cultural-identity, politicsSince freedom of speech is a vital and necessary aspect of a free and democratic society, what are the best ways to ensure that there is no forced speech? Recently, some atheists were threatened in Florida for wearing t-shirts that said, “One Nation, indivisible” on a background of an American flag. Essentially, they were threatened with expulsion from a Common Council meeting (a type of local government legislative body) for what their t-shirts did not say.
If the end result desired is an end to the atheist stigma, or an acknowledgment that “Under God” is a divisive inclusion in the pledge, or that governments should act with neutral secularity, then the only response a committed, activist atheist can make is to hold their ground and stand/fight for what you believe.
In a number of other threads I have asserted that what you truly believe is revealed in the actions you are motivated to take. Your actions confirm your primary motivation (belief) in any given situation. If an atheist in this meeting walks out to avoid conflict, they have shown they “believe” the best action is one that lessens conflict, rather than one that lessens stigma or lessens Christian intrusion in secular spaces.
Had they been expelled from the meeting, physically resisting removal would be a first step toward proving they really believe in their activity, then filing charges and pursuing the issue legally would demonstrate the “belief” that it is a freedom worth fighting for. Acquiescing evinces a “belief” that solving the problem is less a priority than some other concerns in your life (family, community respect, job, etc.)
I am not saying anyone is more “right” by being an activist, but that when one wonders why things don’t change rapidly, or why atheists/atheism remains stigmatized, it is because not enough of us prioritize equality and government neutrality over the silent comforts of the closet. (IMHO). :-)
Democracy is a form of government where the legitimacy of government rests in the free election of representatives. The limits of legitimate action rest within a broader framework of what constitutes acceptable action, a declaration of rights, perhaps.
The question seems to be: is it legitimate for governments to impose cultural norms?
I would bring legal counsel with me, especially if I was going to the meeting to voice an opinion. It hurts me to say that but these are dark days and having an officer of the court with you in such a situation could make a real difference in how you are treated.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.