Political Correctness Gone Too Far - Or Militant Atheism?

Following on from my post yesterday about atheism and threatening behaviour, I was doing some more research recently. One of the views of resentment towards atheism is the trend of 'militant atheism' - seen as a deliberate effort to remove Christian symbols from public view. This often overlaps with political correctness.

However, this is often blown out of all proportion by the media; we have seen the so-called wars on Christmas (it must now be called Winter or Holiday Festival, for example). But where is this political correctness and where is it an attack on Christianity?

As an atheist, I have no issues with calling it Christmas, or recognising it as an Easter Holiday or Christmas Holiday. Why? Because that's what it is - that is the traditional reasoning for the holiday, even if it doesn't hold that specific meaning for me. June 21st is still the Summer Solstice, even though there is little pagan religion nowadays. There is not the same level of political correctness on St. David's Day in Wales, for example, even though he is the patron saint, implying a Judeo-Christian belief system.

We don't hear of these because they are thought so commonplace as to be overlooked entirely for either a political correctness war, or perhaps more accurately, a chance for media to sensationalise and exaggerate a small element of political correctness.

However, this is Britain. It is very different in America, where atheists are viewed as the least accepted part of American society - making up between 3-8% according to recent estimates, and, astonishingly, not represented by a single congressman sharing their beliefs.

The two principal issues I have read of are firstly the use of images of the Ten Commandments. The second is the national motto, In God We Trust.

The first case is more straightforward. To me, there is a clear divide between the use of the Ten Commandments in appropriate placings - for example, courthouses, justice buildings and similar as a symbol of traditional dispensing of law and justice - and between placing them in schools for tenets of inspiration or guidance. There is no fuss about images representing the scales of justice from Ancient Egyptian religion in places such as courthouses - yet they represent the exact same thing, an ancient symbol of law, order and the dispensation of justice. That is perfectly right and proper and I, even as an atheist, have no problems with that at all.

The second is more complex. The original motto of the United States, set out on the great seal in 1782, was E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one. This was changed in 1956 at the height of McCarthyism to the current motto, In God We Trust. To me this is interesting as I was unaware of this. The background is one of redressing an American stance, behind a common Christian theme. I am unsure how widely known the situation here is.

Ironically, challenging the presentation of the current motto is a conservative traditional position, seeking the overturning of the change in 1956 to the original text as set out by the Founding Fathers. It is strange, and almost creates an appearance that the presentation of the American motto as an America united by a common Judeo-Christian background is a more valid one than the one representing the great cohesive society set out by the Founding Fathers themselves.

So in all this, what role does militant atheism have? What role does political correctness have? Certainly there are those who will be unbending to others' positions, demanding only their own way. There are some atheists who would prefer not to deal with religion at all, just as there are some religious people who have the opposite view. The vilification of 'militant atheism' as somehow undermining society, especially in America, is one that I find puzzling considering you would find the exact same proportion of religious people seeking to undermine the separation of church and state, for example - a situation barely touched on by the media.

Political correctness is also an easy target, dubbed as the cause of everything bad and ignoring all the good that it has done. This attitude is best represented by the media, criticising political correctness at every turn, and exaggerating and manufacturing small instances, save in the knowledge they will never be challenged by a public ready to listen to such comments.

So what to conclude? There is nothing to conclude really. In the end, realism is necessary, as is compromise. There is no other way between differing viewpoints. People must accept others' points of views. I can accept perfectly easily accept that the holiday around December is a Christmas Holiday. Can others not accept that an inclusive, traditional and representative motto is a greater symbol than a rebranding exercise - which while something that they may believe and may have a great deal of meaning to them personally - is by no means the potent and powerful symbol that its predecessor was?

I honestly doubt whether it will be so in my lifetime.