During the day, my mild-mannered alter-ego has a job with an agricultural association. Part of my job is handling the duties of a meeting planner. Our association's annual meeting is coming up next month, and I've been informed that there will be a religious invocation given prior to the start of the luncheon. Naturally, I consider this to be in poor judgement. But raising a stink about it, even a little one, would probably not be a wise idea from a professional point of view. The decision was made by the board of directors, and will in fact be given by one of the board members, who's quite religious. So I'd resigned myself to keeping my mouth shut about it until it's all over. Perhaps I'll mention my perspective to my boss, though I'm sure he knows it already.
But it seems such a thing is quite common at business meetings, as I found out recently. I receive certain periodicals, one of which is called Meetings and Conventions, which is a publication geared toward meeting planners. The June issue (which I somehow missed) had an article called "A Matter of Faith," which touched on this subject. Though I didn't see that article, I did see the letters to the editor that appeared in the September issue, which I finally got around to reading just recently.
The first letter was one I really identified with. This woman, President of a PR firm in New York City, pointed out correctly that the only people clamoring for prayers in meetings are the same folks who proselytize everywhere else. She wrote, "This is just another instance of the Christian Right, which has a clearly defined political agenda, attempting to thrust their views upon the rest of us." Bingo. Right on. I sent her an email to thank her.
But the following four letters totally ruined my attitude. Such uncompromising crap I really didn't expect to see in these pages. An independent meeting planner in Atlanta said, "I agree with the person quoted in the article who said 'everyone should be included.' That means each of us must take it upon ourselves to respect the differences of others' beliefs. Exclusion because it might 'offend' someone doesn't cut it. Grow up." I'd like to tell her to grow up. Her rhetoric of respecting the differences of everyone (naturally) does not include those of us with no religious beliefs, who regard this sort of captive-audience injection of faith to be reprehensible.
An executive assistant in a firm in Houston said, "Your article claims there's no easy answer. Sure there is: Yes. As the Nike slogan says, 'Just do it.' Don't worry about it, just open with prayer." Fine and dandy. I'd like to see how she'd react if a meeting were opened with a prayer to anyone but Jesus or her god. How about a Satanic prayer, a prayer to the Lord and Lady of Wiccans, or to the Japanese goddess Amaterasu Omikami? She went on to say, "Those who don't think it is appropriate to pray can cover their ears, or hum the National Anthem, or look straight ahead and not bow their heads." In other words, just shut up and deal with it. What a nice Christian attitude.
A person in Albion, NY, said, "I found the June cover article to have an implied feeling of religious bigotry," and spoke of how Congress opens with prayer and made a passing reference to studies that allegedly show that prayer helps bring people together with a sense of hope, thus being a good thing to do at meetings. He or she concluded with, "It is obvious that the author of the story is not a religious theologian." Well, no kidding. I'd be a bit concerned if theologians decided they needed to write about corporate and association meetings.
And last, but certainly not least, was an independent meeting planner in Baldwinsville, NY, who said, "…we must recognize that we are 'One Nation, Under God.' …any invocation… should simply praise God and appeal for the blessing of God… For the few that this might still offend, they are welcome to leave the country." How nice. Accept God or get out, basically.
To be fair, there was one more letter regarding that article, but it wasn't pro or con, but actually had something useful to say about meeting planning. As it didn't weigh in on either side of the argument, I disregarded it for the purposes of this article.
And what is the purpose of this article? To point out how widespread is the mentality that says injecting faith into damn near everything is appropriate, if not downright necessary. And that, as always, we non-believers are marginalized. No, not even that. We're inconsequential. We don't even have a margin to occupy. Dubya's daddy once said in an interview that he didn't really think atheists should be considered either patriots or citizens. Looks like many in the general public feel the same way.
Of course, I emailed a reply to this effect, as well as mentioning how thoroughly bigoted and arrogant these four letters were. Pleasantly, I received an email of gratitude from the editor, who (according to the email) would have written one just like it, had they not been on the magazine's staff. It'll be published in their December issue. Hopefully, others will respond similarly.
And speaking of numerous responses to religious bigotry, how many of you read Kathleen Parker's tirade in USA Today titled "God, Country gain fragile new toehold"? If you didn't see it, a link to it is posted here, along with a veritable avalanche of responses from the atheist community.
This is the sort of response that makes me proud. That so many have written letters to this bigot, pointing out the flaws in her statements about atheists, is encouraging.
So I urge all my readers not to be silent when faced with such bigotry and bullshit. Looking the other way will not help anything. Hoping that someone else will protest it could be a vain hope. This is something I learned very clearly while living in Utah, where freethinkers were a decided minority compared to the overwhelmingly Mormon population. Never assume someone else will carry the ball for you. We've got to speak out whenever the opportunity arises. I shouldn't have to point out why.
