Everyday Erinyes #283

 Posted by at 10:24 am  Politics
Sep 122021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

One of my professors in college was fond of quoting Mary Wollstonecraft (not the author of Frankenstein, but her mother), who wrote, “A man convinced against his will/Is of the same opinion still.” It’s something to keep in mind whan it comes to forced conversion situations. But there are all kinds of forced conversion situations. For one thing, not all forced conversions are religious in nature. But, when considering church-state separation, that’s generally what comes to mind.

Atheists, agnostics, and others who often refer to themselves as “freethinkers” are not all in agreement as to whether their position is a religious one or not. I’m not sure it matters. I believe separation of church and state refers to all religions and also to the absence of religion.

Sometimes the force in a forced conversion is not applied by a governmental body, but by societal pressure. All of us are under tremendous pressure just about all the time to be “like everybody else.” This may be most obvious in schools and applied to young people, but it’s far from limited to them.
================================================================

70 years ago Walter Plywaski fought for atheists’ right to become citizens – here’s why his story is worth remembering

Walter Plywaski fought for atheists to be given citizenship rights.
Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Kristina M. Lee, Colorado State University

Walter Plywaski’s death earlier this year from complications related to COVID-19 went largely unnoticed by national media.

Only an invitation by his family to donate to the civil liberties group ACLU in Plywaski’s memory gave hint to his legacy in the fight for religious freedom. Almost 70 years ago, Plywaski fought for the right of atheists to become U.S. citizens – and won.

As a scholar of religious and political rhetoric, I believe that Plywaski’s fight is worth remembering. Stories like Plywaski’s give an insight into the discrimination atheists in the U.S. face even today and the role that those professing no faith have had in holding society accountable to the goals of religious tolerance and freedom.

‘Seeking admission on your own terms’

Polish native Walter Plywaski, born Wladyslaw Plywacki, spent five years in Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. After being liberated from Dachau, the Bavarian camp in which 41,500 prisoners died, he worked as an interpreter before immigrating to the U.S and serving four years in the U.S. Air Force.

In August 1952, Plywaski petitioned for U.S. citizenship while in Hawaii. All he had left to do was say his oath of allegiance.

Plywaski, however, was an atheist. He informed the judge that he could not sincerely end the oath with the words “so help me God” and requested an alternative.

Judge J. Frank McLaughlin reportedly asked Plywaski to consider what it says on the back of U.S. coins: “In God We Trust.” McLaughlin then denied Plywaski citizenship, justifying his decision by proclaiming, “Our government is founded on a belief in God,” and accused Plywaski of “seeking admission on your own terms.”

With the help of the ACLU, Plywaski appealed McLaughlin’s decision, arguing it was a violation of religious freedom while noting that natural-born citizens had the option to say affirmations rather than oaths, which allowed them to affirm their allegiance based on their own honor rather than a belief in a higher power.

McLaughlin, however, stood his ground. He argued that the case was not about religious freedom but about whether Plywaski “believes in all the principles which support free government,” which according to McLaughlin included a belief in God.

Plywaski moved to Oregon and successfully petitioned to have his case moved there to be looked at by a different judge. In January 1955, Plywaski won his case and became a citizen.

Plywaski’s case confirmed that those applying for citizenship must have the option to not recite “so help me God” when taking their oath, a policy that is now explicit in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy manual.

Anti-atheist discrimination

But despite the precedent he set, Plywaski was not the last atheist who would be denied U.S. citizenship – more than 60 years later, nonreligious people still had to fight for immigration rights. In 2013 and 2014, two women were initially denied citizenship after being told they had to be religious in order to be conscientious objectors when refraining from stating in their oaths that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law.”

This was despite 1965 and 1970 court cases that affirmed that atheists could be conscientious objectors.

And even atheists with citizenship have been denied certain rights because of requirements that a religious oath be uttered.

Roy Torcaso won a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case after he was denied a position as a public notary when he refused to recite an oath acknowledging the existence of God. Torcaso’s case made clauses in state constitutions banning atheists from holding public office unconstitutional and unenforceable. Yet such bans have still occasionally been used to challenge open atheists who have won public office, though such challenges have failed.

And in 2014, an atheist in the Air Force was denied reenlistment after refusing to say “so help me God” in his oath. The Air Force later reversed the decision and updated its policy after atheist groups threatened to sue.

Such instances fit a pattern of discrimination against atheists. A 2012 study found that that nearly 50% of atheists have felt forced to swear a religious oath. While they legally should have options to say alternatives, the pressure to take the religious oaths remains.

Because “so help me God” is the a default in many oaths, atheists often have to decide between passing as theistic or outing themselves as atheists – which, in a country where good citizenship is often unfairly tied to a belief in God, could potentially bring stigma onto themselves or mean risking being denied certain rights.

Atheists tend to win cases in which they challenge the denial of their citizenship and other rights based on their refusal to acknowledge God. Yet the fact that atheists risk facing additional obstacles and legal fights to have their citizenship recognized speaks, I believe, to their continued marginalization.

The atheist fight for religious tolerance

The atheist fight for equal rights is rarely acknowledged outside of active atheist communities. My research shows how the discrimination against atheists fits with what I describe as a deeply ingrained and coercive theistnormative mindset that frames democratic societies and good citizenship as being tied to belief in a higher power.

[Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Historians such as Leigh Eric Schmidt, David Sehat and Isaac Kramnick and Robert Laurence Moore have all written about religious oppression in the United States and its impact on atheists. These histories highlight how stigma surrounding both atheism and openly critiquing religion and religious oppression often pressured atheists to hide their identity.

Yet, there were – and still are – atheists, like Walter Plywaski, willing to openly challenge discrimination. Their stories are part of the larger fight for religious tolerance within the United States.The Conversation

Kristina M. Lee, Ph.D. Candidate in Rhetoric, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, it’s my personal belief that many people get into a religious group (of any religion) with no real conviction but through pressure from parents, peers, miscellaneous aithority figures, whatever. Once “in,” some acquire conviction and some do not. I suspect this is responsible for a large number of religius phonies. Some of these do no harm. Others do much harm. I don’t know whether better and more nearly universal education in civics as it regards church-state separation would help … but surely it couldn’t hurt.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

  8 Responses to “Everyday Erinyes #283”

  1. Thanks Joanne–includes history beyond that I already knew.  I will add I find it timely and a companion to Nameless’s post with 9/11 becoming the trigger that transformed the experience for Muslims in America from being members of one of the religions here to having their fellow Americans redefine their identities to being primarily their religion, often coupled with defending it or their brethren from other Abrahamic traditions requiring re-educating.
    And that separation of church and state is also an element those trying to preserve whitewashed history want minimized, if included at all when teaching history in our schools.  An odd movement just as Pew has found for the first time in history a majority of Americans identify with no organized faith whatsoever,

    • Rather than odd, I think it’s largely why.  They feel their numbers slipping, and are grabbing back to keep the power.  Of course that’s not how it’s supposed to work.

  2. JD, thanks for this. I did not know about Mr. Plywaski and the needing to have “God’s help” to become a US citizen,supposedly!   Of course 1952 was during the Korean war/McCarthyism so “godless”=”communism” to many.   Yes, our currency says “in God we Trust” (so, all others, pay ca$h!). Hey, you can get it on your Ohio license plate, even. Goes great with MAGA, LOL!    It also has “E Pluribus Unum”,so there.   Yeah, I”m typing this wearing my ACLU T-shirt,LOL!  I don’t even believe in patriarchy and think its a bigger hoax/joke every day. So, how could I worship a Lord/Daddy?    Hey, maybe that’s another column?!

  3. Thank you for posting this, Joanne.

    Atheism and its acceptance as not-a-religion was something TomCat and I couldn’t see eye-to-eye on and sometimes verbally clashed on. Atheists having equal rights to religious people wasn’t the problem, he solved that dilemma by making non-believing into a form of believing, i.e. a religion, too.

    America has a very strange relationship with atheism. As JL already pointed out, secularism is on the upper hand these days. Many people do not identify with any organized faith whatsoever. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are atheists; most believe in some undefined power. As I’ve noted before, in The Netherlands most people profess to “something-ism” now.

    But despite growing secularisation, most people distrust atheists most of all people (again throwing atheism and religions together): The numbers are in: America still distrusts atheists and Muslims (July 2021). Education could certainly do some good here.

    Let’s hope this is just an intermittent phase and end on a positive note:

    Though hatred and distrust of atheism may still be at a high point in the U.S., the outlook is not as bleak as it sounds. With time and continued exposure, and as more and more atheists come out of the closet, the tide will turn on atheist favorability and maybe the country’s original goal of pure religious freedom will be reached. (Salon)

    • I suspect the degree to which atheism is or is not a belief system very much depends on each individual atheist.  “I don’t believe there is a god” and “I believe there is no god” are not quite the same statement.  But I wouldn’t argue with anyone as to whether he or she personally regards either as a belief system.  And agnosticism is definitely not a belief system, IMO.  But an atheist who proselytizes and then tries to tell me it is not a belief system gets my unspoken “Yeah, right. 

      • Language evolved in religious societies force atheists like me to be very careful not to use certain words or abandon them all together. Semantics dictate that I try never to say “I believe” but “I think” instead. I might just as well say “I know” when it comes down to a god, or higher being, or something, because it is that clear-cut for me personally. However that always invokes discussion I don’t seek.

        I don’t speak of my belief system either, but of my Weltanschauung, for lack of an English word. But whenever I hear my speech halt because I’m trying to find the right word, I feel myself go on the defensive and the realisation that the freedom of religion, or in my case the freedom from religion is still far off.

        • I take your point.  (The German word is ususally translated “world view,” and I agree that seems inadequate.)  But words like “existential” might get less educated people to shut up.  Sometimes.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.