand church/state separation but still believe, is not enough to turn them out of office.
Posted by: blueelm | July 31, 2009 9:40 AM
love it! That quote is great:
He "abused" the process by offering an opinion I don't like instead of an opinion I do like.
Posted by: gman
|
July 31, 2009 9:41 AM
Well, while prayer at public events almost inevitably alienates non-practicioners, it does have one useful function when done sincerely: it allows people to solemnly and jointly recommit themselves to their most deeply held values, and I don't think we should underestimate the symbolic value of public prayer. Nonetheless, it rankles me that officiants invariably command spectators to stand and pray as if everyone else shares their particular faith.
At my college, the president has tried to retain the traditional invocation at our annual convocation (which was established when people were far more likely to assume that everyone was Christian) while respecting the increasing ethinic and religious diversity of our community. So we have a rota: we try to have a representative of a different religion each year deliver the invocation. It's an imperfect solution, and sometimes it's difficult to find representatives of smaller religions, but it's a start.
This year the president invited me to give an atheist "prayer." I made a sincere effort to express those beliefs that I thought everyone could share and offered a moment of silence for everyone to pray or meditate in his/her own way. I received lots of praise, and no criticism.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 31, 2009 9:41 AM
All prayers remind me of this:
(from http://www.geocities.com/pythoninsanity/Meaningoflife.html )Ever since I saw the movie so many years ago, all prayers sound exactly like that to me, which makes it doubly funny when government employees are doing it.
Posted by: Nameless Cynic | July 31, 2009 9:44 AM
it's a good opportunity for people like Olens to have the situation turned about so that they need to learn some tolerance themselves.
Sadly, that's not likely to happen.
Posted by: AJS | July 31, 2009 9:52 AM
Couldn't get the video to work. Seems to be just a text file with two URLs in it, but neither of those is a movie -- they're just text files with two URLs in them, both of which point to text files with two URLs in them .....
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 31, 2009 9:54 AM
"Well, while prayer at public events almost inevitably alienates non-practicioners, it does have one useful function when done sincerely: it allows people to solemnly and jointly recommit themselves to their most deeply held values, and I don't think we should underestimate the symbolic value of public prayer."
Feh. That's not what public prayer is about, and it never was.
"Nonetheless, it rankles me that officiants invariably command spectators to stand and pray as if everyone else shares their particular faith."
That's what public prayer is about.
"Shades of Doonesbury's Thanksgiving grace: "Anyway, it's dead, and we're gonna eat it...""
That was Bloom County. Unless Berk ripped it off from Doonesbury, anyway.
Posted by: Jerome | July 31, 2009 9:56 AM
Clever quips notwithstanding, I'm not sure which is the more disturbing thought - that there is a God, or that there is not.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 31, 2009 9:56 AM
"Please forgive us our sins" is a fucking opinion too, because it asserts that we have sins that need forgiving. While I suppose one could craft a prayer-like invocation that was devoid of anything resembling opinion, I haven't heard too many...
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 31, 2009 10:04 AM
In the Christian paradigm, everyone, even a baby being squeezed out a vagina during the prayer has sins that need forgiving.
Posted by: felixthecat
|
July 31, 2009 10:06 AM
"Well, while prayer at public events almost inevitably alienates non-practicioners, it does have one useful function when done sincerely: it allows people to solemnly and jointly recommit themselves to their most deeply held values, and I don't think we should underestimate the symbolic value of public prayer."
Public prayer is an abomination unto the Lord our God, and He, in His beneficence, punishes those who publicly pray with disease and poverty.
Besides, has anyone ever- EVER -seen a public prayer help politicians and their owners recommit themselves to their deepest values? All it does is mollify the sheep who can then claim that a corrupt politician is "doing God's will".
Posted by: James Sweet | July 31, 2009 10:08 AM
That was brilliant. He was just getting to the point where I started to say to myself, "Well, this is a bit inappropriate to be making a freaking speech to these people," and then right when I was thinking that, he's like, "If you think this is inappropriate to be talking about religion at what should be a political meeting, then GET RID OF THE INVOCATION." Fucking brilliant.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 31, 2009 10:09 AM
felix:
In my experience, the God-Squad gets pretty pissy when you start mentioning that Jesus said to keep your prayers in the closet.
It's just proof that Christianity isn't about following Christ... it's about publicly showing that one is pious and nothing more.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 31, 2009 10:17 AM
And how many opening prayers have been used as blatant grand-standing for the pray-er's political opinions, I wonder?
(I recall at least one example that made the rounds on talk.origins/alt.atheism some years back, from TX or OK IIRC).
Posted by: Justin Chase | July 31, 2009 10:19 AM
It looked like he said the "under god" part during the pledge of allegiance... I wonder what he really said?
Posted by: karl | July 31, 2009 10:26 AM
I would bet you if the board kept a record of some of the prayers offered, you'd find plenty of opinion being offered in the guise of "inspiration". You just don't notice it's opinion until it's an opinion you don't like.
Posted by: Crystal | July 31, 2009 10:31 AM
Living only 5 minutes north of Cobb County, it's hard to imagine there are other skeptics, non-believers, and critical thinkers living here. Religion isn't just an idea here - it's a way of life. I remember being taken to the school library in 5th grade, and being given a small, red-covered New Testament bible - and, yes, this was public school. Granted, that was in 1989, but the sentiment hasn't changed one bit. Religion invades every facet of Georgia society, from private businesses to public universities and especially within the government. It gets lonely (and sometimes downright hostile) being an Atheist in the Deep South, and too often it feels like fighting the religious majority is futile. I am so glad to know there are people like Edward Buckner who refuse to sit quietly. Good for you, Mr. Buckner.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 31, 2009 10:31 AM
Rev BDC (@2):
Not to worry; it appears that for this performance only, the part of kneejerk regional prejudice will be played instead by kneejerk cynicism about poltics. To wit...
Taz (@6):
Look, by all means let's go after politicians who are actually corrupt, but over the last several years I've gotten to know a number of office-holders at the local and state level, along with my own congressman, fairly well, and I've made the brief acquaintance of quite a number of others, including a couple of the other House members from my state... and not one of them gives any evidence of being motivated by personal enrichment or the desire to "screw the public." Most, if not all, are serving the public for less pay than they could earn on their own, and at the local level, almost all are volunteers (among elected members of the government in my town, only the mayor is paid anything at all, and he receives less than half of what a first-year schoolteacher would make).
It's easy to assume, from the comfort of an armchair or a computer desk somewhere in Anonymousland, that "they're all bastards" who don't care about the public good and are only interested in maximizing personal enrichment and scamming campaign contributions... but that's the lazy person's opinion; in my experience, the truth is quite different.
Speaking as a newly nominated candidate for Town Council, I can confidently assure you that none of my fellow Democratic office-seekers are motivated by anything other than what's good for our town... and I actually don't believe any of our Republican opponents are, either, despite the fact that we have wildly differing views about what is good for the town.
BTW, the "they're all crooks" POV is not only incorrect, it's damaging: The proper functioning of a representative form of government requires the people to trust their representatives. If you can't trust yours, go out and work to elect better ones (as I have done); if you can't find anyone you can trust (which I strongly doubt), run for office yourself, or take to the streets in revolution if you must; if it's not that important to you, just shut up. In any case, sitting around spewing reflexive cynicism is chickenshit.
Before I hit Post, let me offer a conditional apology in advance: I don't know you personally, and it's possible that this brief bit of snark doesn't accurately reflect your actual position. It's the attitude your words embody that pisses me off; if that's not your attitude, then please forgive the fact that my outburst was aimed at you... but maybe consider what you say a skosh more carefully next time, 'kay?
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 10:32 AM
Check out "God is not your bitch"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/07/24/notes072409.DTL&nl=fix#ixzz0MchgN5Qu
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 10:37 AM
*sparks idea for a name for his next female dog.
Posted by: Lynna | July 31, 2009 10:39 AM
When my brother and I give presentations to Kiwanis Clubs, Rotary Clubs, DAR conferences, BYUI Idaho art classes, etc. we get all the praying, pledging and praising practice we need to keep our irony meters calibrated.
What always strikes me at these events is how sincere the participants are, and how much they enjoy their communal rituals. Most of them just see it as a feel-good moment, and one in which they express solidarity within the group. It's frictionless flow for them, with the impediment of doubts or questions completely removed. It would definitely be a shock to any of them to hear someone like Buckner break the routine.
Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2009 10:43 AM
Evolving Squid - That was a great hymn, but I also like the actual prayer:
"Oh Lord, You are so big, so absolutely huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You. Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But You are so strong and, well, just so super."
Posted by: phaedras | July 31, 2009 10:45 AM
#21
No, if you look closely he did not say "under god", he said "indivisible..." and continued on the way the pledge was originally written. If you noticed others said the same thing, because the cadence changed after that point.
Posted by: BdN | July 31, 2009 10:45 AM
Well, then, why don't they bond and recommit outside and before the meeting even gets in place ? Why those who want to do this have to in front of the assembly ? Why don't they do it in another room or 15 minutes prior to the meeting ? Why couldn't they do it while having a coffee together at one of their homes ? And what if not all the officiants share those religious views ?
The further I would go is giving about 30 seconds of silence for everyone to think about whatever they want, being praying silently or fantasizing...
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 10:48 AM
Thanks Rev!
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 31, 2009 10:53 AM
"Did I find his comments repugnant and insulting? Yes," Olens said. "He abused the process by giving an opinion ... rather than providing inspiration."
One of the deep-seated reasons for the prejudice against atheism and atheists has to do with this idea that 'recognizing and honoring God' is not an opinion. God's existence is a universally acknowledged fact, worship is an obligation, and prayer will always inspire anyone whose heart is not dead, and whose mind is not closed. Everyone knows this.
No they don't. And there are good arguments against it. The religious therefore need to be exposed to more comments which they currently find "repugnant and insulting," so that they understand that there is a lot of diversity out there, and its not always clear cut on what's repugnant, what's an insult, and what's inspiring.
It might help the majority lose this privileged sense that their own opinions are not a matter of opinion.
Posted by: eric | July 31, 2009 11:00 AM
Gman @9:
Only if the people in the community share their most deeply held religious values. Given that an atheist got up and spoke and Olens found his words offensive, obviously they don't.
Invocations are only inspirational if you share or at least respect what's being invoked. I'm sure that if Olens gave a prayer, and the next day someone gave the exact same prayer, only replacing "God" with "Satan" etc... Olens would not find that inspiring. Don't kid yourself into thinking which god is invoked dosen't make a difference as long as its heartfelt and sincere; it does.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 31, 2009 11:06 AM
Well - with the old root meaning of "inspire" I think I would have to agree... although the point is that it really wasn't going to anyway, because it can't. But I guess that is beside the point.
On a different note, RBDC, can you please check your gmail someday so I can get a contact for you when I am in the area?
JC
Posted by: John J Sears | July 31, 2009 11:08 AM
I don't agree with invocations of any kind at government meetings, but I'm not sure that giving one makes you a 'parasite'.
Having watched the Buckner invocation, I have to say that I find it inappropriate as well. He is being intentionally divisive and lecturing a captive audience about their behavior and beliefs... which I gather is the point. I don't enjoy an atheist stick-in-the-eye any more than a religious one, though.
Perhaps he'll succeed in getting rid of these things so everyone can be better off.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 31, 2009 11:30 AM
I'd like to know if any of the usual Faitheist suspects consider that invocation to have been militant, fundamentalist, or incivil.
Posted by: peter | July 31, 2009 11:39 AM
crystal at #23:
Let me guess - Little River Elementary School east of Woodstock? Same thing happened to me there in the early 1980s. Two guys in suits came in, said they were going to give us books, and asked "how many of you are going to read this?" I raised my hand along with everybody else (could not have imagined doing otherwise at that age), but I have never forgotten how uncomfortable it made me feel.
Posted by: Puck | July 31, 2009 11:58 AM
"It gets lonely (and sometimes downright hostile) being an Atheist in the Deep South, and too often it feels like fighting the religious majority is futile."
There are several of us atheists and non-believers in GA, at secularcafe.org. (sorry to use your blog to promote them PZ, but I think some folks in GA might like to find others like themselves)
Posted by: satanhimself | July 31, 2009 11:59 AM
I didn't like the way Ed handled it. I think atheists can lend an air of solemnity without bringing gods into it, and without being snide (although I realize that the Cobb Co. controversy has been a long one, so there's some animosity detectible). As long as atheists are a minority in that county, his appearance is not going to end the custom of doing the prayers, so I think it's best to say stuff that, on the whole, most rational people will agree with and will show atheists in the best light.
I don't think that the invocation is the place to cite laws or advocate change in policy. I think it's more than a little bit tacky and counterproductive to do so. He could have made those comments as part of normal public comment later in the meeting. And I think that's the reason why the Chairman does not thank Ed when the prayer and pledge are done, like he did with the Xian and Muslim speakers in earlier meetings.
If Ed accomplishes his goal of ending the prayers entirely, it makes atheists invisible once again. But the churches will still be visible, and they will still have their well funded TV shows, etc. And atheists will have lost a cost-free opportunity to be seen as equal citizens. My slogan remains: Let's not take God out of the "public square", let's inject atheism INTO the "public square".
Posted by: Random | July 31, 2009 12:08 PM
To me it looked/sounded like he skipped "Under God" in the pledge and said "Indivisible" at that point (as did several in the audience). The ending of the pledge was thus quite rough with them ending at different times.
Posted by: bobxxxx | July 31, 2009 12:27 PM
Way to go Edward Buckner. Thanks for defending our constitution.
Posted by: Thunderbird5 | July 31, 2009 12:40 PM
From off the top of my (British) head, the one thing that comes to mind whenever I see/hear "Cobb County, GA" is back when TV Nation went down there to suggest Newt give back to the Hated Gubmint all of the federal funds he'd been happy to slurp up (including IIRC some bloody Coastguard compund).
As for Mr Buckner, good for him but wouldn't it be grand if these local committee types everywhere could just drop these hypocritical, self-aggrandising, gobshiting preliminaries and just sit down and get on with business?
Posted by: Rob Jase | July 31, 2009 12:46 PM
Any prayer that doesn't start with "Ia, ia" and end with "fthagn" isn't worth saying.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 31, 2009 12:56 PM
gman writes:
it rankles me that officiants invariably command spectators to stand and pray as if everyone else shares their particular faith.
Yeah. I grew up in the 70s and my particular way of shared/reaffirming my important values is to play Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" at peak volume. I don't understand why anyone would mind that. At least I'm not like those guys who reaffirm using The Bay City Rollers.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 31, 2009 1:00 PM
satanhimself@39:
I didn't find his address "snide" at all. I thought he sounded quite polite and reasonable.
Not necessarily. I can easily imagine some Christians taking offense at Ed's invocation (not because it was really all that offensive, but as we know, even the idea of an atheist addressing the meeting is offensive to some of them) and demanding that this never happen again. The county's lawyers will explain that the only way to do that is to end the invocations entirely. Then the ball is in the court of the offended Christians: they can either keep their invocations and put up with having heathens get their turn once in a while, or end the entire practice.
Oh, I don't think that's the reason at all. Note how the chair prefaced Ed's invocation with an explanation about how the county really had no choice legally but to allow him to do this. I hardly think he was a neutral audience who then took offense at the specifics of Ed's address.
Well, this is a good example of how atheists don't all share the same goals. I think that's a terrible slogan, and my preference is pretty much the opposite.
Posted by: Daniel Fincke | July 31, 2009 1:48 PM
I love his invocation, not only for its stand on behalf of secularism but for its sophisticated and eloquent philosophical defense of secularism.
But what I most like is that he stresses that not everyone should stand up to hear what he has to say. My view on public prayers is that the very nature of them forces all present into prayer by proxy. When one prays on behalf of a group, the entire group is taken to participate in the prayer. That's why it seems so inappropriate to me to have public prayers in public institutions (like in governmental halls or schools).
What I think should be fine, however, is that a religious person be able to say as part of his or her speech things like "I pray for those here that." That's their right to free speech. I can even imagine, say, a valedictorian or a congressman deciding that they will personally pray IN FRONT of us during their speech. But to in any way give the pretense of leading us in prayer or otherwise assuming our acquiescence in the prayer is where they cross what should be a firm line of separation of church and state.
So, I like that not only did Mr. Burke challenge the appropriateness of group prayers in public institutions but that he explicitly freed the consciences of those who listened to him from being implicated in agreeing in his remarks by not demanding they stand and acknowledge him as speaking for them or authoritatively to them.
I think that was the most admirable and principled touch.
Posted by: Kaz Dragon | July 31, 2009 2:00 PM
I'm curious... what did he say instead of "Under God" in the Pledge? His lips certainly don't sync with the woman in front's.
Posted by: Fatpie42 | July 31, 2009 2:13 PM
Okay, first of all the video is not working. If anyone has an alternative link to either the video or a transcript of it, please let me know.
"My slogan remains: Let's not take God out of the "public square", let's inject atheism INTO the "public square"."
"Well, this is a good example of how atheists don't all share the same goals. I think that's a terrible slogan, and my preference is pretty much the opposite."
I personally think it depends. I am very keen on secularism, but not necessarily on secularisation (if that makes sense). I think there should be free religious expression, but without public religious expecation. My main reason for saying this is that I love religious artwork and public celebrations such as Diwali and I would like to see this freely expressed as much as you like. Of course, this is on the basis that such religious expression does not place an obligation on those who do not follow the religion.
"God bless" can often have a simialr sentiment to "best wishes" and I'm pleased to be wished well in as many interesting colourful ways as you like. That said, an arranged group prayer during a public political meeting has crossed the line from expression to expectation and that's the problem.
Posted by: Dr. P | July 31, 2009 2:26 PM
@44,
G-d forbid.Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2009 2:34 PM
Bill Dauphin #24 -
No, I actually don't consider all politicians to be crooks and liars. Nor do I think that about all lawyers or used car salesmen. But I, like a lot of people, will probably continue to make the occasional snarky comment about all three groups. (Also IT workers, a group of which I happen to be a member, though not for the same reasons.)
As for your assertion that "The proper functioning of a representative form of government requires the people to trust their representatives", I think a healthy mistrust of those in power is a good thing.
Posted by: Dr. P | July 31, 2009 2:35 PM
I can agree with the essence of this essence of this statement;I'm not particularly offended by anyone's expression of their religion as long as 1. you're not inhibiting my right to express my nonbelief 2. you're not asking the state to preferentially fund or support your view over any other, and 3. your expression is not inhibiting the the civil liberties of anyone else. If it can be ruled unconstitutional it's no longer a passive act of expression.Posted by: inkadu | July 31, 2009 2:45 PM
Buckner's purpose was not to make an ATHEIST invocation, which might make people think, "Oh, well, that was sweet, even if he does eat christian babies." It was a political action INTENDED to make people uncomfortable. So how you judge Buckner's actions depends on whether you like invocations, or you find them annoying as hell.
And for whatever momentary discomfort Buckner caused, believe me, it is nothing compared to the accumulated lifetime misery of having to stand through invocations or feeling ashamed of not reciting the pledge of allegiance.
Posted by: Daniel Fincke | July 31, 2009 3:06 PM
@48, I typed out a transcript on my blog, which you can find by clicking on my name. Or you can just read it in the rest of my post here:
Thank you and certainly anybody can stand if they wish. For any of you who are bowing your heads, I'd respectfully recommend against doing that as well. I'm Ed Buckner, a Cobb County resident and taxpayer, and the national president of American Atheists. According to my dictionary, an invocation is done to call on a higher power and since we all know that the only supreme power in Cobb County is the citizenry, I speak now in the name of the 700,000 people who live in this county, especially the majority (and yes, I do mean over half) of those 700,000 who are not members of any church, mosque, temple, or other religious organization.
And even more especially, I speak in the name of the overwhelming majority, including anyone I've ever met who do not want their government to decide for them regarding anything regarding religion or any gods. I speak as well for those political leaders who despair that success in politics cannot be achieved without hypocritical piety from politicians and who would prefer to run for office and to govern based on competence and political philosophy rather than on beliefs, real or pretended, in any supernatural beings.
I speak, oddly enough, on behalf of Southern Baptists who know their own faith and message which declares in chapter 17 that Church and State should be separate and that the church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. I speak in the name of all Americans who know our history and who know for example that in 1797, the US Senate voted unanimously in favor of, and that President John Adams then signed, a treaty with Trippoli that specified that the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
I invoke all of these people to urge Chairman Samuel S. Olens, Commissioner Helen Golen, Bob Ott, even though he is not here.
Thompson and the thousands of dedicated employees to work hard ethically, and honestly, on our behealf, to represent us well, [in] all things unrelated to religion of course. And to please avoid the arrogance of thinking you can or ever should express any religious beliefs other than your own. For any of you who are made uncomfortable by my remarks, who think this is more a provocation than an invocation, who would prefer not to hear such comments at a meeting you came to expecting government, instead of religion and philosophy, please join me in urging that the Cobb County commissioners and planning commissioners cease to open their meetings with public religious invocations of any kind. For Christians such exercises are a plain violation of Matthew 6:5-6 and, more importantly, they are for all of us an insult to our right to choose our own religion and religious representatives for ourselves, if we want any at all. And these invocations are a violation of the letter and intent of the Contitution of the state of Georgia, of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and of the 14th Amendment, ratified exactly 141 years ago today. Go and sin no more. Thank you.
Posted by: teammarty | July 31, 2009 3:21 PM
Not only is Ed Buckner an local Atheist Activist, but he's the President of American Atheists. Right on Ed!!
Posted by: Leon | July 31, 2009 3:25 PM
...rather than giving a prayer, which necessarily includes opinions? Oh, I see, it's only opinions the religious don't agree with that count as "opinions".
Posted by: Procyon | July 31, 2009 3:30 PM
Maybe if he had been a little more inspirational and a little less adversarial he could have gotten his message across to his audience a little better.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 31, 2009 3:39 PM
"Did I find his comments repugnant and insulting? Yes," Olens said. "He abused the process by giving an opinion ... rather than providing inspiration."
Translation: "He made me uncomfortable! Waaaaa!"
Posted by: tsg | July 31, 2009 3:55 PM
@56
Yeah, because god forbid the religious be made to feel uncomfortable....
Posted by: inkadu | July 31, 2009 4:01 PM
I was curious about what the prior invocation was. For those of you who think invocations are "inspirational," read the following:
Rev Mike Sparks from the July 14 Commissioners Meeting ( http://communications.cobbcountyga.gov/tv23/vod.htm ):
If you read it, you'll see there's a few things:
- "Let us bow together", while common religious verbiage, is coercive in a public setting.
- There's a lot of fellating of the public officials. No wonder the officials find it inspirational.
- The line between religion and government is clearly being blurred to nothingness. This is NOT just a feel good prayer, like you might here at a graduation, it's a specific request for God to bless the actions of the government.
- It also implies that the government and it's officials have the blessing of God Hisself.
- Outside of the anthropological interest, it's as boring as manure in spring.
So all ya "i like moments of silence, can't we all get along" types out there -- you're wrong.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 31, 2009 4:03 PM
Taz (@50):
There's a nontrivial chance you'll think I'm splitting hairs (not to be confused with splitting hares, NBWaW!), but I must disagree. Certainly vigilance and rigor is essential in choosing who to trust, and an accountability process for continually monitoring representatives' trustworthiness as well... but mistrust is nothing but destructive to a representative system.
The proper remedy for an untrustworthy representative is to get a trustworthy one, but otherwise, the fundamental basis of representative government is that you trust your representatives to govern on your behalf. Anything else is failure.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 31, 2009 4:38 PM
Hi, Fellow Cobbites & GA'ians! There seems to be a lot of us here.
Ed Buckner's has written quite a bit of stuff on atheism & skepticism. His letters to the editor in our local paper, the AJC, are printed occasionally and are usually civil and succinct.
I finally meet him at a meeting of the Atlanta Freethought Society (only been to one but plan to keep going back...)
The AFS holds its meetings on a Sunday in an old Primitive Baptist CHURCH (gotta love it!). Apparently, a Kroger wanted to open up nearby (Kroger is a grocery chain, like Dominion or Loblaws fer you Canadjens), and they couldn't get an alcohol permit because they were too close to the church. So Kroger bought it and it sat empty for years. They finally sold it to the AFS.
I guess freethinkers like being close to the beer & wine.
http://www.atlantafreethought.org/
Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2009 4:41 PM
Bill Dauphin - Maybe we're both splitting rhetorical hairs, but there seems something contradictory about trusting your representatives and at the same time "continually monitoring (your) representatives' trustworthiness" as well. Certainly that arrangement would be problematic in any of your other relationships. "Honey, I trust you but I want to know were you are and what you're doing at all times so I can "monitor" your trustworthiness".
You haven't explained how mistrust would be destructive, but I have feeling it would involve taking it to an extraordinary degree. To which I would say, it's the same with trust. I really don't think a proclivity to trust or mistrust politicians matters one way or the other. People are going to vote based on more concrete factors.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 31, 2009 5:07 PM
Daniel Finke at #53 was kind enough to type out Ed Buckner's invocation. I thought I'd post a similar invocation which was given to the Charleston, SC city council several years ago by atheist Herb Silverman. His story is here:
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/may/index.php?ft=silverman
It's interesting to compare and contrast. I think this version is very friendly indeed -- and yet people still walked out, and protested.
-----
"Thank you for this opportunity to "invoke" a minority point of view. Each of us is a minority in some way. It might be race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, or any other aspect in which we may be regarded as different. Each of us is also part of some majority. It is when we wear our majority hats that we need to be most mindful of how we treat others. We must pledge our best efforts to help one another, and to defend the rights of all of our citizens and residents.
What divides us is not so much our religious differences in this diverse country, but the degree of commitment we have to equal freedom of conscience for all people.
We are gathered today, both religious and secular members of our community, with the shared belief that we must treat our fellow human beings with respect and dignity.
In this invocation, I don't ask you to close your eyes, but to keep your eyes constantly open to the serious problems that city government can solve or improve. I don't ask you to bow your heads, but to look up at what you can accomplish by applying your considerable talents and experience to the issues that confront us.
As you work together on behalf of all who live in this city, may you draw strength and sustenance from one another through reason and compassion.
I'd like to close in a bipartisan manner by quoting from two presidents I greatly admire--one a Republican and the other a Democrat.
First, the Republican:
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.--Abraham Lincoln
And now, the Democrat:
It's remarkable how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.--Harry S. Truman
(Herb Silverman)
-------------
Posted by: Daniel Fincke | July 31, 2009 5:08 PM
Or maybe, #56, if he had been less adversarial he would have made no impression whatsoever.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 5:16 PM
Yes, Herb started a little fire when he did that. You should have heard some of the public's reaction.
Herb is fairly active in the community promoting free thought.
Posted by: inkadu | July 31, 2009 5:48 PM
Taz #62: Apologies to Mr. Om for butting in. Deep mistrust leads to disengagement from politics; and disengagement leads to more corruption and more distrust. It's ugly. Obama is less effective because of all the people who are so (rightly) frustrated with corporate influence that they can't engage enough politically to help make the world a better place.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
July 31, 2009 8:29 PM
IIRC, Cobb County went batshit about 15 years ago over the idea of Apple locating a facility there. Because of support for Teh Ghey. (I don't know if it was before or after Apple instituted benefits for domestic partners.)
Posted by: raven | July 31, 2009 8:38 PM
WTF, they say prayers before county meetings in Georgia? How weird.
Here on the West coast, they don't do that. I've been to plenty of meetings, county, state, and so on. Never seen it before.
Don't know what I would do if I did. Probably just look bewildered and check a map to see if I'm on the right planet.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 31, 2009 8:41 PM
Many local government meetings start with prayers. Our city has a new mayor who tried to skip it. Quite the insanity ensued. The godbots have no clues as to Jebus' instructions of only praying in public at the synagogue.Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2009 9:17 PM
Not only is Ed Buckner an local Atheist Activist, but he's the President of American Atheists.
Yeah, I found it rather odd (that is to say, startlingly ignorant for an atheist blog) to refer to Ed Buckner -- who recently replaced Ellen Johnson as head of AA -- as "a local atheist".
Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2009 9:27 PM
Maybe if he had been a little more inspirational and a little less adversarial he could have gotten his message across to his audience a little better.
And maybe if you weren't such an accomodationist moron you wouldn't so completely miss the point.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2009 9:44 PM
I think it's best to say stuff that, on the whole, most rational people will agree with
Virtually all rational people agree with what Buckner said, so perhaps you're not among them.
I don't think that the invocation is the place to cite laws or advocate change in policy. I think it's more than a little bit tacky and counterproductive to do so. He could have made those comments as part of normal public comment later in the meeting. And I think that's the reason why the Chairman does not thank Ed when the prayer and pledge are done, like he did with the Xian and Muslim speakers in earlier meetings.
Ok, you're definitely not among them.
If Ed accomplishes his goal of ending the prayers entirely, it makes atheists invisible once again.
His goal is to end invocations at government meetings, moron, not all prayers; as he noted, such invocations aren't legal.
But the churches will still be visible, and they will still have their well funded TV shows, etc.
Duh. Are we in strawmanville?
And atheists will have lost a cost-free opportunity to be seen as equal citizens.
Invocations are illegal, moron. They violate the separation of church and state. It's not "cost-free" to legitimize them.
My slogan remains: Let's not take God out of the "public square", let's inject atheism INTO the "public square".
A mighty stupid slogan when atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of belief in god. Anyway, no one wishes to take god out of the public square, any more than there is a war on Christmas -- these are both strawman notions invented by religionists. What we want is to take God out of government.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2009 9:50 PM
strawman notions
To illustrate my point, I've never heard of an atheist (excluding loons like Holbach) who wanted to ban the wearing of crucifixes in public or standing on street corners reading from the bible. This notion of "taking god out of the public square" is religionist bullshit and atheists shouldn't accomodate them by letting them get away with it and even echoing their bullshit rhetoric.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 9:57 PM
Don't pick on Holbach, he's just excitable and a
littlePosted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 31, 2009 9:57 PM
Goddists can believe anything they want. They can build churches and temples and groves and big rocks all they want. They can worship in these places. What they cannot do is demand that I accept their teachings, especially when these teachings are anti-rational. They certainly cannot use the government to push their teachings down the throats of unbelievers.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 31, 2009 9:58 PM
What else?
Privileges and rights are always attended by responsibilities and obligations. That's how people manage to not come to blows.
This man, Olens, speaks only for those who will not or cannot change or adapt. Such poor folk.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 9:59 PM
Take 2:aaaaaaction:
Don't pick on Holbach, he's just excitable and a
littlelot cranky... with hyperbolic overtones. He's a godless Oscar the grouch with a little Pauly Walnuts thrown in for good measure so leave him alone, okay?. Can't we all just get along?!!Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2009 10:01 PM
Having watched the Buckner invocation, I have to say that I find it inappropriate as well. He is being intentionally divisive and lecturing a captive audience about their behavior and beliefs...
Yes, he lectured the Christians that public prayer is against their religion, and he lectured the Baptists that separation of church and state is part of theirs.
Fuck but some people are dense.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 31, 2009 10:36 PM
Funny how this gets reduced to a debate about accomodationism so quickly !
Keep in mind, if it were for the religionists, no atheist would ever open their mouth, because no matter what we say, someone will always be offended and find it "repugnant".
The only criticism I can possibly see (from far away) might apply is that invocations before county meetings should not be happening in the first place, no matter who gives them.
Posted by: Dan W | August 1, 2009 1:30 AM
I heard about this already, and loved it. I've never seen the need for all these stupid invocations anyway. They seem to happen everywhere too: high school and college graduation ceremonies, sporting events, local government meetings, and many other events. I get tired of having to sit through some religious zealot drone on about god before some event I'm at starts, and just wish they'd get on with the actual event. Though I'd have been willing to hear Edward Buckner's "invocation".
Posted by: Scrawny Kayaker | August 1, 2009 1:56 AM
@24:
Bravo! The reichtard trope about governmental malice/incompetence is always worth fighting against.
Posted by: Dan W | August 1, 2009 2:12 AM
Jerome at #14 said:
"Clever quips notwithstanding, I'm not sure which is the more disturbing thought - that there is a God, or that there is not."
I'm more inclined to find it more disturbing if it turns out there is a god, partly because I'm an atheist. But let's think this a little. If there somehow is a god, which god? Is it what many diests think of as god, a being that created everything them left the universe to its own devices? Or perhaps this god is more likely the god of the christians, or the muslims, or the jews. I think I'd be very worried if that were the case, because that god would sure seem like a cruel, petty, vindicative bastard. However, maybe this god would be one of the Greek or Roman gods, or maybe one of the Egyptian gods. Perhaps it would be a goddess, not a god. Perhaps Cthulu is the all-powerful being. Perhaps, if a god existed, such a being would be totally different from what any religious people thought he, she, or it was.
In any case, if some god exists, I'd have to wonder, why would such a being, who supposedly is all-powerful, allow all manner of suffering, pain, and death to occur to the beings that would have come about as a result of this god's creating the universe (nevermind the question of how this god was created)? My only conclusions could be that such a god either is not all-powerful, or doesn't care about the creatures it created, or is a cruel, sadistic bastard that enjoys watching beings suffer. I personally wouldn't like a diety that's incompetent, apathetic, or evil (or perhaps a combination of those aspects), and would definitely not worship such a being, if evidence showed that it existed.
However, there is no evidence for any god at this point, so I remain an atheist.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 1, 2009 2:26 AM
Taz (@62):
It's late and I've got a busy day tomorrow, so I'll give you the short version:
1. Blind Trust — "I decided to trust you back when I first voted for you, so now you can do whatever the hell you want, and I'll always support you."
2. "Monitoring" Trust — "I got to know you well enough to be sure I could trust you before I originally voted for you. Still behaving in ways that justify that trust? Excellent; carry on!"
3. Misrust — "Several other politicians have behaved in an untrustworthy way, and you bastards are really all the same. So even though I voted for you, I'm going to fight you at every turn: I know without even checking that you can't be trusted."
Number 2 forms the basis for sustained, meaningful representation; Numbers 1 and 3, not so much.
BTW, yes, this is the way people relate to spouses, lovers, business partners, and trusted friends: They form a solid basis for trust at the beginning of the relationship, and then they sustain that trust as long as the other's behavior continues to merit it. I'm not talking about hiring a private dick or anything; I'm just talking about paying attention.
G'night...
Posted by: Taz | August 1, 2009 1:27 PM
Bill Dauphin - I don't buy your definition of mistrust. The idea that it means "I'm going to fight you at every turn" isn't in any dictionary I've seen. What I mean by it is the more basic "to be wary, suspicious, or doubtful". To put it in your terms:
Mistrust - "Many politicians have been untrustworthy in the past. Therefore, whatever official actions you take, I'm going to study them myself to satisfy myself that you're not screwing things up."
People paying more attention is a good thing in a representative democracy. I expect you agree with that, and we're just arguing semantics.
Posted by: Derek Colanduno | August 1, 2009 3:32 PM
Cool,
Ed Buckner is also doing a presentation for the Skeptrack at Dragon*Con this year as well! :)
Posted by: Slaughter | August 1, 2009 4:06 PM
"Olens, a candidate for state Attorney General, said he was surprised by Buckner’s tirade."
Tirade? Interesting and biased word choice from the reporter, Marcus K. Garner. "Remarks" would have been far better. If Olens had called it a tirade, Garner should have said so: Olens ... said he was surprised by what he called Buckner's tirade.
I'll ask him why he chose that word.
Posted by: Crystal | August 1, 2009 10:39 PM
(Peter @37)
"Let me guess - Little River Elementary School east of Woodstock?"
Actually, it was Chapman Elementary in Woodstock. Back then I didn't think twice about it. After all, my entire family (extended and all) is filled with very religious people. Everyone I went to school with was a Christian. I didn't even know there were other beliefs outside of Christianity and Judaism until I was in middle school, and "Atheism" was something said alongside "Communism", "Satanism" (oddly enough), and "Anarchy". Sadly, this is still a commonly held opinion with most people I encounter.
Posted by: Ed Buckner | August 1, 2009 10:40 PM
I'm delighted that this many intelligent (well, most of you, anyway) people are talking about my invocation/provocation. Just to clarify one or two things: when I said the pledge, I just omitted "Under god"--allowed me to finish up sooner, among other things. Efficiency's so important, don't you think? (I really prefer to add "under educated," but I didn't in this case.) The transcript one of you provided was accurate enough, but if anyone wants the text I prepared, e-mail me: ebuckner@atheists.org and I'll be happy to send it to you. And I am very much both a "local atheist"--a Cobb taxpayer/resident since 1972--and, since September 2008, the proud president of American Atheists, successor to Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Jon Murray, Ellen Johnson, and Frank Zindler. Regards to all, Ed Buckner