https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlLud7oLZs

So, on Fox & Friends recently, I saw something that made me…surprised.

I swear I wasn’t angry about it, though, because that would make me one of those “angry atheists.” I’m sorry, did that sound bitter? I swear, I’m not bitter, I’m just a little…”concerned.” Is that an OK word, Christians? Is it OK to be “concerned,” or is that a bit much?

The city of Madison, Wisconsin decided to make atheists a protected class, free from discrimination. To be sure, this was on the books beforehand at the federal level, with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…but, the argument goes, having a city ordinance boosts this federal policy at the much-harder-to-enforce private, local level of business within a particular municipality.

Now, it’s true that, along with Muslims, atheists happen to be the least liked religious group in the United States, according to the Pew Forum. But that’s a bit beside the point. What’s truly shocking here is that, before this happened, only religious people were going to be more explicitly protected as a class at the local level. Some people, though certainly not all, might just think that’s unfair and needs to be fixed. This city did and fixed it.

The thing about being an ex-Christian atheist is that the same people who used to talk in stereotypes about atheists behind their backs frequently become very diplomatic to them to their face (unless, of course, you come across as angry). I’m used to seeing Christians try to be on their best behavior, with apologies for those other Christians that don’t get it so that I won’t criticize their practice of “true” Christianity.

But there is still a Christian base to speak to, if you want to get ratings for your show. You have to key into the Christians’s living room stereotypes, since that’s what over 80% of our country is.

Fox & Friends did that. And it’s not an anomaly. It’s the highest rated cable news station in the country; fairly prominent. And what it did to connect to its audience was astounding.

How It Went Down

After introducing the Madison, Wisconsin law, the female host asks former Department of Justice official J. Christian Adams a question.

So where does this hostility come from in the first place….

I was about to be impressed. This discrimination law was going to bring up a conversation of hostility towards atheists that was the reason why this law wasn’t on the books in the first place…

…towards Christians?

What? How the heck — what? How did an ordinance against discrimination towards atheists become about hostility towards Christians? Seriously?

I swear, I was just surprised — don’t worry, I wasn’t angry. I was willing to give Mr. Adams a chance. Maybe the Christians had some legitimate concerns, or there were specific instances in Madison, Wisconsin where discrimination towards Christians happened.

Adams answered,

Well, this ordinance was driven by the Freedom From Religion Foundation,

Great start. They were a loving, caring group of people that help me transition from religion and seemed very open minded. I was looking forward to his honest statement that they were an organization to help protect nonbelievers and preserve the separation of church and state. This was a logical step – they would want people who left faith to have the same freedoms as atheists that they did as Christians. It only seemed fair.

So that’s what I was expecting, as it was my experience. But instead he said, dismissively:

…it’s a group of angry atheists…

Wait, what? That is so cliché. How did you just group us together like that? It’s so much more complex than that. That’s just buying into stereotypes. I can’t…really?

I swear I was not angry. I was just surprised. But I was hopeful…maybe there’s hope yet. Maybe he’ll admit some atheists might just be a tad upset for legitimate reasons, and at least better our reputation slightly…

…they have a very large and powerful group of supporters…

No, we don’t. That’s a myth; we atheists are only around 2.4% of the population, and that’s ALL ATHEISTS in the United States, not just those who are part of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Meanwhile, over 80% of US citizens are Christian. To call us “very large and powerful” seems, perhaps, a bit out of proportion.

But still, there’s hope. Maybe he’ll say something less cliché…

…and they hector governments to pass anti-Christian, anti-religious ordinances. They team up with government…

Well, I think the FFRF doesn’t want Christianity and religion governing our public square in order to intimidate atheists. They do want us to be free from religion, and secular government – separation of church and state – often obliges, since that’s, like, part of the First Amendment.

At the same time…although that’s a bit skewed, it’s a breath of fresh air. Best thing he’s said so far, even thought the language was fundamentally flawed.

…for example, they were behind the IRS, getting the IRS to target and monitor sermons and homilies by Christian pastors just within the last year, so this is a group that’s filled with hostility towards people of faith…

Wow. Really? Wow. Like…really? Wow. I was…really? Wow………

For about thirty seconds I had to pause the video and wrap my brain around that. Really? That was so dishonest. But I’m not saying that because I’m angry, because I’m not. It’s just logic…

Do you know why the FFRF was getting the IRS to target these people? Let’s let a 2012 Christianit Today article explain it:

More than 1,500 pastors explicitly broke the law last Sunday by endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. Amid a tense election year, their participation in the annual protest “could hold more sway than in previous years,” CNN reports. Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an annual event organized by the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund), flaunts an IRS tax code restriction stating that churches risk their tax-exempt status if they endorse specific political candidates or positions on ballot issues. The aim of the event is to “provoke a challenge from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in order to file a lawsuit and have its argument out in court.”

The preachers – more than 1500 of them, were deliberately breaking the law. And the IRS was afraid to challenge them, politics being what it is. And in 2014, the FFRF was like, “Y’know, you should probably look into that.”

And it was about time, because they had been doing this every single year since 2008 and no one had said anything about it. As that article stated:

The IRS has not responded with direct legal action against churches participating in Pulpit Freedom Sunday since the event began in 2008.

So in July 2014, the FFRF finally challenged the IRS. After several years of the pastors blatantly breaking the law. And the IRS did not punish any pastors but instead settled with the FFRF. Basically, they did not go after them, because, y’know, politics.

And the pastors deliberately broke the law again that October, a month before election day – 1800 of them this time, breaking the previous records.

That’s right. That’s the major detail you left out, Adams. The preachers would LITERALLY go to the podium of the non-profit organization of the church, defy IRS statutes, and say, “vote for proposition x” or “vote for candidate y.” Some of them even mailed their sermons to the IRS, daring the IRS to target them. And the IRS was scared at the public relations nightmare that would be, so they didn’t do it, and haven’t done it. Even the FFRF hasn’t successfully challenged them yet. Not one pastor has gone to trial.

This is against common sense, I would think, right? Is it angry to posit that leaders of 501 (c)(3) non-profit organizations, when speaking as representatives of these non-profit organizations, should not be endorsing particular political candidates or political stances on legislation. That’s just the law. That’s not hate or anger, is it? I mean, that’s just the law. And it’s been flauntingly violated by pastors for seven straight years in this country.

Does it make me angry to say that? Because I’m not angry, I’m swear. It might seem a little bit like it, but I’m not at all.

And Adams left all that out, and is just picturing it as the FFRF getting the IRS to target and monitor sermons.

Adams probably knew there was more to the story. He had to, being in the DOJ and all. From all appearances, he lied on national television in order to tell his audience what they wanted to hear — that atheists were naturally angry, hostile people. Which we’re not, of course, because I’m totally not angry, at all, about this.

Well, that was the worst of it, I thought. Surely that was it…

Then the male host, Tucker Carlson, comes in.

Right, so it’s never just about tolerating their views, it’s about attacking other people’s views.

Well, when they’re breaking the law, yes. The pastors have free speech rights; no one is saying they don’t. But if you want to keep your nonprofit status, you have to follow certain guidelines. That’s just the law. That’s not saying you can’t preach. It’s just…someone angrier than me might say it’s dishonest.

But I’m not angry. No, because then I’d be one of those “angry, hostile atheists” and you’d see that as license to stop listening to everything I’m saying. So no, I’m not angry. Would Christians be angry if atheists were doing this kind of thing to them?

Hmmm…anyways, no, I’m not angry. Please listen to non-angry me. I’m not angry, I swear. Not at all.

So, anyway, you’re bringing this up – this hostile, angry atheist stereotype up – very dishonestly, in a story to talk about how we shouldn’t discriminate against atheists?

Well, I was thinking, maybe even though they think we’re angry and hostile, they’ll at least think we should be treated equally and fairly, right? I mean, that’s something. You learn not to ask for much these days.

Tucker Carlson goes on,

Madison City Councilwoman Anita Weier is one of the voices behind this, and she says, ‘This is important because I believe it is only fair that if we protect religion, in all its varieties, we should also protect non-religion from discrimination. It’s only fair.’ And that does in some sense seem fair…

Yes! Finally. That’s something. They can do a terrible hatchet job on the FFRF, they can misrepresent Pulpit Freedom Sunday, they can play into all the prominent atheist stereotypes – but here, here they admitted that this did, “in some sense,” seem fair.

Finally. That’s something.

Then he finishes:

…but that’s not exactly their aim, is it?

Well, there was still hope. Maybe they would provide evidence that their aim was something else. Maybe, in spite of the dishonesty before, they would be honest about, perhaps, the wider aim of the FFRF to provide a protected space for people who wanted to be free from religion’s control over their lives, and engage in a discourse I could relate to concerning how much control it should have, although I might disagree.

Adams answers,

No, and it never works out that way. Not only does it bring lawsuits, but don’t forget this is a local ordinance, Tucker, and that means that a whole body of bureaucrats spring up that will be charged with hectoring people of faith, badgering, in Wisconsin, people of faith…

OK, maybe there’s a point there. I disagree with things like putting the ten commandments in courthouses (really, the ten commandments? I mean, I don’t like the Bible, but half of those no one follows anymore anyway – the Golden Rule, although it’s not perfect, is much better. Why the ten commandments), the old prayer in school thing (you can pray, just don’t do it in a school-sponsored way that makes non-Christians feel like outcasts), the nativity scenes on the courthouse lawns…we disagree with those, but we’ll have a debate on that.

That’s a strong disagreement, but it’s not in the crazy-town arena of disagreement. And I’ve heard it before, a zillion times, so I was ready for that.

Adams goes on:

…who might not want to hire somebody.

Wait, what? Hiring practices? Seriously? But then I dismissed it – it’s probably just a misplaced concern, I thought, about atheists applying to be pastors or something. Obviously that’s legitimate. OK. I relaxed.

Then Adams went on (rather emphatically):

Y’know, there’s a lot of Christians or Jews who might not want to hire somebody who is an atheist…

I was expecting a legitimate concern a secular audience could “get” here that preserved the separation of church and state,

In fact [Adams continued as he leaned forward and raised his eyebrows] It’s in the New Testament.

I felt like the rug had been ripped out from under me. I swear, don’t worry, I swear, I wasn’t mad. I just wasn’t ready for that…

And he kept going,

It says things such as to avoid them and disassociate with them, in Romans, Thessalonians, Corinthians.”

But I still thought he was talking about being in the pulpit or something, which would make some sense, so I still wasn’t angry; it’s not the first time I’ve heard verses like that given in my direction.

You might have a job, for example, where you want someone who believes in a higher power…

Yes, he’s definitely talking about preaching. OK. I don’t like the scriptures, but at least he’s making sense now. Not getting angry is easy, haha…

…for example, maybe you’re running an airline –

Wait, what? An airline? An airline? An AIRLINE? A GODDAMN AIRLI — wait, um, I mean, that’s strange…I was just surprised, I swear. I’m not one of those angry atheists you hear about. No, not me. Not angry at all.

…and hiring pilots, who you prefer they maybe believe…

Um…maybe this seems a tad bit sacriligious…but, uh…isn’t it discrimination to hire pilots who only believe in God? It’s a bit difficult to think of anything worse than discriminating between pilots based on their belief in God…

…in hell. I mean, I know that sounds extreme…

…………………………”extreme”? No shit.

…but that shows you why religion is so important to so many people. And to tell people you can’t [restrict your hiring to] only people of faith, intrudes on their free exercise of faith.

I don’t know what to say. I honestly…does that make sense to you? I mean, I don’t want to be that angry atheist, so I swear I’m not mad at this opinion that you should avoid atheists and discriminate them in a job like hiring an airline pilot. I’m not mad. Is it OK to be a bit confused, though? Just a tad? A little bit? Or is that too much? Does that make me into an angry atheist, too much? Should I smile a bit more? Would that work for you?

The female newscaster goes on,

Well, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is trying to make this a trend across the country; they’re encouraging other cities to pass similar legislation and they say this [puts up a quote from Annie Laurie Gaylor, Co-Founder of FFRF], ‘We encourage freethough activists – including the increasing number of local public officials who are atheists or agnostics, to work to introduce and replicate this protection at their city, county or even state levels.’ Do you think that’s gonna happen?

I wonder why on earth the FFRF would think this is necessary – especially since atheists are obviously not being persecuted. I mean, look at this fair and balanced story. Where on earth would atheists and agnostics get the idea that they are in danger of discrimination?

Adams answers,

Yes, I do, because these people are so committed to their own version of theology, they have such hatred of Christians and Jews publicly exercising their faith. This is a story as old as time. This [Easter[ weekend, guys, is a story of escaping and overcoming this kind of hatred. Christians and Jews have been putting up with this for thousands of years, people who don’t like what they believe, so we’re pretty much used to it by now. But once again, it always seems to find new ways to attack and destroy and erode at the free exercise of religion.

Because there is obviously no hatred towards these atheists who you want to “avoid and dissociate” with, who you’ll openly discriminate for jobs such as being an airline pilot, who you’ll deliberately misrepresent and lie about in order to portray them as hostile and worthy of discrimination.

Oops – did that sarcam sound angry? Please, I’m not angry, I swear; don’t tune me out yet; I just, uh…. have some concerns I want to get across. If I talked about how wonderful Abrams was, would that make me sound less angry? Would it? Um, I’m sure he’s awesome. Very passionate. A man on fire for his God, and it’s so sad how angry atheists aren’t more understanding to him and those across America cheering his message. Better?

Then Tucker Carlson:

Of course there’s a political element here, I mean, of course if there’s no God, then the highest authority is government.

Wait…surely this wasn’t going to be a “bring God back into government” speech, right? There is some sense of separation between Church and State, right? Just a little bit?

Adams answers,

Well that’s of course right, Tucker, and that’s why this country was founded on exactly the opposite principle that men have individual dignity, women have individual dignity, because they’re created in the image of God. And that’s what these people can’t stand is that we live in a country that respects and treasures religious belief.

Except some Christians – like those pilots Adams talked about earlier – believe in this thing called hell that these atheists you’re supposed to “avoid and disassociate with” might be going to forever…

Remember, please, that this is on national cable news. They’re talking to an audience of people who, um, actually believe this.

But I’m not angry, I swear. I swear. Not at all.

It’s the end of the segment, though. They’ll say bye, and it’ll be done.

Then the female newscaster closes out,

J Christian Adams, thank you so much for being on fire with your faith this morning.

………all us atheists. Why do so many get angry when people are on fire for Christ?…

I’m just making observations, though, don’t mind me.

I’m not angry, I swear.