square at Christmas time. While symbols are meaningful and these particular symbols on public grounds do violate Madison’s Constitution, Secular Americans must do better to reach all Americans. We must explainthe human story—the human harm and the outright abuse of our tax dollars that result from religious privileging in law.
Theocratic fundamentalists love when the debate is about nativity scenes or “the war on Christmas,” because, meanwhile, that sideshow allows them the opportunity to quietly transform our government—and our laws—to their liking in ways that harm real people. If we are to be strategic, if we are to build a case to a broader audience—and we can—the secular movement must unite around the human harm caused by religious bias. A uniting call to compassion—and to moral outrage—makes smart strategy because it’s so deeply just, and because it appeals to the best of our nature. An energized reaction to our message—to our very human stories—is in itself unique and new within the secular movement. We must stir people’s emotions with a mission of justice and compassion, not merely for Secular American but for all Americans.
If our goal is to improve our world and serve our fellow human beings, then a savvier strategy, a more businesslike strategy, a strategy more accepting of the nature of human emotions, is imperative. Religious special rights are about real people and real harm. Secular Americans must offer sound arguments, but we must do so in a way that connects with the hearts of our fellow Americans. Now is the time to step forward and take moral responsibility for our nation through social action. After reading this book, I hope you will see the imperative of doing just that—and a clear course of action for us to return America to its secular roots.
1 Introduction
The Crumbled Wall between Church and State
I believe that God wants me to be president
.
—George W. Bush
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and state
.
—Thomas Jefferson
I was twelve, riding in the backseat of the family car on a vacation in the American West. I’d been given
The Children’s Bible
as a gift. With time on my hands, I decided to read the Holy Scripture. The trip sure felt pretty biblical, what with dad driving us through the desert and all. I got to the part where God tells Abraham to kill his son. If Abraham was willing to kill his son, then, in God’s eyes, Abraham was a moral person—a God-fearing person. I looked up at my dad in the driver’s seat and wondered to myself how God fearing he might be out here in the desert.
This was the first time I remember having real questions about the Bible. Would a truly moral person obey such a command? Would a moral God issue such a command—even as a test of loyalty? Would it be moral to treat a child as something to be used as property—an object to be used as a religious sacrifice?
The story of Abraham is an ancient one. And we’re living in what is often called the modern age. Surely the invocation of religion today would never place children at risk, right? Well, let’s consider a true story from the twenty-first century.
Amiyah White, age two, attended a child-care center in Alabama. The center’s staff lost track of Amiyah and she was left alone, trapped in a van. After two hours in that van under the Alabama sun, Amiyah’s two-year-old heart gave out, and she died alone in that van. On the outside of the van were painted the words “Holy Church.” Amiyah attended a religious child-care center. Now, you might say, Amiyah’s death was an accident that also could have happened in a secular child-care center. True, but such an event would be less likely to happen—because under Alabama law, health