Should Freethinkers Defend Ventura?

[This article was publshed on the Secular Web in 1999, in response to an earlier article reporting on an a newspaper ad by the Minnesota Atheists defending then-Governor Ventura's comment denigrating religion.]

If there's one thing that's clear in the recent flap about Jesse Ventura's Playboy interview*, it's that Ventura doesn't need defending. He's obviously a man who thinks that if you can't take the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen -- and doesn't mind generating some heat to show he can take it! Certainly he asked for it -- if he calls masses of his constituents "weak-minded", he can't expect them to thank him!

One concern expressed by people who defend Ventura's actions is that ideas and institutions -- religious ideas, for example -- shouldn't be immune from criticism. Fair enough -- why should Ventura be immune? Because it's his "private" opinion? That's off the mark. If someone had wired the governor's mansion and caught a remark made at the dinner table, we'd be talking about his private opinion. But an interview in a national magazine is a public statement, and besides that, it's unlikely that Playboy would have interviewed him if he weren't governor. What's really going on is that many freethinkers simply think Ventura was somehow right, and certainly courageous. But was he?

First of all, Jesse's not a hero. He's human -- sometimes he gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong. He got it exactly right when he refused to sign a religious proclamation. He got it wrong when he tarred all religious individuals with the same brush --which, by the way, is not the same thing as criticizing "organized religion". He has a right to be wrong -- but not to go uncriticized for it. If anyone attacks his stand for the wrong reasons -- they're not immune either.

What can we make of the Minnesota Atheists' ad, "Religion should apologize to Jesse"? Their examples of injustice to atheists are well chosen -- by excluding unbelievers the Boy Scouts and the American Legion aren't just sounding off; they're doing actual harm; George Bush wasn't just putting down people who disagree with his religious views --  he, as President, was questioning their citizenship. But, those examples don't tell us any more about "religion" in general than do the acts of churches that shelter political refugees. You tell me: on the face of it, how is a statement like "religion should apologize to Jesse" different fromm "If a person has no religious beliefs, he can't be a moral person." They're both over-generalizations.

What about the religious people who defend freethinkers' rights? Should they apologize? Take a look at this excerpt from a story about controversies over prayer at high school football games, printed in the Houston Chronicle on October 17**:

"[The Celina, TX school board president] said anyone who is offended could stay away from the game or show up after kickoff. "That attitude infuriates Mason, the Santa Fe ... parent who joined about 50 Christians, Jews, atheists and secular humanists to protest school prayer at a recent game.

"What about the Jewish child in our school or the Buddhist? What if one of those children is down there on the football field playing?" she asked. "Are you saying he's not as important as a Baptist child?

"The way we're heading, we're all going to end up praying to one religion. Whose is it going to be? Maybe whoever is in office at the time or whoever is on the school board."

"Mason said that before her three daughters graduated from Santa Fe High School, students in favor of school prayer accused them of being atheists or 'Satan worshippers' when they spoke up in opposition."

Good for the Masons, for going out on a limb to defend the First Amendment! The missing word in the paragraph above was "Baptist". Does that word suddenly make them wrong? Apparently Texas atheists don't think so. The article goes on to report:

"Now Mason and others are finding support from secular humanists and from the American Atheists. 'I will stand up with them any time and fight for separation,' Mason said."

"'We were taught to pray silently and to be respectful of others' beliefs,' she said. 'You didn't go out and stand on the corner or pray over a P.A. system. And you didn't force your religion on anyone. If the atheists can grasp that, why can't they?'"

Unlike the people cited in the Minnesota Atheists' ad, Mason doesn't owe anyone any apologies for her attitude. That's not to say we should accept all her beliefs like some kind of package deal -- no one, be it Thomas Jefferson, Jesse Ventura, or Saint You-Name-the-One, can defend their mistakes on the ground that they get other things right!

One last thought. The Texas atheists and humanists who are working with Christians and Jews on this issue are not "weak-minded" for finding "strength in numbers". This is just what freethinkers are going to need to do if we're serious about defending freedom of conscience in the U.S. and world-wide. I'll give you just one example. Want to know one easy thing you can do to try to reduce the Vatican's political influence on United Nations policy?

Fill out a pre-addressed card to Secretary General Kofi Annan, urging him to change the Church's status from a voting body to a Non-Governmental Organization. The card*** says in part,  "...Granting governmental privileges to what is in reality a religious body is questionable statecraft. While the...government of the Roman Catholic Church... has made positive contributions, this should not be used to justify granting the status of a state to a religious institution..." Then return the card to Catholics for a Free Choice.

Those are some important practical considerations. But most people would say there are important questions of principle here, and I agree.

Defending Ventura or not means choosing one of these principles:

"My fellow freethinker, right or wrong."

or

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Let's get this one right.
 
 

UPDATE:  On April 25, 2006 the Washington Post reported that a group of 56 clergy members had filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service that "two ... large Columbus area churches... [had] violated their tax-exempt status by pushing the candidacy of J. Kenneth Blackwell, who is the secretary of state and the favored candidate of Ohio's religious right." This is another example of religious adherents acting as valuable allies to freethinkers.

*In an interview published in Playboy in November, 1999,  and reported in the Washington Post and many other media outlets, Ventura said, "Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."

**Printed on page E1, no longer available online.

*** Link no longer available

©2006, Originally published  in 1999, this version has been  updated