On Picking Our Battles

Since my recent encounter with La Vista Mayor Douglas Kindig, a small part of the criticism I've received has come from other atheists.  They've joined some Christians in not understanding how Separation of Church and State works and getting the details of what happened wrong.

A post about it on Atheist Republic is a great example of atheists getting it wrong.  They got numerous small details wrong, including when I approached the mayor.  Their post claims I approached him "in the midst of" the event when I intentionally waited until the event was over.  It's a small detail, but it shows the disregard for accuracy (or perhaps honesty) that permeates that post.

But worse than the lazy writing in this hyperbolic work of click-bait, is the opinion offered by the author at the end of the post:

While I am certainly disturbed by the mayors alleged sentiments, I must in rare form disagree with the atheist activist in question about any alleged violation of separation of church and state here. While the city may have organized the event, they state that it was funded by local church groups who are not part of the government body. Additionally the event was held at a public park which is open to all the public and no one was denied entry as far as we know.

I think we need to pick our battles a bit better than this, because things of this nature give off the appearance of being petty and intentionally confrontational when no confrontation is necessary.

But that's just my two cents.

He starts by acknowledging that the city organized the event.  Nothing said after that is relevant.  Who paid for the event is not relevant.  It was exclusively and explicitly Christian, and it was part of the official La Vista event called La Vista Daze.  No effort was made to even consider anything else.  When we asked the city about it, they admitted that it had never occurred to them.    Of course the city states they didn't do anything wrong.  That's what they would be doing either way.  But one thing is key and undeniable.

The city organized the event.

The fact that it was on public property is not at all relevant.  The Constitutional issue would still be there if it had happened exactly as it did on private property.  And there would be no issue if it had been the churches having the event on their own in the same location.  The location isn't the issue.  The issue is the fact that the city organized the event.

Regarding picking our battles, the author reveals even more of his ignorance of the situation.  Ignorance that would have been avoided if he'd done 2 cents worth of research before posting.

He clearly never found my initial post on the matter, where he could have learned that I wasn't looking for a battle at all.  I attempted a civil discussion.  It only blew up because of the mayor's reaction.

He may also have learned that the response from Omaha Atheists was to use the attention educate and to reach out to believers in the community to open dialogue between our groups.

I've since had the meeting with the mayor that I was seeking that day, where he apologized in person for his outburst.  The city appears like they will be taking my concerns seriously, which at this point is all I was asking for.

I also spoke to the city council and have offered to participate in the planning of future events to help ensure inclusiveness by representing a group not currently considered.  After I spoke, the preacher who organized the event in question spoke, praising Omaha Atheists for our civility and willingness to work together.

He did get one thing right though.  No confrontation was necessary.  Other than the outburst that made news, that we've since moved beyond, no confrontation has been necessary.  So far, all parties are working together civilly.

So, who has "the appearance of being petty and intentionally confrontational when no confrontation is necessary"?  The group who is working toward a litigation free resolution to a legitimate issue or the blogger who picked a fight with a fellow atheist by writing an ill-informed, hyperbolic, and dishonest piece to get some extra hits?

If this writer at Atheist Republic gives a shit about honesty, I suggest he pick his battles better than this.

Having Privilege Is Mundane, Challenging Privilege Is Not

While being interviewed about her experience surviving the Moore, Oklahoma tornado, Rebecca Vitsmun outed herself after Wolf Blitzer incorrectly assumed she had "thanked the lord".

This story is a perfect example of how Christian privilege works in our society.  A national reporter thought it was appropriate to just assume a random person was Christian.  The fact that she was willing to say on national television that she's actually an atheist resulted in national attention because it's a big deal to be willing to be openly atheist.  Even when it shouldn't be.

What Rebecca did was mundane.  Or least it should have been.  It was anything but mundane, and that's the problem.  A lot of atheists are afraid to do this.  Even Rebecca was afraid to do it.  But it was either that or lie.

Her story has been in the back of my mind during the last week since my encounter with my town's mayor.  It's why I wore the shirt with her quote at today's rally at La Vista City Hall.

This shirt exists because people rallied around Rebecca to support her.

What I did should have been mundane.  I was a citizen approaching an elected official with a valid concern.  But, like Rebecca's situation, what should have been mundane was not.  The story went national extremely quickly, starting with The Friendly Atheist and followed by Raw Story, Washington Times, Christian Post, The Blaze, and others.

I know the attention I've had from it, so I can only imagine the focus that's been on Mayor Kindig's office.  I've had a lot of atheists (and some believers) thanking for me for what I did.  But on its own, what I did was not anything special.   It was only special because our culture is constantly telling atheists to shut up and stay hidden, and I refused to do so.  Atheists being open about being atheists is seen as a challenge to the Christian privilege that permeates our culture.

Christian privilege is what had La Vista defaulting directly to the event being overtly Christian, rather than secular or inclusive of other religious viewpoints.  Christian privilege is what let Mayor Kindig feel safe in dismissing my concerns so hastily.

Today's rally was to show that my concerns are not mine alone and that we will not sit idly by while those concerns are dismissed in favor of Christian privilege.

Photo Credit:  Amanda Knief

It shows government officials that they're not free to insert their religion into government without someone standing up to them.  And it shows atheists that if they are that person standing up, they will not be doing so alone.  They will have groups like Omaha Atheists and American Atheists supporting them, just like I've had over the last week.

La Vista, Nebraska Mayor: "Minorities Will Not Run My Town"

My father was in the Air Force for 20 years, and continued to serve after his retirement until his premature death.  I have numerous other friends & family who have served.  I had intended to join the military myself until various health issues took that option away from me. 

So I have nothing against people honoring the sacrifices of those who did not make it home how they fit, on their own.  If people want to do this in a religious service, they should definitely be allowed to do this.  But not government.

The City of La Vista (the suburb of Omaha I live in) disagrees.

This kind of religious service is particularly offensive because they're using Memorial Day to get away with it.  They started by having a police captain read the names of soldiers who had died in the line of duty.

As I took this, he got to the name Lonnie Allen, who I went to 6th grade with. The street up to Birchcrest Elementary in Bellevue is named for him.  I don't claim to have been close to him.  But I knew him and liked him.  I was sad when I learned he had died.

On the way out, I attempted to discuss the issue with my mayor, so a civil resolution to this violation of the Constitution could be reached.  His immediate response was, "Take me to fucking court because I don't care."

I responded to that by saying that I was hoping to resolve this civilly.  His response to that was to walk away from me while saying "Minorities are not going to run my city."

Thanks to Be Secular for the perfect shirt for this

When (not if) I challenge this, I'll be accused of not supporting the troops.  The fact that it's not true won't matter.

I'll be told that this is a Christian nation.  The fact that it's not true won't matter.

I'll be accused of trying to force my atheism on them.  The fact I am just as opposed to an atheist government as I am a Christian government won't matter.

I'll be accused of violating their religious freedom.  The fact that this city sponsored church service is not within their religious freedom won't matter.  The fact that this service violates my religious freedom won't matter.

But none of that matters to me.  I can take the abuse from the Christians.  What matters to me is that is wrong.  What matters to me is that my minority status is irrelevant.  Civil rights and the Constitution are for everyone, not just the majority.

They're free to worship as they wish.  Just keep it out of my government.

I don't want to sue my own city any more than I wanted to cussed at and demeaned by my mayor.  Hopefully he'll be more open to having civil discussion before we get to that point.