“Worse Than Hitler!”
The Portrayal of Atheists in American Television Fiction
A Master’s Thesis in American Studies
by
Wander Theunis
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Humanities
Master’s Program in History
Track: American Studies
Supervisor: prof. dr. R.V.A. Janssens
Second Reader: dr. G. Blaustein
Name: Wander Sietse Anton Theunis
Student Number: 5828198
E-Mail: [email protected]
August 2011
“I would love to have the faith to believe that it took place in seven days, but…
I have thoughts.”
Lewis Black
Red, White and Screwed (2006)
2
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
“Thank You to God for Making Me an Atheist” ............................................................ 5
The Portrayal of Atheists in American Television Fiction ............................................. 8
Outline of Thesis ............................................................................................................ 8
Chapter One: One Nation Under God
Contemporary Religion in the United States of America ............................................... 10
1.1 Secular Europe........................................................................................................ 10
1.2 Religious America .................................................................................................. 12
1.3 A Christian Nation.................................................................................................. 13
Chapter Two: The A-Word
Atheists as a Stigmatized Minority Group Within American Society ........................... 17
2.1 American Atheism .................................................................................................. 17
2.2 Dislike and Contempt ............................................................................................. 18
2.3 Social Suicide: Coming Out of the Atheist Closet ................................................. 20
2.4 Why Do Americans Dislike Atheists? .................................................................... 23
Chapter Three: Atheist Pride
An Overview of New Atheism and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion ..................... 25
3.1 New Atheism .......................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion ............................................................... 29
3.2.1 “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God” ............................................. 31
3.2.2 “The Poverty of Agnosticism” ................................................................ 34
3.2.3 Atheist Pride ............................................................................................ 34
Chapter Four: From Maher to O’Reilly
Debating Religion and Atheism on American Television ............................................... 36
4.1 Richard Dawkins on Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) ....................................... 36
4.2 Richard Dawkins on Paula Zahn Now (CNN) ....................................................... 38
4.3 Richard Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor (FOX) .................................................. 40
3
Chapter Five: Content Analysis
The Portrayal of Atheists in Eight Major American Television Series ......................... 44
5.1 Selection of Television Series ................................................................................ 45
5.2 Episodes with Atheist Subject Matter .................................................................... 46
5.2.1 Family Guy – “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven” .......................................... 46
5.2.2 South Park – “Go God Go” and “Go God Go XII”................................. 50
5.2.3 Glee – “Grilled Cheesus” ........................................................................ 54
5.3 Atheist Characters .................................................................................................. 61
5.3.1 Brenda Chenowith from Six Feet Under ................................................. 61
5.3.2 Dr. Gregory House from House M.D. ..................................................... 66
5.3.3 Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory ........................................... 69
5.3.4 Dr. Perry Cox from Scrubs ...................................................................... 72
5.3.5 Dexter Morgan from Dexter. ................................................................... 78
5.4 Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 79
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 85
Complete Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 88
4
Introduction
“Thank You to God for Making Me an Atheist”
On the evening of January 16, 2011, British comedian Ricky Gervais hosted the 68th Golden
Globe Awards show. Broadcast live by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) from the
Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California, the ceremony proved to be full of sardonic
surprises for the self-congratulatory crème de la crème of Hollywood. Throughout the
evening, Gervais – famed for creating the instantly-classic BBC sitcom The Office (20012003) – revealed himself to be the most devilish of jesters. “It was a big year for 3D movies,”
Gervais remarked in his opening monologue, “Toy Story, Despicable Me, TRON. Seems like
everything this year was three-dimensional.” Pause. “Except the characters in The Tourist…”
Later on, as he introduced actor and former drug-addict Robert Downey, Jr., Gervais joked,
“He has done [many films], but many of you in this room probably know him best from such
facilities as the Betty Ford clinic and Los Angeles County Jail.” However, Gervais saved his
most intriguing remark until the evening’s very end. As the awards ceremony came to an end,
he took to the stage and told the audience:
Thanks to everyone in the room for being good sports, thanks to NBC, thanks to
Hollywood Foreign Press, thank you for watching at home, and thank you to God for
making me an atheist.
Mere seconds after Gervais finished his sentence, the broadcast ended, but four days later, on
January 20, 2011, he appeared on CNN’s talk show Piers Morgan Tonight – hosted by fellow
Brit Piers Morgan – to talk about the Golden Globes show. A few minutes into their
conversation, Morgan confronted Gervais with the atheist remark.
PIERS MORGAN
The joke I thought was nearest the knuckle, simply because I know American culture
quite well now – and they’re a very Christian nation here in America – was what you
said right at the end.
RICKY GERVAIS
What was up with that?
PIERS MORGAN
Well, if you are a believer in God, if you’re a Christian – as many tens of millions in
America are – you could see you as poking fun at their religion.
RICKY GERVAIS
Not at all. Loads – how many people thank God every time? They say, “Thank God.”
I don’t get offended, do I?
5
PIERS MORGAN
But you must be aware that a lot of people in America would potentially find that
offensive.
RICKY GERVAIS
What, because I’m saying I don’t believe in God?
PIERS MORGAN
Yeah, because you’re kind of mocking them.
RICKY GERVAIS
No, I’m not. I’m not mocking them. People’s beliefs aren’t my concern at all.
I certainly don’t differentiate between religions either. I look at all religions the same.
Unlike religious people, I look at all religions equally.
A little while later, Morgan and Gervais got to the topic of death:
PIERS MORGAN
I do believe. I was brought up a Catholic and remained it. I think everyone’s entitled
to their own beliefs, whatever they may be. The problem for atheists: it must be so
doom and gloom. When you get to, like, 70-80, you think, “Hang on, that’s it!”
That’s the end of everything.
RICKY GERVAIS
That’s right, yeah.
PIERS MORGAN
So you must fear death ten times as more than Christians, don’t you?
RICKY GERVAIS
Why?
PIERS MORGAN
‘Cause it’s the end.
RICKY GERVAIS
But you’re saying you believe because the alternative is too terrible.
PIERS MORGAN
That’s not why I believe. But certainly, it’s a very comforting thought to think – I
don’t think it all ends in the box under the ground.
RICKY GERVAIS
But I can’t help what I believe any more than you can. And it’s up to you what you
believe in. And, you know, this thing about not believing in God… There are 2,780
odd Gods, and so if you’re a Christian, you believe in one of them, and you don’t
believe in all the others.
As the above goes to show, one tiny little ‘joke’ about being an atheist is enough to spark a
heated conversation on a major American network’s primetime talk show. Despite the fact
both Piers Morgan and Ricky Gervais are British, I think it is quite clear that the two men – in
their conversation on Piers Morgan Tonight – ‘represent’ two very different views on matters
6
of faith and religion. Morgan, a self-proclaimed believer, represents the devout adherence to
Christianity that, as we will come to see, is so widespread in the United States. Gervais, to the
contrary, voices an atheistic, irreligious point of view that, one might add, raises more
eyebrows in America than it does in Europe. In fact, saying Gervais’ atheist joke ‘raised an
American eyebrow’ would be putting it mildly: according to Morgan, who claims to “know
American culture quite well,” Gervais humorously stating he is an atheist could be perceived
as him offensively “mocking,” and “poking fun at” the religious experiences of the U.S.
public. Knowing his endeavors in stand-up comedy and feature filmmaking, which also
contain hilarious-but-profound anti-religious themes, it becomes reasonable to assume that
Gervais did, in fact, as Morgan suggested, make the atheist joke to rattle religious America’s
cage. 1 Gervais was well aware of the fact that his joke would be heard by millions of
Americans, and he knew full well that publicly thanking God for making him an atheist would
excite some – if not many – American viewers. Just like Gervais punctured American celebrity
culture with his mischievous jokes about Hollywood’s finest, he took a shot at American
religiosity with his closing remark about being an atheist.
But why? Why is – in the United States of America – a televised joke about not
believing in God on par with a harsh wisecrack about a movie star’s substance abuse?
Although its title rightly suggests this thesis will examine fictional atheists on
American television, the conversation between Piers Morgan and Ricky Gervais offers a neat
first look at the religious climate in the contemporary United States. As we will see later on,
the U.S. is a highly religious, Christian nation, in which the nonbeliever is a minority.
Furthermore, in the eyes of religious America, the atheist is an oddity, worthy of distrust and
contempt. The conversation between Morgan and Gervais nicely illustrates this point: Gervais,
an atheist on American soil, has to explain and defend his irreligious views to Morgan-theChristian. Indeed, the conversation between Morgan and Gervais makes it clear that atheism
still has ways to go in the United States.
Now, having used the story of Ricky Gervais, his atheist joke at the 2011 Golden
Globe awards ceremony, and its aftermath to shed a first light on the current state of religion in
1
For example, in his 2003 stand-up comedy show Animals, Gervais offers his own reading of the Book of
Genesis: “And God saw the light, and saw that it was good. Even though He said so Himself… I mean, it is
good, but there’s pride in your work, and then there’s arrogance. You know, we’d all like to write our own
reviews!” Also, the 2009 film The Invention of Lying – written and directed by Gervais and Matthew
Robinson – is set in an alternate reality in which there is no such thing as lying. Every single thing said is the
absolute truth. Somehow, the film’s protagonist develops the ability to lie. Because the rest of the world is
unfamiliar with the concept of untruth, everybody believes everything the protagonist tells them. Things get
out of hand, however, when he tells a lie that is just a little too appealing to the credulous masses; the
ultimate lie: the lie that there is a “man in the sky who controls everything”…
7
America, let me move on to the more specific subject of this thesis: the portrayal of atheists in
American television fiction.
The Portrayal of Atheists in American Television Fiction
American popular culture reaches far beyond the borders of the United States – so much, I
think it is fair to say, is common knowledge by now. Especially since the dawn of the Internet,
American pop culture – be it music, films, television programs, or video games – is consumed
daily by people all over the world, including, indeed, students from the Netherlands such as
myself. For me, a student of both Television Studies and American Studies, the numerous
brilliant television series coming from the United States are and have long been a great source
of joy and inspiration – even before I was a student of anything at all.
Not only am I an avid lover of American pop culture, I am also an atheist. I shall
refrain from making any overtly anti-religious statement here, but suffice it to say that
mankind’s stupendous dependence on religion baffles, angers and saddens me. Now, while
watching certain American television series, something came to my attention: I noticed how a
lot of atheist characters were, in one way or another, strange. Never, it seemed to me, were the
fictional atheists I encountered ‘normal people’. Instead, there was always something unusual
about them, something odd, or, in some cases, something outright unpleasant. Why, I thought,
is this the case? Surely, not nearly all (American) atheists are such strange individuals? Why,
then, are atheists seemingly represented so unfairly in American television fiction? This thesis
is my attempt to make sense of these questions.
Outline of Thesis
In this thesis, I wish to make the following two central arguments:
1. Within the highly religious, Christian nation of the United States of America, atheists
are a stigmatized minority group.
2. This social stigma surrounding atheists and atheism is also present in mainstream
American television fiction.
In addition to these two central arguments, this thesis seeks to offer some insight into
contemporary atheist thought. To do so, I shall provide an overview of the so-called New
Atheism, an atheistic, anti-religious scholarly movement that emerged in the early 21st
century. I have also included a brief examination of the ways in which American non-fiction
8
television has reported on New Atheism, in particular on what is arguably the movement’s
central work: the 2006 book The God Delusion by British author Richard Dawkins.
In this thesis’ first chapter – “Contemporary Religion in the United States of America”
– I will map out the current state of religion in the U.S. Doing so will help us to identify the
United States as a highly religious, particularly Christian nation.
Chapter Two – “Atheists as a Stigmatized Minority Group Within American Society” –
will reveal just how much of a minority atheists are in the United States. I will describe the
social stigma surrounding these American nonbelievers, and introduce the notion of ‘coming
out of the atheist closet’.
Chapter Three is “An Overview of New Atheism and Richard Dawkins’ The God
Delusion,” which will offer insight into contemporary atheist thought. I think that a certain
awareness of what it entails to be an atheist nowadays is quite useful when examining the
position of atheists in modern America.
In Chapter Four – “Debating Religion and Atheism on American Television” – I shall
discuss three appearances made by Richard Dawkins on three major American talk shows.
Doing so will make clear that there exists – within the American non-fiction television
landscape – a variety of ideological stances, if you will, on matters of religion, faith, and
atheism.
Chapter Five – “The Portrayal of Atheists in Eight Major American Television Series”
– contains the content analysis that is at the heart of this thesis. In this chapter, you will find an
in-depth analysis of a number of atheist-themed episodes and irreligious characters from
several popular 21st century American television series, followed by an “Evaluation” in which
I’ll attempt to make further sense of my findings.
Finally, the “Conclusion” chapter will offer a concise summary of the results of this
study of the portrayal of atheists in American television fiction.
Throughout this thesis, you may notice the fact that I have used many online sources –
such as articles and weblog posts reviewing television programs – instead of ‘traditional’
academic literature. My explanation for this is twofold. First, I simply failed to find sufficient
– if any – scholarly work on the presence of atheists on (American) television. Second, besides
the fact that I could, evidently, find non-academic writings on American ‘television atheists’, I
have included the online articles because I think that they prove atheism is, in fact, a ‘hot
topic’ amongst the (American) public.
Now, let us move on to Chapter One, which will take us on a trip through religious
America.
9
Chapter One
One Nation Under God
Contemporary Religion in the United States of America
This chapter will examine the current state of religion in the United States. First, I will discuss
the remarkable difference in religiosity between increasingly secular Europe and religious-asever America. Second, recent statistics and a brief historical overview will help identify the
U.S. as a particularly Christian nation.
1.1 Secular Europe
As political scientists Ronald Inglehart (University of Michigan) and Pippa Norris (Harvard)
tell us in their 2004 book Sacred and Secular, the “seminal social thinkers of the nineteenth
century – Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and
Sigmund Freud – all believed that religion would gradually fade in importance and cease to be
significant with the advent of industrial society.” 2 Along with Charles Darwin, who published
his revolutionary On the Origin of Species in 1859, these great minds laid the groundwork for
twentieth century social science’s belief in the then-imminent death of religion. Yes,
widespread secularization was certain to kick in soon, with, as renowned German sociologist
Max Weber predicted in his 1904 book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
rationalism and science finally triumphing over the reign of religious dogma. Enlightenment
ideals would shake “the foundations of faith in the supernatural, the mysterious, and the
magical.” 3 Inglehart and Norris further describe this idea as follows:
The idea of the mysterious was regarded by Weber as something to be conquered
by human reason and mastered by the products of technology, subject to logical
explanations found in physics, biology, and chemistry rather than to divine forces
outside this world. The dazzling achievements of medicine, engineering, and
mathematics – as well as the material products generated by the rise of modern
capitalism, technology, and manufacturing industry during the 19th century –
emphasized and reinforced the idea of mankind’s control of nature. 4
In addition, works like Émile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912)
introduced a so-called functionalist perspective on religion. In this view, religion is not merely
a system of private beliefs, but also essential in creating and maintaining order, cohesion, and
2
Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 2004. p.3
3
ibid / p.4
4
ibid / p.5
10
feelings of solidarity within society. 5 In Western Europe, however, the Industrial Revolution
stripped religion of this social purpose. Industrialized Europe experienced rapid developments
in education, politics, and healthcare, which transformed most nations into modernized
welfare states. Here, “specialized professionals and organizations (…) replaced most of the
tasks once carried out exclusively in Western Europe by monasteries, priests, and parish
churches.” 6 For the first time since the Middle Ages, the Church gave up many of its social
activities, and, along with it, much of its social influence. Thus, Durkheim predicted, the
guiding and moralizing role of religious institutions would – slowly but surely – fade away in
industrial societies. Indeed, industrialization, University of Aberdeen scholar Steve Bruce
asserts, “brought with it a series of social changes (…) that together made religion less
arresting and less plausible than it had been in pre-modern societies.” 7
And so it happened that, from the early twentieth century on, secularization took root
in Europe, especially in well-developed welfare states such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and
France. 8 For example, in 1947, 80% of the Swedish population answered the basic question,
“Do you, personally, believe in God?” with ‘Yes’. In 2001, this percentage had dropped to 46.
In the same time span, the Dutch went from 80% to 58%. 9 During the twentieth century,
Western European regular church attendance also dropped substantially. By the early 1990s,
Inglehart and Norris tell us, “Overall levels of church disengagement had advanced furthest in
France, Britain and the Netherlands.” 10 In 1995, scholars Wolfgang Jagodzinski and Karel
Dobbelaere concluded, “Although the timing and pace differ from one country to the next, the
general tendency is quite stable: in the long run, the percentage of unaffiliated is increasing.” 11
For instance, by the year 2000, 60% of the people of France stated that they never go to
church. 12
Contemporary Western Europe, however, is far from being faith-free. A 2005
Eurobarometer Poll revealed that 52% of European Union citizens still believed “there is a
5
Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 2004. p.6
6
ibid
7
Bruce, Steve. God Is Dead: Secularization of the West. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell, 2002. p. 36
8
Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart. / p.6
9
ibid / p.90
10
ibid / p.86
11
Jagodzinski, Wolfgang; Karel Dobbelaere. ‘Secularization and Church Religiosity.’ In The Impact of Values.
Eds. Jan W. van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. p.105
12
Knox, Noelle. ‘Religion Takes a Back Seat in Western Europe.’ USA Today: October 8, 2005.
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm>
11
God,” with 27% stating that they “believe there is some sort of spirit or life force.” 13 A mere
18% of the people declared they “don’t believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force.” 14
Despite the broom of secularization sweeping through European culture during the twentieth
century, atheists (and agnostics) are still very much a minority group in Europe. It is
important, however, to note that they have significantly grown in numbers over the past
century. 15 In most of Europe, the majority of the people still has some kind of religious faith,
but the number of nonbelievers has increased substantially. It seems safe to say, then, that
irreligion is on the rise in Western Europe.
1.2 Religious America
Now, having established Europe has become increasingly ‘godless’ over the past century, let
us take a look at religiosity in the United States. Doing so will reveal a staggering truth:
American religiosity has remained high and constant since at least the 1940s – if not for much,
much longer.
Although a June 2010 Gallup poll indicated that ‘only’ 43.1% of Americans attend
religious services “weekly or almost weekly,” 16 belief in God or some sort of universal spirit
is still very common. In 1947, Inglehart and Norris make clear, 94% of the American public
answered the “Do you, personally, believe in God?” question with ‘Yes’. In 2001, this
percentage was the same. It had fluctuated in the meantime – peaking at 98% in 1968 – but it
never went below 93%. 17 Moreover, a June 2011 Gallup poll concluded that “more than nine
in ten Americans still say ‘Yes’ when asked the basic question ‘Do you believe in God?’” 18
The 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Pew
Research Center, revealed 71% of the American people to “believe in God with absolute
certainty.” 19 The Survey also indicated that 58% of Americans “say they pray at least once a
day,” with 56% stating “religion is very important in their lives.” 20 The American Religious
13
Special Eurobarometer. ‘Social Values, Science and Technology.’ European Commission. June 2005. p.9
<http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf>
14
ibid
15
Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 2004. p.90
16
Newport, Frank. ‘Americans’ Church Attendance Inches Up in 2010.’ Gallup. June 25, 2010.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/141044/americans-church-attendance-inches-2010.aspx>
17
Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart. / p.90
18
Newport, Frank. ‘More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God.’ Gallup. June 3, 2011.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx>
19
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. ‘How Religious Is Your State?’ December 21, 2009.
<http://www.pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your-State-.aspx>
20
ibid
12
Identification Survey of 2008 (ARIS 2008) – conducted by a team of scholars from Trinity
College in Hartford, Connecticut – found “70% of Americans believe in a personal God,” with
an additional 12% being deistic, i.e. believers in “a higher power but no personal God.” 21
Also, a 2007 Gallup poll indicated 81% of Americans believe in Heaven, 75% believe there
are angels, 70% believe in the existence of the Devil, and 69% believe in Hell. 22
In a broader sense, the 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey makes clear that around
83% of all Americans have some sort of religious or spiritual element in their lives, ranging
from the conventional world religions to ‘pagan’ beliefs and New Age spiritual movements. 23
1.3 A Christian Nation
While, naturally, Christianity is not the only religion that is adhered to in the United States, it
is by far the most popular one. According to the ARIS 2008, 76% of American adults selfidentify as Christians. 24 The 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey showed a total 78.5% of
American adults to be Christians. 25 51.3% of Americans adhere to Protestantism, and 23.9%
are Catholic. The remaining 3.3% consists of Mormons (1.7%), Jehovah’s Witnesses (0.7%),
and several other smaller Christian denominations. 26
Combined, American adherents to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other
faiths – such as Native American religions, Scientology, and Wicca – form a mere 4.8% of the
U.S. population. 27
Looking at these statistics, an image arises of the United States being a specifically
Christian nation. As we consider this notion, the following passage – taken from the second
volume of Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal work Democracy in America – comes to mind.
It must never be forgotten that religion gave birth to Anglo-American society. In the
United States, religion is therefore mingled with all the habits of the nation and all
the feelings of patriotism, whence it derives a peculiar force. To this reason another
of no less power may be added: in America religion has, as it were, laid down its own
limits. Religious institutions have remained wholly distinct from political institutions,
so that former laws have been easily changed while former belief has remained
unshaken. Christianity has therefore retained a strong hold on the public mind in
21
Kosmin, Barry A.; Ariela Keysar. The American Religious Identification Survey of 2008. Hartford, CT: Trinity
College, March 2009. <http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf>
22
Newport, Frank. ‘Americans More Likely to Believe in God Than the Devil, Heaven More Than Hell.’ Gallup.
June 13, 2007. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/27877/Americans-More-Likely-Believe-God-Than-DevilHeaven-More-Than-Hell.aspx>
23
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. ‘Religious Composition of the U.S.’ 2007 U.S. Religious
Landscape Survey. <http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf>
24
ibid
25
ibid
26
ibid
27
ibid
13
America: and I would more particularly remark that its sway is not only that of a
philosophical doctrine which has been adopted upon inquiry, but of a religion which
is believed without discussion. In the United States, Christian sects are infinitely
diversified and perpetually modified; but Christianity itself is an established and
irresistible fact, which no one undertakes either to attack or to defend. The
Americans, having admitted the principal doctrines of the Christian religion without
inquiry, are obliged to accept in like manner a great number of moral truths
originating in it and connected with it. Hence the activity of individual analysis is
restrained within narrow limits, and many of the most important human opinions are
removed from its influence. 28
De Tocqueville was (and still is) quite right in stating “that religion gave birth to AngloAmerican society.” As historian David Chidester suggests, for the Christians of the Old World,
the Christian faith “represented an entitlement to land.” 29 Chidester calls our attention to
Elizabeth, the Protestant Queen of England who, in 1568, instructed her navigators “to
discover and take possession of such remote, heathen, and barbarous lands, as were not
actually possessed by any Christian prince or people.” 30 Consequently, a fair amount of
European ships sailed to the Americas under the banner of Christianity. Thus, as de
Tocqueville rightly asserts, it was partly because of Christianity itself that the United States
came into being.
From as early as colonial times, (North) America proved to be fertile ground for new
Christian thought. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, for example, likened their
migration to the New World to Moses’ exodus from ancient Egypt, and declared to rebuild
Mount Zion in America, “knowing this is the place where the Lord will create a new Heaven
and a new Earth in new Churches and a new Commonwealth.” 31
Another, notably American interpretation of Christianity is the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, the members of which came to be known as the Mormons. Headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preaches the writings
of its founder, Joseph Smith, Jr., who, in 1830, published the Book of Mormon. A detailed
account of a forgotten history of pre-Christian America, the Book suggests that, around 600
BCE,
a lost tribe of Israelites was commanded by God to emigrate to the American continent.
There, before disappearing into history without trace, they were preached to by Jesus Christ,
who appeared in America shortly after His Biblical resurrection. America, Jesus promised
them, would be where He would appear at the Second Coming. Claiming to have been
28
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Volume Two. 1840. English Translation by Henry Reeve,
revised by Francis Bowen. Ware, Hertfordshire, England: Wordsworth Editions, 1998. p.41
29
Chidester, David. Christianity: A Global History. London, England: Penguin Books, 2000. p.422
30
ibid
31
ibid / p.425
14
personally instructed by God the Father and Jesus Christ to found a new, true Christianity in
the United States, Joseph Smith, Jr. and his Book of Mormon “presented a distinctively
American revelation.” 32
It should be noted that in America, Christian groups like the Puritans described above,
as well as several other denominations – such as the Quakers and the Mennonites – found the
freedom to practice their religion. In Europe, these Protestant factions had faced persecution
by the Catholic majority, but the New World offered them religious freedom and a fresh start.
In America, the Protestant colonists enjoyed religious acceptance and tolerance.
As the short descriptions of Puritanism and Mormonism make clear, Christianity has
been present in the United States from the nation’s inception. One could argue the Christian
faith is an essential building block – if not the very foundation – of America. Historically
speaking, Christianity is at the heart of U.S. society.
Indeed, the United States is a Christian nation, where – from a European perspective –
matters of religion are taken to rather astonishing extremes. Yes, America is the land of
megachurches and Jesus camps; the land of family values and the Christian Right; the land of
pro-life murderers and ex-homosexuals;
The land of evangelical author Rick Warren and his devotional self-help book The
Purpose Driven Life (2002), “a manifesto for Christian living in the 21st century” that became
“the best-selling hardback book in American history;” 33
The land of prominent evangelists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who both
declared that unbelievers, homosexuals, feminists, abortionists, and “all of them who have
tried to secularize America” are to blame for the horrible events of 9/11; 34
The land of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, the Topeka, Kansas-based hate
group that viciously opposes homosexuality because “God Hates Fags”;
The land of creationist museums like the one in Petersburg, Kentucky, which exhibits
life-sized dioramas of humans and dinosaurs co-existing, including a triceratops with a
saddle; 35
32
Chidester, David. Christianity: A Global History. London, England: Penguin Books, 2000. p.443
‘About the Author: Rick Warren.’ PurposeDrivenLife.com. <http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/enUS/AboutUs/AboutTheAuthor/AboutTheAuthor.htm>
34
Harris, John F. ‘God Gave U.S. ‘What We Deserve,’ Fallwell Says.’ The Washington Post. September 14,
2001. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28620-2001Sep14>
35
Rothstein, Edward. 'Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs.' Review of the Creation Museum in
Petersburg, Kentucky. The New York Times. May 24, 2007.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html>
33
15
The land of George W. Bush, the born-again Christian President who admittedly went
to war twice because he was “driven with a mission from God.” 36
Granted, these are the salient extremes, but I think these examples are proof of a very
important fact: in the U.S., the Christian faith is still very much alive, with its millions of
adherents ranging from lower class citizens to White House residents. The phrase has become
rather trite, but it seems the United States is still, indeed, one nation under God.
Although the vast majority of Americans is probably quite happy about this, surely
there must be people living in the U.S. who beg to differ? Let us move on to Chapter Two,
which is about those few Americans who are without religious faith: the atheists.
36
MacAskill, Ewen. ‘George Bush: God Told Me to End the Tyranny in Iraq.’ The Guardian. October 7, 2005.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa>
16
Chapter Two
The A-Word
Atheists as a Stigmatized Minority Group Within American Society
In this chapter, I will make clear how atheists may well be considered a stigmatized minority
group within contemporary American society. I will show that nonbelievers make up an
amazingly small percentage of the U.S. population, and that they still commonly experience
negative – if not outright hostile – attitudes towards their irreligion.
2.1 American Atheism
Of course, despite the assumption the United States is a highly religious, particularly Christian
nation, there are American atheists. There are, however, relatively few of them. According to
the American Religious Identification Survey of 2008 (ARIS 2008), the “Nones” – adults with
no stated religious preference, atheists and agnostics – make up only 15% of the American
population. 37 The 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (USRLS 2007) puts the percentage of
“Unaffiliated” Americans at 16.1%. 38 While it is true that 15 to 16.1% of the U.S. population
equals an approximate 46 million American individuals, such a percentage is an evident
minority. Moreover, both the ARIS 2008 and the USRLS 2007 show that the percentage of
actual, self-proclaimed atheists is even lower.
Both surveys divide the unaffiliated Americans into three groups: atheists, agnostics,
and a third group of people, “who simply describe their religion as ‘nothing in particular’.” 39
According to the ARIS 2008, 13.4% of Americans are in this 'nothing in particular' group. The
USRLS 2007 puts it at 12.1%. Now, this leaves a remaining 1.6 to 4% to the atheists and
agnostics. The ARIS 2008 estimates that 0.9% of Americans are agnostic. The USRLS 2007
reports it is 2.4%.
The percentage, then, of actual, self-proclaimed atheists is as low as somewhere
between 0.7% (ARIS 2008) and 1.6% (USRLS 2007). Again, percentages like these would
equal between 2.1 and 4.9 million American people – which is arguably quite a lot of people –
but 0.7 to 1.6% is obviously a severe minority.
37
Kosmin, Barry A.; Ariela Keysar. The American Religious Identification Survey of 2008. Hartford, CT: Trinity
College, March 2009. <http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf>
38
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. ‘Religious Composition of the U.S.’ 2007 U.S. Religious
Landscape Survey. <http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf>
39
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. p.6
<http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf>
17
It is important to note that the number of American “Nones,” atheists and agnostics has
nearly doubled over the last twenty years. 40 However, this fact says more about the past than it
does about the present: American irreligion may be on the rise, but it still has a very long way
to go.
2.2 Dislike and Contempt
Not only are American nonbelievers a minority by numbers, there are also many accounts of
stigma, prejudice, and discrimination against them. In fact, Phil Zuckerman of Claremont,
California’s Pitzer College states, “a negative view of atheists is quite pervasive, especially in
the United States.” 41 Moreover, a 2006 study – by University of Minnesota scholars Penny
Edgell, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann – concluded the following:
Atheists are at the top of the list of groups that Americans find problematic in both
public and private life, and the gap between acceptance of atheists and acceptance of
other racial and religious minorities is large and persistent. It is striking that the
rejection of atheists is so much more common than rejection of other stigmatized
groups. For example, while rejection of Muslims may have spiked in post-9/11
America, rejection of atheists was higher. 42
As the quote above makes clear, the American atheist seems to be held in the lowest of regards
by his religious peers. Indeed, “atheists are less likely to be accepted, publicly and privately,
than any other from a long list of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups.” 43 Let us have a
look at the evidence for this claim, which is abundant and quite convincing.
A June 2011 Gallup poll on the ‘Willingness to Vote for Persons of Various
Characteristics for President’ revealed that 94% of Americans would vote for an AfroAmerican, 93% would vote for a woman, 92% for a Catholic, 89% for a Jew, 89% for a
Hispanic candidate, 76% for a Mormon, and 67% for a homosexual. A mere 49% of
Americans would vote for an atheist. 44
Furthermore, as of 2011, several state constitutions – such as those of North and South
Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee – officially prohibit unbelievers from holding public office.
40
Kosmin, Barry A.; Ariela Keysar. The American Religious Identification Survey of 2008. Hartford, CT: Trinity
College, March 2009. <http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf>
41
Zuckerman, Phil. ‘Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative
Stereotypes and Assumptions.’ In Sociology Compass, Volume 3, Issue 6, 2009.
<http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf>
42
Edgell, Penny; Joseph Gerteis, Douglas Hartmann. ‘Atheists as “Other”: Moral Boundaries and Cultural
Membership in American Society.’ In American Sociological Review, Volume 71, Issue 2.
<http://www.soc.umn.edu/assets/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf>
43
ibid
44
Saad, Lydia. ‘In U.S. 22% Are Hesitant to Support a Mormon in 2012.’ Gallup. June 20, 2011.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx>
18
For example, Article IX, titled Disqualifications, of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee
reads, “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments,
shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” 45 Arkansas state law also doesn’t
deem atheists “competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” 46 While such laws are
remnants of even more religious times, and haven’t actually been enforced for quite some time
now – if only because they are in direct violation of the United States Constitution 47 – the fact
that articles like the one cited above are still in several state constitutions is remarkable to say
the least.
A 2006 study by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh concluded that many American
courtrooms show a “Favoritism for Religion” in establishing custody rights. As a result,
numerous divorced atheists have been denied being part of their children’s lives because of
their irreligion. “Custody decisions favoring religious parents of atheist, agnostic, or
nonobservant parents,” Volokh asserts, “don’t threaten parents with jail for not going to
church, but they do threaten them with a decreased chance of getting custody of their children
– a potent threat to most parents.” 48 Also, as Pitzer College’s Phil Zuckerman points out,
“most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry” a nonbeliever in the first place. 49 According
to the University of Minnesota’s American Mosaic Project of 2003, atheists are also America’s
most unwanted children-in-law, as they topped a survey named ‘I Would Disapprove if My
Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group’. 50
A 1998 study asked participants to prioritize hypothetical patients on a waiting list to
receive a life-saving kidney transplant. Atheist and agnostic patients were given lower priority
than Christian patients. 51 In addition to this hypothetical physical harm, Richard Dawkins’
book The God Delusion (2006) – which will be discussed in more detail later on – tells of one
45
Constitution of the State of Tennessee. Article IX: Disqualifications. Section 2.
<http://www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/05-06/46-tnconst.pdf>
46
Constitution of the State of Arkansas of 1874. Article 19: Miscellaneous Provisions. Section 1: Atheists
Disqualified from Holding Office or Testifying as Witness.
<http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/Summary/ArkansasConstitution1874.pdf>
47
Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution famously reads, “No religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any public office or public trust under the United States.”
48
Volokh, Eugene. ‘Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions.’ In New York University Law
Review, Volume 81, Issue 2, 2006. <http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf>
49
Paul, Gregory; Phil Zuckerman. ‘Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?’ The Washington Post. February
18, 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislikeatheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html>
50
Edgell, Penny; Joseph Gerteis, Douglas Hartmann. ‘Atheists as “Other”: Moral Boundaries and Cultural
Membership in American Society.’ In American Sociological Review, Volume 71, Issue 2.
<http://www.soc.umn.edu/assets/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf>
51
Funrham, Adrian; Nicholas Meader, Alastair McClelland. ‘Factors Affecting Nonmedical Participants’
Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources.’ In Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Volume 13, Issue 4,
1998.
19
David Mills, an American author who was threatened with actual violence because of his
atheism:
A Christian faith-healer ran a ‘Miracle Crusade’ which came to Mills’s home town
once a year. Among other things, the faith-healer encouraged diabetics to throw away
their insulin, and cancer patients to give up their chemotherapy and pray for a miracle
instead. Reasonably enough, Mills decided to organize a peaceful demonstration to
warn people. But he made the mistake of going to the police to tell them of his
intention and ask for police protection against possible attacks from supporters of the
faith-healer. The first police officer to whom he spoke asked, ‘Is you gonna protest fir
him or ‘gin him?’ (meaning for or against the faith-healer). When Mills replied,
‘Against him,’ the policeman said that he himself planned to attend the rally and
intended to spit personally in Mills’s face as he marched past Mills’s demonstration.
Mills decided to try his luck with a second police officer. This one said that if any of
the faith-healer’s supporters violently confronted Mills, the officer would arrest Mills
because he was ‘trying to interfere with God’s work’. Mills went home and tried
telephoning the police station, in the hope of finding more sympathy at a senior level.
He was finally connected to a sergeant who said, ‘To hell with you, Buddy. No
policeman wants to protect a goddamned atheist. I hope somebody bloodies you up
good.’ Apparently adverbs were in short supply in this police station, along with the
milk of human kindness and a sense of duty. Mills relates that he spoke to about
seven or eight policemen that day. None of them was helpful, and most of them
directly threatened Mills with violence. 52
The story of David Mills may be an extreme example, but it does show just how far American
‘anti-atheism’ can go.
2.3 Social Suicide? Coming Out of the Atheist Closet
Having established the unfortunate social status of American atheists, it becomes quite
understandable that, in Christian America, publicly, openly identifying oneself as a
nonbeliever may be a stressful endeavor. In her 2004 theatre show Letting Go of God,
American comedienne Julia Sweeney, for instance, reveals how her Catholic parents reacted
when they found out their daughter was an atheist:
My first call from my mother was more of a scream. ‘Atheist? ATHEIST?!?!’ My dad
called and said, ‘You have betrayed your family, your school, your city.’ It was like I
had sold secrets to the Russians. They both said they weren’t going to talk to me any
more. My dad said, ‘I don’t even want you to come to my funeral.’ (…) I think that
my parents had been mildly disappointed when I’d said I didn’t believe in God any
more, but being an atheist was another thing altogether. 53
52
53
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006. p.66
Sweeney, Julia. Letting Go of God. 2004. <http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.letgoofgodsweeney.5.htm>
20
Julia Sweeney’s story is saddening, indeed. However, such negative responses to professed
atheism don’t seem to be uncommon. A 2010 Huffington Post article focused upon atheists in
African-American communities in the United States. In the article, an Afro-American woman
named Jamila Bey is interviewed about her atheism:
Standing before a room full of fellow African-Americans, Jamila Bey took a deep
breath and announced she’s come out of the closet. Her soul-bearing declaration is
nearly taboo, she says. “It’s the A-word,” said Bey, 33, feigning a whisper. “You
commit social suicide as a black person when you say you’re an atheist. Bey and
other black atheists, agnostics and secularists are struggling to openly affirm their
secular viewpoints in a community that’s historically heralded as one of America’s
most religious. (…) “You renounce your blackness,” said Bey. “You almost denigrate
your heritage and history of the people if you claim atheism.” 54
As Jamila Bey makes clear, openly professing one’s atheism potentially has a whole lot of
additional negative consequences amongst religious Afro-Americans.
The taboo of atheism is present in the realm of American politics as well. To illustrate,
in March 2007, Pete Stark, a then-75-year-old Democrat from Fremont, California, became the
first member of Congress in history to openly acknowledge he is a nonbeliever. 55 Rep. Stark –
who declared he does not believe in a supreme being – is also currently the highest-ranking
American politician to have done so: “Aside from Mr. Stark, no state or federal official at any
level agreed to be named as an atheist.” 56 As Lori Lipman Brown, founder of the Secular
Coalition for America, rightly observes, there should be a lot more irreligious Congress
members. “If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in
the population,” Brown points out, “there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members
instead of one.” 57 In the past, Democratic political strategist Dan Newman told the San
Francisco Chronicle newspaper, a U.S. official “couldn’t go near” any form of public atheism,
for it “would have been political suicide.” 58 While things don’t seem to have worked out all
that bad for Stark – he is still an active member of Congress – the fact he is seemingly the only
openly atheist in the American government is astounding.
54
Oduah, Chika; Lauren E. Bohn. ‘Blacks, Mirroring Larger U.S. Trend ‘Come Out’ as Nonbelievers.’ The
Huffington Post. May 24, 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/blacks-mirroring-largeru_n_587854.html>
55
Brown, Lori Lipman. ‘Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) Is First Congress Member in History to Acknowledge His
Nontheism.’ Secular Coalition for America. March 12, 2007.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20070928021401/http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html>
56
Gerstein, Josh. ‘California Lawmaker Becomes Highest-Ranking Official to Say He’s a Nonbeliever.’ The New
York Sun. March 13, 2007. <http://www.nysun.com/national/california-lawmaker-becomes-highestranking/50312/>
57
Brown, Lori Lipman.
58
Marinucci, Carla. ‘Stark’s Atheist Views Break Political Taboo.’ San Francisco Chronicle. March 14, 2007.
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/14/MNG7BOKV111.DTL>
21
Now, stories like those of Julia Sweeney, Jamila Bey and Pete Stark – Americans
revealing themselves to be nonbelievers to a fervently Christian nation – call to mind the
struggle for acceptance of another (American) social minority group: homosexuals. Indeed,
many commentators have likened the ‘coming out’ of atheists to the ‘coming out’ of ‘closeted’
homosexuals. Like the homosexual, who has to reveal his or her deviance from the
heterosexual norm, the American atheist has to affirm he or she differs from the religious,
Christian norm. After his or her personal convictions have been made public, both the
homosexual and the atheist are forced to deal with negativity, hostility, and discrimination
from the homogeneous majority. The quote from the Huffington Post article on Afro-American
nonbelievers already used the phrase “come out of the closet,” and it seems that imagery is
quite applicable to atheists, who may ‘come out of the atheist closet’. In fact, ‘coming out’, or
‘outing’ oneself, have become common expressions in relation to openly professing atheism.
“So,” New York Times journalist Natalie Angier writes (in an article bearing the bittersweet
title ‘Confessions of a Lonely Atheist’), “I’ll out myself. I’m an Atheist.” 59
“The status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty
years ago,” says Richard Dawkins, pointing out, for instance, that today, American atheists
have about the same chance of being elected to public office as homosexuals did five decades
ago. 60 Others, such as Baltimore Sun journalist Paul Thornton, beg to differ, stating, “I may be
a reviled atheist, but that doesn’t mean I can claim equal victimhood with truly repressed
minorities [such as homosexuals].” 61 Thornton refers to the fact that, for example, in most of
the United States, homosexuals are still not granted the right to get married, while atheists are
free to get married everywhere in the country. While it is true there are probably more known
accounts of hatred and actual violence against “truly repressed minorities” like AfroAmericans and homosexuals than there are against nonbelievers, I do think the parallel
between the atheist and gay community is a useful one. As we will see later on – in my
analysis of atheism-themed television fiction – the ‘coming out of the atheist closet’ proves to
be a powerful narrative device.
59
Angier, Natalie. ‘Confessions of a Lonely Atheist.’ The New York Times. January 14, 2001.
<http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html>
60
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006. p.26
61
Thornton, Paul. ‘Disliked, Not Oppressed.’ The Baltimore Sun. April 18, 2007.
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/la-oew-thornton18apr18,0,5841004.story>
22
2.4 Why Do Americans Dislike Atheists?
Being a nonbeliever in the United States means being a distrusted outsider. It means being part
of a minority group that gets confronted with prejudice and discrimination on a variety of
levels in society. All of this raises the question: why do Americans dislike atheists? Of course,
there is general religion’s obvious doctrinal objection to irreligion. After all, even the simplest
of rational arguments is a danger to the validity of virtually every religious dogma. Simply
put, unbelief is the very antithesis of belief. Atheism, in its very essence, undermines the blind
absolutisms of theism. Religion’s overall rejection of nonbelievers, therefore, is quite logical.
Understandably, then, the three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – are
all very clear about those who are without faith. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no
God’,” the Old Testament reads, “They are corrupt; they have committed abominable deeds.
There is no one who does good.” 62 It seems these Biblical words have lost little of their actual
meaning for modern Christian America. Or, as Pitzer College’s Phil Zuckerman puts it: “These
put-downs have had sticking power.” 63
However, in addition to religion’s general condemnation of faithlessness, it seems there
is something particularly American about, well, American anti-atheism. As pointed out earlier,
Christianity arguably played a key role in the founding of the United States. More important,
perhaps, is the fact that many American Christians believe their country was indeed founded
on the Christian faith. 64 Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy
Center – “Washington, D.C.’s premiere institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian
moral tradition to critical issues of public policy” 65 – formulates it quite clearly: “Throughout
American history, there’s been this belief that our country has a covenant with God and that a
deity watches over America.” 66 In similar fashion, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a 1955 address,
declared, “Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first – the most basic expression of
Americanism.” 67 Consequently, in this train of thought, unbelief is quite simply un-American.
62
‘Psalm 14.’ The New American Standard Bible on BibleGateway.com.
<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2014&version=NASB>
63
Paul, Gregory; Phil Zuckerman. ‘Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?’ The Washington Post. February
18, 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislikeatheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html>
64
Amundson, Stephen. ‘Separation of Church and State: How It Has Impacted Religious Diversity.’ Indiana
University: School of Public & Environmental Affairs, 2008.
<http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/honors_vol.2_no.12.pdf>
65
Ethics and Public Policy Center. ‘About EPPC.’ <http://www.eppc.org/about/>
66
Angier, Natalie. ‘Confessions of a Lonely Atheist.’ The New York Times. January 14, 2001.
<http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html>
67
The American Presidency Project. ‘38 – Remarks Recorded for the “Back-to-God” Program of the American
Legion. February 20, 1955.’ <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=10414>
23
Why do Americans dislike atheists? The answer, as formulated by Natalie Angier of
The New York Times, seems simple: “Atheism is practically unpatriotic.” 68 The Christian
majority seems to regard unbelief as incompatible with being American. To illustrate,
according the University of Minnesota’s American Mosaic Project of 2003, atheists top a list
of groups that do “not at all agree with [Americans’] vision of American society.” 69
Interestingly, University of Minnesota scholars Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis, and
Douglas Hartmann concluded in 2006 that many American Christians – in their harsh
judgments of nonbelievers – are often not “referring to actual atheists they [have]
encountered,” but are instead “responding to ‘the atheist’ as a boundary-marking cultural
category.” 70 Furthermore, Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann offer the following theory:
If we are correct, then the boundary between the religious and the nonreligious is not
about religious affiliation per se. It is about the historic place of religion in American
civic culture and the understanding that religion provides “habits of the heart” that
form the basis of the good society. It is about an understanding that Americans share
something more than rules and procedures, but rather that our understandings of right
and wrong and good citizenship are also shared. To be an atheist in such an
environment is not to be one more religious minority among many in a pluralist
society. Rather, Americans construct the atheist as the symbolic representation of one
who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American
society altogether. Over our history, other groups have, perhaps, been subject to
similar moral concerns. Catholics, Jews, and communists all have been figures
against which the moral contours of American culture and citizenship have been
imagined. We suggest that today, the figure of the atheist plays this role. 71
In this view, it becomes quite clear why ‘the atheist’ has difficulty finding his place in U.S.
culture and society. In the eyes of the Christian majority, unbelief equals the rejection of
“cultural membership in American society.”
“I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens,” George H.W. Bush said in
1987, while campaigning for the Presidency. “Nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is
one nation under God.” 72 However astounding, these words might just be, in a nutshell,
Christian America’s negative view on atheists.
68
Angier, Natalie.
Edgell, Penny; Joseph Gerteis, Douglas Hartmann. ‘Atheists as “Other”: Moral Boundaries and Cultural
Membership in American Society.’ In American Sociological Review, Volume 71, Issue 2.
<http://www.soc.umn.edu/assets/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf>
70
ibid
71
ibid
72
Sherman, Robert. ‘Documents at Bush Presidential Library Prove VP Bush Questioned Citizenship and
Patriotism of Atheists.’ Rob Sherman Advocacy. April 1, 2006.
<http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm>
69
24
Chapter Three
Atheist Pride
An Overview of New Atheism and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion
Although there are ‘only’ an estimated 500 million to 750 million nonbelievers worldwide 73 –
which, in relation to the total world population of 6.9 billion, is an obvious minority – the first
decade of the 21st century saw the emergence and popularization of an irreligious movement
that has become known as New Atheism. This chapter shall provide a description of New
Atheism, followed by an outline of what is arguably the movement’s central work: The God
Delusion (2006), the best-selling book by British evolutionary biologist, author, and prominent
atheist Richard Dawkins. As a result, we will gain some useful insight into contemporary
atheist thought.
3.1 New Atheism
In 2004, American neuroscientist and atheist author Sam Harris (b. 1967) published a book
titled The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. In it, Harris makes the
following central argument: unless the global end of religious faith comes about soon, civic
society will perish. Or, as Wired magazine’s Gary Wolf puts it: “Harris argues that, unless we
renounce religious faith, religious violence will soon bring civilization to an end.” 74 Two years
later, Harris published another book on religion, titled Letter to a Christian Nation: A
Challenge to Faith, in which he critically examined Christian fundamentalism in the United
States, aiming to “demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most
committed forms.” 75 On the whole, Harris – whose two anti-religious books both became
national bestsellers – considers religious belief to be something that mankind will eventually
‘outgrow’ and abandon. 76 The author explains this point by making an analogy to slavery:
73
Zuckerman, Phil. ‘Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative
Stereotypes and Assumptions.’ In Sociology Compass, Volume 3, Issue 6, 2009.
<http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf>
74
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
75
Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation: A Challenge to Faith. New York City: Random House, 2006. p.viii
76
As of May 2007, Sam Harris’ The End of Faith had sold 250,000 copies, which is enough to label the book a
‘bestseller’. In relation to the total U.S. population of about 312,000,000 people, 250,000 copies sold may not
seem so many, but knowing that only 1% of the 200,000 new titles published in America each year reaches
the bestseller status, it becomes clear that Harris’ book has, in fact, been a success. However, the following
question remains: why do the anti-religious books by Harris and, as we will see, other prominent atheist
authors become bestsellers in the highly religious United States? It could be that American nonbelievers are
avid readers, or that there are Christians who are interested in atheist thought, but future research should offer
a more definitive answer to this interesting question.
25
Look at slavery. People used to think that slavery was morally acceptable. The most
intelligent, sophisticated people used to accept that you could kidnap whole families,
force them to work for you, and sell their children. That looks ridiculous to us today.
We’re going to look back and be amazed that we approached this asymptote of
destructive capacity while allowing ourselves to be balkanized by [religion]. What
seems quixotic is quixotic – on this side of a radical change. From the other side, you
can’t believe it didn’t happen earlier. At some point, there is going to enough pressure
that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God. 77
Furthermore, Harris stresses that this eventual rejection of religion – and the consequential
disappearance of violent religious conflicts – is absolutely essential for the survival of the
human race. Man may be inclined by nature to believe there is more between heaven and
Earth, but evolutionary history does not justify religious faith. It may indeed come natural to
human beings to conjure up religious and spiritual concepts to explain the world around them,
but that does not mean the destructive irrationality of religion should be accepted in the
modern world. Harris makes another analogy to illustrate this point:
Some researchers have speculated that religion itself may have played an important
role in getting large groups of prehistoric humans to socially cohere. If this is true, we
can say that religion has served an important purpose. This does not suggest,
however, that is serves an important purpose now. There is, after all, nothing more
natural than rape. But no one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a
civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors. 78
As Wired’s Gary Wolf rightly concludes, “Like rape, Harris says, religion may be a vestige of
our primitive nature that we must simply overcome.” 79
Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation were the first two books
in a new line of best-selling, strongly anti-religious works by notable academics. One month
after Letter to a Christian Nation hit the shelves, British evolutionary biologist, author, and
prominent atheist Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) published The God Delusion. The year 2006 also
saw the release of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by American
philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett (b. 1942). A year later, famed EnglishAmerican author and journalist Christopher Hitchens published God Is Not Great: How
Religion Poisons Everything. What all these books have in common is a scientific, rational and
highly critical view on all things religion. As their works rose to popularity, Harris, Dawkins,
Dennett, and Hitchens ‘joined forces’. Calling themselves “The Four Horsemen,” the authors
are now in the forefront of 21st century atheism, which advocates a modern, secular, anti77
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
78
Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York City: Random House, 2006. p.90
79
Wolf, Gary.
26
religious worldview based upon science and reason. 80 It seems Gary Wolf of Wired magazine
was the first to refer to Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens as “the New Atheists,” and to
their popular irreligious movement as “New Atheism.” 81
What, you might be asking, is so ‘New’ about the New Atheism? Christian scholar
Richard G. Howe sheds some light on this question:
1. Erstwhile atheists focused mainly on the rational case for and against the existence
of God.
2. Christianity was singled out in as much as it represented the most sophisticated
form of theism.
3. While acknowledging the role Christians played in such historical atrocities as the
Inquisition and the Crusades, the contribution of Christianity to the overall wellbeing of humanity in recent centuries was also acknowledged by erstwhile atheists. 82
In earlier times, thus, atheism’s chief concern was the inexistence of God. The New Atheists,
however, go further. In New Atheist thought, the inexistence of God or any other sort of higher
power, spirit, or entity is a given: it is the basis of a variety of anti-religious and pro-rationality
ideas about the world. The following list – taken from the 2008 book God and the New
Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Georgetown University
theologian John F. Haught – provides a clear overview of the main tenets of New Atheism:
1. Apart from nature, which includes human beings and our cultural creations, there
is nothing. There is no God, no soul, and no life beyond death.
2. Nature is self-originating, not the creation of God.
3. The universe has no overall point or purpose, although individual human lives can
be lived purposefully.
4. Since God does not exist, all explanations and all causes are purely natural and can
be understood only by science.
5. All the various features of living beings, including human intelligence and
behavior, can be explained ultimately in purely natural terms, and today this usually
means in evolutionary, specifically Darwinian, terms.
6. Faith in God is the cause of innumerable evils and should be rejected on moral
grounds.
80
The Four Horsemen is the title of a 2007 video published by the Richard Dawkins Foundation, in which
Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris discuss their common goals and experiences in opposing religion.
Available online at <http://richarddawkins.net/videos/2025-the-four-horsemen-available-now-on-dvd>
81
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
82
Howe, Richard G. ‘Answering the Village Atheists: The Four Horsemen of the “New Atheism”.’ Matthews,
North Carolina: Southern Evangelical Seminary, 2008. <http://www.richardghowe.com/VillageAtheists.pdf>
27
7. Morality does not require belief in God, and people behave better without faith
than with it. 83
Despite the fact it was compiled by a pro-religion, Roman Catholic author, the list above is an
accurate description of the main arguments put forth by the New Atheists.
As David Klinghoffer of The Seattle Times newspaper has noted, “[The New Atheists]
content that traditional religions are not only false, but dangerous and morally grotesque.” 84
Moreover, as CNN asserts, “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not
simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument
wherever its influence arises.” 85 As Richard G. Howe points out, “Erstwhile atheism took the
argument to the scholars.” 86 As a result, debating the existence of God remained a strictly
scholarly, scientific affair of the intellectual elite. Atheism hardly moved outside of academia.
New Atheism, on the other hand, aims to speak to a mass audience.
New Atheism, then, has a clear agenda; an objective it seeks to realize. Yes, as its
(religious) critics are eager to point out, New Atheism hopes to ‘convert’ people to unbelief.
“If this book works as I intend,” Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, “religious
readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” 87 However, the New Atheists are
also very – if not more – interested in persuading the unaffiliated to really think about their
irreligion, and ‘come out’ as actual atheists. Or, as Gary Wolf of Wired magazine puts it:
We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague
deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth
or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we
are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the
curse of faith. The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are
not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief
in God. 88
So, in addition to the obvious religious audience, New Atheism targets everyone who isn’t
already a self-proclaimed atheist. As we have seen, not nearly all unaffiliated Americans selfidentify as atheists. The New Atheists hope to convince those people “who simply describe
83
Haught, John F. God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. p.xiii
84
Klinghoffer, David. ‘Prophets of the New Atheism.’ The Seattle Times. April 6, 2007.
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003653502_klinghoffer06.html>
85
Hooper, Simon. ‘The Rise of the ‘New Atheists’.’ CNN.com. November 9, 2006.
<http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/08/atheism.feature/index.html>
86
Howe, Richard G.
87
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006. p.28
88
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
28
their religion as ‘nothing in particular’” to ‘cut the cord’ and acknowledge themselves as
atheists.
In their efforts to achieve this goal, the New Atheists have, at times, adopted a rather
audacious rhetoric. This is another feature that may be considered ‘New’, as the earlier
atheism of the academic world arguably used more delicate language. South Dakota State
University scholar Gregory R. Peterson: “To read the recent works on the evils of religion by
Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins is to expose oneself to heavy doses of
hyperbole, sarcasm and outrage, sometimes all in the same paragraph.”89 Richard G. Howe of
North Carolina’s Southern Evangelical Seminary laments, “[The New Atheists’] harsh, if not
hostile, treatment of religion in general and Christianity in particular, has struck a chord with
many in our society. The open hatred of God is seemingly becoming more comfortable for
many.” 90 Indeed, as Gregory R. Peterson states, “The New Atheism is many things, but subtle
is not one of them.” 91 This fiery rhetoric – combined with the clear desire to turn people to
unbelief – has moved (critical) commentators to describe the efforts of New Atheism as
“militant atheism.” 92
3.2 Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion
First published on October 2, 2006, The God Delusion was an instant hit. The book –described
by The New York Review of Books as “an extended polemic against faith” 93 – entered The New
York Times Best Seller List shortly after its release, and remained on the list for fifty-one
weeks. 94 By January 2010, the original, English version of The God Delusion had sold over
two million copies worldwide, with translations of the book selling in the hundreds of
thousands. 95
89
Peterson, Gregory R. ‘Why the New Atheism Shouldn’t Be (Completely) Dismissed.’ In Zygon, Volume 42,
Issue 4, December 2007. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2007.00869.x/abstract>
90
Howe, Richard G. ‘Answering the Village Atheists: The Four Horsemen of the “New Atheism”.’ Matthews,
North Carolina: Southern Evangelical Seminary, 2008. <http://www.richardghowe.com/VillageAtheists.pdf>
91
Peterson, Gregory R.
92
Fiala, Andrew. ‘Militant Atheism, Pragmatism, and the God-Shaped Hole.’ In International Journal for
Philosophy of Religion, Volume 65, Issue 3, 2009.
<http://www.springerlink.com/content/qp43432050116373/>
93
Orr, H. Allen. ‘A Mission to Convert.’ The New York Review of Books. January 11, 2007.
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/>
94
RichardDawkins.net. ‘The God Delusion One-Year Countdown.’ RichardDawkins.net. September 3, 2007.
<http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1599>
95
RichardDawkins.net. ‘The God Delusion – Back on the Times Extended List at #24.’ RichardDawkins.net.
January 27, 2007. <http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5000-the-god-delusion-back-on-the-times-extended-listat-24/>
29
The author of The God Delusion is Richard Dawkins (b. 1941), the renowned British
evolutionary biologist, author, and outspoken atheist. A graduate and former employee of
Oxford University, Dawkins has published ten books as of August 2011, the majority of which
focuses upon Darwinian evolution. From his third book on – 1986’s The Blind Watchmaker –
Dawkins has been an ardent advocate of evolution as the greatest evidence against creationist,
religious worldviews, until, in 2006, he published The God Delusion, which exchanged the
evolutionary subject matter for an all-out attack on religious faith. 96 To counter what he calls
“the God Hypothesis” – the religious belief that “there exists a superhuman, supernatural
intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including
us” – Dawkins offers the following:
[Any] creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into
existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.
Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and
therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a
delusion; and, as [The God Delusion] will show, a pernicious delusion. 97
As quote above makes clear, The God Delusion makes a bold argument against the existence
of (any) God.
Besides being an international bestseller, the firmly anti-religious God Delusion stirred
controversy – amongst (religious) academics and journalists, as well as with the general
public. 98 To illustrate, several works have been published in critique of Dawkins’ book – such
as The Dawkins Delusion? (2007) by Christian theologian Alister McGrath, and Keith Ward’s
Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins (2008) – and on the informal
Internet, verbal abuse from offended believers is not at all uncommon. (Some eloquent
examples include “Slack-jawed turd,” “Suppurating rat’s rectum,” and one respondent’s “urge
to ram a fistful of nails” down the author’s throat. 99 )
As The God Delusion became a popular bestseller, Dawkins took to ‘spreading the
atheist word’ in person. He is the founder of the Out Campaign – which encourages people to
‘come out’ as atheists – and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. In
2008, he joined forces with British comedienne Ariana Sherine and the British Humanist
96
In 2009, Dawkins returned to the subject of Darwinism in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence
for Evolution.
97
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006. p.52
98
Gordon, Dennis. ‘Richard Dawkins and the God Controversy.’ In Stimulus, Volume 16, Issue 2, May 2008.
<http://www.stimulus.org.nz/index_files/STIM%2016_2%20Dennis%20Gordon.pdf>
99
Blake, Heidi. ‘Richard Dawkins in Bitter Web Censorship Row with Fellow Atheists.’ The Telegraph.
February 26, 2010. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-webcensorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html>
30
Association to create the so-called Atheist Bus Campaign, which placed an atheist slogan –
“There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” – in public
transportation in the United Kingdom. 100 Also, in 2010, Dawkins and fellow New Atheist
Christopher Hitchens advocated arresting Pope Benedict XVI for the Vatican’s efforts to cover
up the widespread sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. 101 Dawkins has also made several
television documentaries on religion and evolution for the British Channel 4, such as The Root
of All Evil? (2006), The Enemies of Reason (2007), The Genius of Charles Darwin (2008), and
Faith School Menace (2010).
Although it wasn’t the first book by “The Four Horsemen” to be published, The God
Delusion is arguably the central work of the New Atheist movement. Whereas Daniel
Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (2006) critically examines the origins and workings of religion,
and the works of Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens mostly discuss the violence and other
worldly wrongdoings caused by the faithful, The God Delusion offers the rational, logical
argument against the existence of God that is at the very heart of all New Atheist thought.
Also, the book explains why religion is intellectually wrong: besides the fact it is the cause of
a lot of physical pain, religion is also regarded by New Atheists as an affront to truth. In
addition, The God Delusion makes a case against the religious upbringing and education of
young children, which Dawkins considers a form of child abuse and indoctrination. Finally,
The God Delusion is, perhaps, the most important New Atheist work because it introduces the
notion of atheist pride. Atheists, Dawkins asserts, should be proud of what they are. Reluctant
nonbelievers should ‘come out of the atheist closet’, because being without faith is absolutely
nothing to be ashamed of, or apologetic about. Also, perhaps even more importantly, Dawkins
stresses that – as opposed to what the devoutly religious tend to preach – a life without God
can be purposeful, moral, and pleasant.
3.2.1 “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God”
The core thesis of The God Delusion is summarized by Dawkins as “Why There Almost
Certainly Is No God.” Dawkins’ main point is the fallacy of the aforementioned God
100
Beckford, Martin. ‘Atheist Buses Denying God’s Existence Take to Streets.’ The Telegraph. January 6, 2009.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4141765/Atheist-buses-denying-Godsexistence-take-to-streets.html>
101
Horne, Marc. ‘Richard Dawkins Calls for Arrest of Pope Benedict XVI.’ The Sunday Times. April 11, 2010.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece>
31
Hypothesis: the assumption “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who
deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.” 102
Perhaps the “Almost Certainly” is a bit confusing. Aren’t atheists supposed to be dead
sure God does not exist? Well, as even Dawkins admits, the inexistence of God is not 100%
certain. After all, as George W. Bush so proudly proclaims in his 2010 autobiography, “it is not
possible to prove God’s existence, but (…) it is equally impossible to prove He doesn’t
exist.” 103 Indeed, there is no absolute proof God does not exist. However, as Wired magazine’s
Gary Wolf puts it, “The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly
small.” 104
Probability – or rather, improbability – is the key term in Dawkins’ reasoning. He
dismisses the idea that the probability of God’s existence is simply 50%; either yes or no.
Instead, Dawkins suggests “that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any
other.” 105 Therefore, ‘scientific’, logical thinking can be used to assess its accuracy. “God’s
existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe,” Dawkins writes,
“discoverable in principle if not in practice.” 106
To logically disprove the God Hypothesis, Dawkins points out there is “an infinite
number of things whose existence is conceivable and cannot be disproved.” 107 The same goes
for God: we may conceive a supreme being, but we are unable to prove it actually exists.
Conceivability is hardly equal to probability. The God Delusion discusses several examples of
conceivable but extremely unlikely objects and entities. The most important, perhaps, is
‘Russell’s celestial teapot’. In 1952, British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) wrote
about “a china teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit.” 108 As Russell rightly
stated, “nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the
teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.” 109 Consequently, we
are, indeed, unable to either prove or disprove the existence of the teapot. However, its
existence is, of course, very unlikely. We can’t be 100% sure the teapot is not floating up there
somewhere, but it is quite safe to say we can be 99 to 99.9% sure. Again, the same goes for
102
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006. p.52
Bush, George. Decision Points. London, England: Virgin Books, 2010. p.32
104
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
105
Dawkins, Richard. / p.72
106
ibid
107
ibid / p.76
108
Russell, Bertrand. ‘Is There a God?’ Commissioned by, But Never Published in Illustrated Magazine, 1952.
<http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/russell10.htm>
109
ibid
103
32
God: there is as little hard, scientific evidence for the celestial teapot as there is for the
existence of God. Dawkins, then, as Wired magazine has written, “is confident that no
[celestial teapot] exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the
Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?”110
According to Dawkins, the inexistence of God is 99 to 99.9% certain. However, the
armchair logic described above is not the author’s only argument against a creating God.
Darwinian, biological evolution is another principal part of Dawkins’ atheism.
Catholic priest and philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) formulated five ‘proofs’
of God’s existence, the most influential of which was, perhaps, the ‘argument from design’,
which Dawkins describes as follows: “Things in the world look as though they have been
designed. (…) Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God.” 111 Dawkins
describes and refutes a contemporary incarnation of the argument from design:
[Creationists will say] that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater
than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck
to assemble a Boeing 747. Others have borrowed the metaphor to refer to the later
evolution of complex living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds
against assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle or ostrich by randomly shuffling
its parts are up there in 747 territory. This, in a nutshell, is the creationist’s favourite
argument – an argument that could be made only by somebody who doesn’t
understand the first thing about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural
selection is a theory of chance whereas – in the relevant sense of chance – it is the
opposite. 112
The argument from design, thus, is not valid. “The designer hypothesis,” Dawkins writes,
“immediately raisers the larger problem of who designed the designer.” 113
[Any] creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into
existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.
Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and
therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. 114
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, then, is the key to understanding
life on Earth – not religious tales of divine creation.
Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular
statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual
110
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
111
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006. p.103
112
ibid / p. 138
113
ibid / p.188
114
ibid / p.52
33
degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in
living creatures is just that – an illusion. 115
For Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists, a logical, rational mindset, and knowledge of the
theory of evolution are sufficient means to prove that “God almost certainly does not exist.” 116
From here, let us examine the notion of atheist pride, to which Dawkins hopes his book will
lead. However, hoping it will inspire “wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers” to embrace
atheism, The God Delusion has something to say about agnosticism first. 117
3.2.2 “The Poverty of Agnosticism”
Simply put, Dawkins – in a section on the intellectual “Poverty of Agnosticism” – regards
agnostics to be indecisive “fence-sitters.” 118 He states the agnostic middle ground is a
reasonable position in matters in which there is absolutely no way of knowing things are one
particular way or another. However, as we have seen, in the case of God, we do know what is
most probably true. Agnostics, Dawkins states, “often make the illogical deduction that the
hypothesis of God’s existence, and the hypothesis of his non-existence, have exactly equal
probability of being right.” 119 As we have seen, this deduction made by agnostics is erroneous.
In Dawkins’ opinion, agnostics – and every other person in the ‘nothing in particular’ category
– should take a good hard look at the facts presented by New Atheism and exchange their
‘noncommittal’ irreligion for actual, outspoken atheism. Doing so would mean ‘coming out of
the atheist closet’, which brings us to the subject of atheist pride.
3.2.3 Atheist Pride
Dawkins is very clear: atheism is a wonderful thing. At several points in The God Delusion, he
stresses atheists should be proud of what they are, and that they mustn’t let the fact they are a
minority intimidate them.
My fourth consciousness-raiser is atheist pride. Being an atheist is nothing to be
apologetic about. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of, standing tall to face
the far horizon, for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind
and, indeed, a healthy mind. 120
Being an atheist, Dawkins tells us, means embracing a joyous life that is worth living:
115
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006. p.189
ibid
117
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
118
Dawkins, Richard. / p.69
119
ibid / p.70
120
ibid / p.26
116
34
As many atheists have said better than me, the knowledge that we only have one
should make it all the more precious. The atheist view is correspondingly lifeaffirming and life-enhancing, while at the same time never being tainted with selfdelusion, wishful thinking, or the whingeing self-pity of those who feel that life owes
them something. 121
Dawkins urges people to ‘come out of the atheist closet’. “The more people come out, the
easier it will be for others to join them,” he writes.122 Only then, atheists will discover they
“are more numerous than anybody realizes,” and only then, they might be able to start
organizing themselves, which will help to increase the influence of atheism in society. 123
Dawkins’ official website – RichardDawkins.net – includes the so-called Convert’s
Corner, a growing collection of letters from readers who were turned to unbelief by the
author’s works. For example, on July 21, 2011, the following letter was posted:
Dear Richard,
I don't know how to begin to thank you. I know you must receive millions of hateful
messages from people so much like me, except that they never managed to break
free. I am a 20 year old American woman, born into a fundamentalist Christian
family, who is just learning for the first time about all the incredible discoveries
science has made. I was taught all the evidence for evolution was falsified, that
scientists were this collection of angry, hateful people rebelling against God so they
could live in sin. Imagine my surprise when I discovered you, so mild and polite
compared to the “children of God” I encountered in church. I devoured your book,
The Greatest Show on Earth, with more fervor than I had ever read the Bible. I had
never looked at nature with so much awe before, with such amazement at how lucky
we are to be alive. You brought wonder to the world. I only regret that my scientific
education had been better; I might have been a scientist, had I been raised somewhere
else. By the time I finished the book, that nagging doubt that I was wrong, that I
might still go to Hell, had finally died after 6 years of uncertainty as to what I
actually believed. Finally, “atheist” is no longer a dirty word to me. Thank you, and
please, never stop what you are doing, no matter how many people scream at you to
be silent. They scream, because they know the power of evidence, and there is
nothing they can do but watch.
Forever grateful, Jean 124
The above seems to be exactly the kind of change Dawkins hopes to inspire. He appears to be
fairly successful: the Convert’s Corner contains a great many letters. However, the statistics
we saw earlier make it painfully clear New Atheism – or, for that matter, atheism of any kind –
still has a lot of work to do in the United States.
121
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006. p.405
ibid / p.27
123
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
124
Letter in the Convert’s Corner on RichardDawkins.net. Posted July 21, 2011.
<http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts?page=1#letter_642237>
122
35
Chapter Four
From Maher to O’Reilly
Debating Religion and Atheism on American Television
It is now time to shift our attention to American television, and its portrayal of fictional
atheists. However, before examining atheist characters in American television fiction, I shall
use this chapter to provide a general overview of how atheism is viewed upon by American
non-fiction television outlets. To do so, I will examine three clips from major American news
shows that discuss the subject of atheism. All these three clips are interviews with Richard
Dawkins who, as The God Delusion was (re-)published in the United States, was invited to a
number of American television programs. The Dawkins clips I will discuss are from Home
Box Office’s Real Time with Bill Maher, CNN’s Paula Zahn Now, and the FOX Broadcasting
Company’s The O’Reilly Factor. By examining these talk shows’ ways of reporting on
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, and New Atheist thought, I will be able to provide a first
impression of the position of atheism in the American television landscape.
4.1 Richard Dawkins on Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
The political talk show Real Time with Bill Maher premiered on Home Box Office (HBO) – an
American subscription-based cable television channel – in February 2003. Aired live, and
hosted by comedian and satirist Bill Maher, the weekly show features a panel of several guests
that discuss current events – particularly developments in politics and the media. Although
these topics are talked about in all seriousness, Real Time with Bill Maher is also full of
humor, with Maher doing comedy skits and satirical monologues in between the discussions
and interviews.
In terms of political alignment, Bill Maher has described himself as a progressive,
advocating the regulated legalization of marijuana, abortion, euthanasia, and prostitution. He
is a board member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and a supporter of
the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
As for the subject of religion, Maher is highly critical. He has expressed his dislike of
religious beliefs and practices many times, either on Real Time with Bill Maher or in his standup comedy performances, appearances in other media, and, perhaps most notably, in his 2008
documentary Religulous. Directed by Larry Charles, the film follows Maher as he travels
around the globe, shedding a darkly humorous light on the most ludicrous and dangerous of
36
religious expressions. Also, Religulous – the title being a portmanteau of the words ‘religion’
and ‘ridiculous’ – bears a significantly New Atheist message, with Maher telling us, in the
film’s closing monologue:
Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet
and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious
really need to look into the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion
brings you actually comes at a terrible price.
Maher has also used Real Time with Bill Maher to express his anti-religious opinions. The
following monologue – taken from September 21, 2007 episode of the show – is a perfect
example of Maher’s comical-but-sincere attacks on religion:
I was struck again by Article 6, section 3. It says, “No religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office.” And I agree. No one should ever be
disqualified for their religion. Even the funny ones... Like all of them. But the
problem is that there is a religious test in this country. According to a recent poll,
seven in ten say it’s important to have a President with strong religious beliefs. The
other three couldn’t take the poll because it was Friday night and Yahweh wouldn’t
let them answer the phone. But fair is fair. So for myself – and the other 15 to 20% of
Americans who the majority call ‘nonbelievers’ but who I call ‘rationalists’ – here is
our religious test for office. If you believe in Judgment Day, I have to seriously
question your judgment. If you believe you’re in a long-term relationship with allpowerful space daddy – who will, after you die, party with your ghost forever – you
can’t have my vote, even for Miss Hawaiian Tropic. I can’t trust you with the
leverage of government because there’s an electrical fire going on in your head.
Maybe a President who didn’t believe our soldiers were going to Heaven might be a
little less willing to get them killed. [Presidential] candidate Mitt Romney – a
Mormon – believes in spiritually-blessed underwear that can protect you. He seems
like a nice man and so do his sons, Wally and the Beaver. But I’m sorry: their religion
is batshit. It’s like Scientology without the celebrities. And he has every right to run
for President while believing in magic underwear, and believing Jesus survived his
own death, and will return during an Osmonds concert in Branson. And I have every
right to take that into consideration in the voting booth. And at the end of the day, is
magic underwear really that much crazier than giant arcs, or virgin births, or talking
bushes..? You’re either a rationalist, or you’re not. And the good news is, a recent poll
found 20% of adults under thirty say they are rationalists, and have figured out that
Santa Clause and Jesus are really the same guy. Now, 20% is hardly a majority. But
it’s a bigger majority than blacks, Jews, homosexuals, NRA members, teachers, or
seniors – and it’s certainly enough to stop being shy about expressing the opinion that
we’re not the crazy ones!
Maher is very vocal about the fact that the inexistence of God is not 100% certain. He has
stated he is “not an atheist (…) because the belief that there is no God only mirrors the
certitude of religion,” adding, “doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings.” 125
125
Maher, Kevin. ‘Bill Maher: The God Botherer.’ The Sunday Times. April 1, 2009.
<http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6010432.ece>
37
Appearing on the July 12, 2011 episode of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Maher said the
following:
There’s atheist, there’s agnostic. (…) I’m okay with us not splitting the difference on
those. If you’re just not a super-religious person – for me, you’re on my team. It’s
very hard to say. Even Richard Dawkins, in his book, says, if we put it on a scale of 1
to 7 – 1 being absolutely sure certain that there is a God, and 7 being absolutely
certain that there is no God – even I’m only a 6.9, he says. ‘Cause we just don’t
know. I’m with [Dawkins], I’m a 6.9. As he says, it could be God, or it could be a
[teapot floating around in space].
Maher, then, may not call himself an atheist, but he is certainly highly critical of religion.
As a new paperback edition of The God Delusion was published in the United States,
Richard Dawkins appeared – via satellite – on Real Time with Bill Maher on April 11, 2008.
Unsurprisingly, Maher welcomed Dawkins by telling him, “Thank you so much for joining us;
I don’t have to tell you how big a fan I am.” What followed was a conflict-free interview, with
Dawkins explaining the anti-religious contents of The God Delusion, and Maher applauding
them, while occasionally making a funny remark: “One reason I think yourself and so many
others are beginning to speak out against organized religion is uh… because it’s ridiculous!”
As of August 2011, Real Time with Bill Maher is one of the ten non-fiction programs
on HBO, and the channel’s only talk show. (The other nine programs are either documentary
or sports shows.) Maher’s show, then, is arguably representative of HBO’s stance on matters
of politics, the media, and, indeed, religion. It should be noted that HBO ‘only’ reaches 28.2
million U.S. subscribers and, therefore, arguably plays only a minor role in the American nonfiction television landscape, but it seems fair to say Bill Maher is a – if perhaps not the – key
representative of unbelief and irreligion on American television in general. 126 HBO, then, is
the home of American television’s most outspoken nonbeliever.
4.2 Richard Dawkins on Paula Zahn Now (CNN)
Paula Zahn Now was a news program that aired on CNN from September 2003 until its final
broadcast on August 2, 2007. Hosted by journalist Paula Zahn, the show featured discussions
on current affairs, ranging from one-on-one interviews via satellite connection to in-studio
roundtables.
126
Wallenstein, Andrew. ‘Netflix Narrows Subscriber Gap with HBO.’ PaidContent: The Economics of Digital
Content. March 11, 2011. <http://paidcontent.org/article/419-netflix-narrows-subscriber-gap-with-hbo/>
38
Richard Dawkins appeared – via satellite – on Paula Zahn Now on February 12, 2007,
to offer the atheist opinion in a roundtable called Atheists in America: Non-Believers &
Discrimination. Dawkins was introduced as follows:
After we first brought this topic out in the open, most of the e-mails we received were
from people who thought that we should have included an atheist in our discussion.
So now we’re going to turn to one of the world’s most prominent atheists. Richard
Dawkins is an Oxford University professor whose bestseller sparked worldwide
controversy. The God Delusion argues that belief in God is not only irrational, but it
can be deadly.
From the outset, the CNN program treats Dawkins-the-atheist rather distantly, arguably as if
being an atheist is something peculiar.
As the actual interviews begins, Paula Zahn asks Dawkins why he is an atheist.
Dawkins responds as we would expect him to:
Why don’t you believe in Thor? Why don’t you believe in Zeus? Nobody believes in
most of the things that you could believe in. You’re an atheist with respect to the
Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God,
because there is not a shred of evidence in favor of the Judeo-Christian God, or,
indeed, any other God.
What follows is a conversation between Zahn and Dawkins that makes quite clear that the
CNN presenter voices a moderate, neutral view on religious matters. Let me quote the rest of
the conversation to illustrate this point:
PAULA ZAHN
It strikes me that the atheist message is particularly threatening to some Christians
because they believe, in some way, you’re trying to compromise their ability to have
this stuff out there on the public stage. Is there any public role, as far as you’re
concerned, for religion?
RICHARD DAWKINS
I think people should be free to believe whatever they like, to write whatever they
like, to say whatever they like, within – within reason. But the problem is that
religious people – I think especially in America, and also in the Islamic world – are in
the habit of getting it all their own way, and are remarkably intolerant of atheists.
PAULA ZAHN
But why do you think they are so “remarkably intolerant of atheists”?
RICHARD DAWKINS
Well, I think there’s a sort of historic misunderstanding of what atheism is. For some
reason, people have been brought up to believe that atheists have two horns and a tail.
I mean, there are figures that show that atheists are the most mistrusted group in
America, which is pretty astonishing, considering, as I say, the innocuousness of what
they actually are. They are just people who hold a different belief system.
39
PAULA ZAHN
Certainly, you have encountered people, though, who are intimidated by your
message, and that it, in some way – it puts perhaps their own faith in doubt?
RICHARD DAWKINS
Well, why would anybody be intimidated by mere words? I mean, neither I nor any
other atheist I know ever threatens violence. I mean, we never threaten to fly planes
into skyscrapers. We never threaten suicide bombs. We’re very gentle people. All we
do is use words to talk about things like the cosmos, the origin of the universe,
evolution, the origin of life… What’s there to be frightened of in just an opinion?
PAULA ZAHN
Final question: how would you characterize the overarching public reaction to
atheism?
RICHARD DAWKINS
Misunderstanding, and really missing an awful lot of what’s valuable. Because if
you’re an atheist, you know, you believe this is the only life you’re going to get. It’s a
precious life. It’s a beautiful life. It’s something that we should live to the full to the
end of our days – whereas if you’re religious, you believe there is another life
somehow. That means you don’t live this life to the full, because you think you’re
going to get another one. That’s an awfully negative way to live a life. Being an
atheist frees you up to live this life properly, happily, and fully.
As the conversation quoted above makes clear, CNN’s Zahn allows Dawkins to explain
himself, but her questions are rather critical. Zahn emphasizes the possibility of Dawkins and
his atheism offending believers. She even seems to suggest that Dawkins putting people’s
“faith in doubt” is something negative. Although Zahn does not confront her anti-religious
guest with any specific religious counterargument, she arguably defends religion in general,
bringing up the fact Dawkins’ atheism might intimidate the faithful.
I think it is reasonable to say CNN’s Paula Zahn Now represents a middle ground
attitude towards religion. It may not be advocating any particular religious, Christian ideas, but
the conversation with Richard Dawkins indicates the program regards religion to be a
desirable phenomenon. Knowing the majority of the U.S. population is religious, it seems safe
to say many Americans would agree with CNN’s moderate view on religion. CNN, then,
represents a mildly religious standpoint.
6.3 Richard Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor
Hosted by political commentator Bill O’Reilly, The O’Reilly Factor premiered on the FOX
News Channel on October 7, 1996. In the show, O’Reilly discusses the news, mostly political
issues. Although there are guests on the show, The O’Reilly Factor is perhaps most notable for
40
its host’s fiery monologues – some might say rants – about current affairs. The O’Reilly Factor
was the most-watched cable news program in the United States in 2007, 2008, and 2009. 127
While O’Reilly’s political views are generally conservative and leaning to the right, he
is a supporter of gay marriage and certain environmentalist ideas. However, his view on
religion is conservatively Christian.
Richard Dawkins appeared on FOX’s The O’Reilly Factor on April 23, 2007 for an instudio conversation about The God Delusion. O’Reilly’s introduction alone is rather telling:
Do you believe in God? Increasingly fewer Americans do. According to a Pew poll,
12% of us do not have a belief in a higher power, up from 8% in 1987, and that group
includes agnostics. In Europe, the rise of atheism and agnosticism is stunning.
According to a Zuckerman study, in Sweden, as many as 85% of the population are
nonbelievers; Japan, 65%; France, 54%; and in Britain, 44% do not believe in God –
in Great Britain. With us now is a man who understands that position: Richard
Dawkins, the author of the mega-selling best book The God Delusion.
Clearly, O’Reilly is flabbergasted by the ‘high’ levels of European secularity. The fact his
guest – Richard Dawkins – is able to not believe in God seemingly amazes him even more. As
O’Reilly begins his interview, he shows himself to be a devout – not to mention painfully illinformed – believer, keen on trying to prove Dawkins-the-atheist wrong.
BILL O’REILLY
I think it takes more faith to be like you – an atheist – than like me, a believer, and
it’s because of nature, you know? I just don’t think we could have lucked out to have
the tides come in, the tides go out, the sun go up, the sun go down; don’t think it
could have happened.
RICHARD DAWKINS
We have a very full understanding of why the tides go in, and the tides go out; why
the continents drift about; of why life is there. Science is ever more piling on the
evidence, piling on the understanding.
BILL O’REILLY
But it had to get there. I understand the physiology of it, if you will, but it had to
come from somewhere. And that is the leap of faith that you guys make: that it ‘just
happened’.
In answering O’Reilly’s remark above, Dawkins tells his host the following:
RICHARD DAWKINS
We don’t know everything. We have to be humble. We have to – in humility – say
there’s a lot that we still don’t know.
127
Ariens, Chris. ‘Q3 Cable Ratings: FNC Shows Fill Top 10; #3 Network on Cable; Beck Grows Timeslot
136%.’ TVNewser. September 29, 2009. <http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/q3-cable-ratings-fnc-showsfill-top-10-3-network-on-cable-beck-grows-timeslot-136_b27054?c=rss>
41
BILL O’REILLY
And, you know, being humble is a Christian virtue, so there you go.
RICHARD DAWKINS
Well, of course it is.
BILL O’REILLY
Right, when you guys figure it out, then you come back here and tell me. Because
until that time, I’m sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy, and my religion of
Roman Catholicism, because it helps me, as a person.
RICHARD DAWKINS
Ah, that’s different. If it helps you, that’s great, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
BILL O’REILLY
Well, it’s true for me.
RICHARD DAWKINS
You mean true for you is different from true for anybody else?
BILL O’REILLY
Yes, absolutely.
RICHARD DAWKINS
How can something be true for you? Something’s either got to be true or not.
BILL O’REILLY
I can’t – no, no. I can’t prove to you that Jesus is God. So that truth is mine, and mine
alone. But you can’t prove to me that Jesus is not. So you have to stay in your little
belief system.
RICHARD DAWKINS
You can’t prove that Zeus is not. You can’t prove that Apollo is not.
BILL O’REILLY
I saw Apollo, man; he was down there and he’s not looking good. Now, we also differ
in a sense that you feel that religion has been a bane – B-A-N-E – to civilization, and
I feel atheism has. And I will point to the worst mass murderers in modern times:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. All confirmed atheists. All people who wanted to
wipe out religion. Now, I know you can point to the Crusades, and point to Al-Qaeda
right now. I mean, it’s there, and there’s no question. But I say, I’m throwing in with
the Founding Fathers of the United States, which saw religion and spirituality as a
moderating influence – as a good thing when people embrace the true tenets.
RICHARD DAWKINS
The Founding Fathers of the United States were secularists, above all. Some of them
were religious, some of them were not, but they were, above all, secularists who
believed in keeping church and state separate.
BILL O’REILLY
Almost all of them – they all said a prayer before their deliberations. In their letters,
and I have almost all their letters, they all reference the deity. Our Declaration of
Independence references heavily. But they saw it as a moderating influence, because
the federal government, at that point, couldn’t control the country, and they said, you
know, “If people follow Jesus, then the country’s going to be better.”
42
Although O’Reilly is eventually kind enough to congratulate Dawkins on the success of The
God Delusion, I think the conversation cited above makes it very clear that O’Reilly is a
fervent anti-atheist. Unlike CNN’s Paula Zahn, O’Reilly fires religious arguments back at his
faithless guest, condemning Dawkins’ scientific atheism, “because you guys can’t tell me how
it all got here. You guys don’t know.” O’Reilly, while advocating “Judeo-Christian
philosophy,” rejects atheist thought because it fails to answer the unanswerable. O’Reilly –
arguably FOX’s signature anchorman – represents a devoutly Christian, anti-atheist
standpoint.
Altogether, then, we have, if you will, from ‘left’ to ‘right’, HBO, CNN, and FOX as
examples of different views on atheism and religion in the American television landscape. On
the left, we have HBO’s Bill Maher, an openly anti-religious satirist, whose talk show reaches
a relatively small part of the general U.S. audience. In the middle, there’s CNN –
representative of the moderately religious majority. Finally, on the right, we have FOX’s Bill
O’Reilly, an ardent believer and vocal anti-atheist who speaks to pious America.
What is, perhaps, most interesting, is the fact that all three networks find Richard
Dawkins and his atheist pamphlet The God Delusion to be newsworthy. As the earlier statistics
regarding American religiosity make clear, an avid nonbeliever like Dawkins is something of a
rarity in the United States, and, therefore, worth the major news outlets’ attention.
Now, having provided a general overview of the position of atheism within the
American non-fiction television landscape, let us move on to the analysis of fictional atheists.
43
Chapter Five
Content Analysis
The Portrayal of Atheists in Eight Major American Television Series
Finally, we arrive at what is the core of this thesis. In this chapter, you will find an in-depth
analysis of a number of atheist-themed episodes and irreligious characters from several
popular 21st century American television series. First, I will examine four episodes that
explicitly deal with the subject of atheism. I will discuss each episode’s narrative, and provide
an analysis of what it has to say about atheism. Furthermore, the atheist characters in the
episodes will be examined closely. These four episodes are from the following three television
series:
• Family Guy (FOX, 1999-present)
o
March 2009 episode “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven”.
• South Park (Comedy Central, 1997-present)
o
November 2006 episodes “Go God Go” and “Go God Go XII”.
• Glee (FOX, 2009-present)
o
October 2010 episode “Grilled Cheesus”.
I had to limit this first part of the content analysis to these four episodes because,
unsurprisingly, the atheist-religious debate is hardly a common subject in popular television
fiction. In other words, there are simply very few episodes of which the narrative is solely and
explicitly about atheism. Therefore, I have expanded this content analysis to include
prominent atheist characters from an additional five television series:
• Six Feet Under (HBO, 2001-2005)
• House M.D. (FOX, 2004-present)
• The Big Bang Theory (CBS, 2007-present)
• Scrubs (ABC, 2001-2010)
• Dexter (Showtime, 2006-present)
For each of these series’ atheist individuals, I will present evidence of his or her atheism,
followed by a further description that will show how the character supports my central
argument about the stigma surrounding atheists being present in American television fiction.
44
5.1 Selection of Television Series
In selecting the television series I have examined, I applied the following three criteria.
First, I have limited my research to series that have been on American television during
the last ten years – that is, series of which new, original episodes have aired in the period
2001-2011. Second, of course, the series had to contain a recurring character who is an atheist.
Third, I discarded series that, in their in-universe narrative, sincerely affirm the
existence of the divine or supernatural; series, in other words, in which God, the afterlife, or
other supernatural, superhuman things actually exist. In such ‘unrealistic’ series, the manner in
which atheists are portrayed arguably becomes irrelevant: as the narrative asserts there is, in
fact, a God, any atheist character is effectively ‘proven wrong’ by the narrative he or she
inhabits. For example, the character of Dr. Jack Shephard, one of the protagonists of ABC’s hit
series Lost (2004-2010), can be considered a skeptic nonbeliever, but Lost is full of fantastical,
supernatural events. In the series’ very last episode, Jack dies, after which his deceased father
– a man suggestively named Christian Shephard – welcomes him to some sort of afterlife. In
the episode’s closing minutes, the ‘Christian shepherd’ leads his son into a bright white light.
Jack may have showed himself to be a rational, irreligious man during the five seasons leading
up to this finale, but the ‘religious’ conclusion of Lost reveals he has been wrong all that time.
One could argue that affirming the existence of God is the ultimate way for a narrative to
denounce atheistic thought, but I am more interested in series that have a footing in reality: in
naturalistic fiction – which reflects on the real world – debating religion and the existence of
God has much more urgency to it than it has in stories that are outside of reality. For this
reason, I have also not included series such as HBO’s vampire drama True Blood (2008present), the Sci-Fi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica (2004-2009), and the CW Television
Network’s Supernatural (2005-present).
I have, however, included animated sitcoms Family Guy and South Park, both of
which quite often move into the realm of the bizarre and ‘unrealistic’. Also, both shows have
portrayed religious figures as if they really exist. Family Guy, for instance, has God flirting
with women in a bar, and in South Park, Jesus Christ hosts a talk show called Jesus and Pals. I
have, nevertheless, included these two sitcoms because they are both comments on American
society, filled with dark, absurdist, and, above all, satirical humor. Unlike series like Lost,
Family Guy and South Park do not employ religious, supernatural imagery to, in all
seriousness, tell a story, but, instead, to make humorous and ‘politicized’ observations about
religion-related topics. Because of this, I think Family Guy and South Park actually do, in a
certain way, have a footing in reality. Therefore, they are relevant to my research.
45
5.2 Episodes with Atheist Subject Matter
5.2.1 Family Guy - “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven”
Atheism plays a central role in “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven”, a March 29, 2009 episode of the
FOX Broadcasting Company’s animated sitcom Family Guy. The series centers on the
humorously dysfunctional Griffin family, consisting of Peter and Lois, their teenage children
Meg and Chris, their baby boy Stewie, and their anthropomorphic, talking dog named Brian.
Created by Seth MacFarlane, Family Guy premiered on January 31, 1999. After three
seasons, FOX canceled it, but the popularity of DVDs and reruns of the series prompted the
network to renew Family Guy in 2004. The series returned to FOX for its fourth season on
May 1, 2005, and season ten is scheduled to premiere on September 25, 2011. The winner of
four Emmy Awards, Family Guy draws an average of 7.8 million U.S. viewers per season.
The March 29, 2009 episode of Family Guy, titled “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven”, tells
of Meg who, while recovering from sickness, watches a television broadcast by actor-turnedevangelist Kirk Cameron, and becomes a born-again Christian herself. As Meg
(unsuccessfully) tries to get her family interested in her newfound religious views, Brian the
dog reveals himself to be an atheist. “I don’t believe in God,” he says. “I’m sorry, I just don’t
see any evidence. I mean, look at the Hubble Telescope: it’s discovered untold wonders of a
vast, unexplored universe, but not one picture of a guy with a beard, sitting around on a
cloud.” The other Griffins are shocked (“Ooooh!”) by Brian’s ‘appalling’ confession. An
atheist, “What’s that?”, asks Peter, the dimwitted pater familias. His wife Lois adds: “What?!
Brian, how can you say [you’re an atheist]? (…) Brian, it’s one thing to bash organized
religion, but we believe in God in this house! I mean, an atheist – that’s just about the worst
thing a person can be!”
Of all the Griffins, Brian’s outspoken atheism disturbs young Meg the most. She tries
to convert him to Christianity, but Brian doesn’t yield. This angers Meg, leading her to tell
everyone in town – the fictional Quahog, Rhode Island – that Brian is an atheist. It even makes
the local evening news: “Just when you thought the world couldn’t be any more dangerous,
Channel 5 News has discovered that there is an atheist among us,” the anchorman tells his
audience. “Local churchgoer and junior Christian soldier Meg Griffin has identified the atheist
as Brian Griffin of Spooner Street.” A photograph of Brian is captioned, “Worse Than Hitler!”
The News gets Quahog’s mayor to comment on the affair: “Shocking, to say the least. I’d
rather have a terrorist living in our midst. At least they believe in a God. Even if it’s a smelly
brown God.”
46
All this causes Brian to become a “pariah,” “the most hated person in town.” An angry,
scornful mob follows him around, and throws bricks and an automobile through his living
room window. Also, Brian is banned from his favorite shops, restaurants and bars, which
makes him unable to purchase the liquor he so loves. Eventually, in order to get his hands on
some booze, Brian fakes having faith, which makes Meg very happy. She buys Brian a bottle
of Jack Daniel’s and a six-pack of beer, and all seems well again.
Later, Meg takes Brian to a book burning ceremony. There, Meg and her fellow
Christians burn several books that are “harmful to God”: copies of On the Origin of Species by
Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, and a book titled Logic for First
Graders. The book burning disgusts Brian. He admits to having lied about having faith and
tries, one last time, to convince Meg that what she’s doing is wrong. At first, she ignores him,
but then Brian makes a striking point: if God really exists, and if He is a truly loving God, He
would never have created Meg to be as unattractive as she is. Also, if God is real, He wouldn’t
ever have put her in a family that despises, or most of the time, ignores her. Meg realizes that
Brian is absolutely right about all this, and sees no other option than to abandon her faith. “But
what is there to believe in without God?”, she asks Brian. “Where do the answers come
from?” Brian has a comforting reply: “Well, that’s all part of the human experience – that’s
what we’re here to find out. And I bet you that the real answer to the nature of our existence is
going to be more unimaginably amazing than we can possibly conceive.”
After all this, in an amusingly absurd turn of events, as the ‘camera’ zooms out from
above, the entire universe is revealed to be located within a lampshade in a bedroom shared by
American actors Adam West and Rob Lowe, who, in a short live-action scene, wish each other
goodnight.
There are two major things we can notice about Family Guy’s “Not All Dogs Go to
Heaven”. First, the ‘coming-out’ imagery the episode employs. Several online commentators
labeled it a coming-out, thus evoking the kind of social tensions normally associated with a
person revealing himself to be homosexual. “[Last night,] Brian officially came out as an
atheist,” wrote Hemant Mehta, reviewing “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven” for the website
Friendly Atheist. 128 Another review, by Television Blend’s Steve West, asked: “What’s more
shocking: that Brian came out as an atheist on Family Guy this week, or that Family Guy
128
Mehta, Hemant. ‘Breakdown of Family Guy: Brian Becomes an Atheist.’ Friendly Atheist. March 30, 2009.
<http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/30/breakdown-of-family-guy-brian-becomes-an-atheist/>
47
added an even more subversive humor in amongst its typical irreverence?” 129 Indeed, Brian
Griffin explicitly revealing himself to be an atheist – and, especially, the collective negative
response he gets to it – makes one think of a gay man ‘coming out of the closet’ in a hostile
environment. To draw a quick pop culture parallel: Brian, the Quahog atheist, recalls the
homosexual cowboys of Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain (2005), who are scorned in 1960s
Wyoming. Both are out-of-place deviants, unwanted by the communities they inhabit – a
theme frequently present in films dealing, albeit shortly, with (‘hidden’) homosexuality, such
as My Own Private Idaho (Gus Van Sant, 1991), The Birdcage (Mike Nichols, 1996), Boys
Don’t Cry (Kimberly Peirce, 1999), American Beauty (Sam Mendes, 1999), Mysterious Skin
(Gregg Araki, 2004) and Milk (Gus Van Sant, 2008). “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven”, one could
argue, takes this familiar ‘being-gay-in-a-straight-world’ theme and applies it to the atheistreligious conflict. Brian Griffin’s short story is one of ‘being-atheist-in-a-religious-town’.
The second important thing to notice about “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven” is the plot
development. It is very interesting to see Brian Griffin is still an atheist at the end of the
episode. In reviewing it, Jay Black of TV Squad makes an important point:
[I call the following] the Santa Claus method of dealing with particularly trouble
concepts in a sitcom. As anyone who watched TV in the ‘80s knows, there were
about forty-seven million Christmas episodes plotted around one character not
believing there was a Santa Claus. At some point, this character meets a mysterious
old man who somehow knows a lot about the character’s past Christmas wishes. By
the end of the episode, as we’re hearing sleigh bells, the character, though still a
skeptic, at least grants that there are things in this universe that are beyond his
understanding. The Santa Claus method is widely employed by the networks because
it’s the best way to mute a strong voice and keep the majority of your viewership
happy. Any kind of principled stand is bound to turn some people off and, as any
1940’s radio man will tell you, “We’re in the business of selling soap, kid.” I fully
expected Family Guy to go Santa Claus method [in “Not All Gods Go to Heaven”] by
having Brian and Meg find some middle ground on which atheists and religious
people can both agree. (…) But… wow. It didn’t. It stayed the course and endorsed
atheism. 130
By having Brian still be an atheist by the end of the episode – and getting Meg to agree with
him, as well as delivering a positive, life-affirming message of wonder – “Not All Dogs Go to
Heaven” could, indeed, be seen as endorsing atheism. Granted, it might not quite be an actual
endorsement – an episode of Family Guy is hardly a political or anti-religious pamphlet – but
129
West, Steve. ‘The Atheist’s Dilemma: Family Guy Takes a Stand.’ Television Blend. March 31, 2009.
<http://www.cinemablend.com/television/The-Atheist-s-Dilemma-Family-Guy-Takes-A-Stand-16575.html>
130
Black, Jay. ‘Was Last Night’s Family Guy the First-Ever Endorsement of Atheism on Mainstream TV?’ TV
Squad. March 30, 2009. <http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/03/30/was-last-nights-family-guy-the-first-everendorsement-of-atheis/>
48
it is refreshing to see an atheism-themed story to end on such a positive note. Television Blend
reviewer Steve West: “For Family Guy to not only take this issue on, but to remain stoic in the
stance of its character, feels like a significant moment.” 131 Indeed, Brian the atheist is the
episode’s kind, sane hero, who inspires Meg to embrace a life without God. Brian the atheist is
the good guy. Knowing Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane is an atheist himself, the fact that
“Not All Dogs Go to Heaven” sheds a rather positive light on atheism isn’t very surprising. 132
Paul Fidalgo, writing for American news website Examiner.com, points out a certain
tragic quality to Brian Griffin’s story:
Excommunicated by his family and town, Brian felt he had no choice but to pretend
to be like everyone else in order to avoid being loathed. With no one to speak up for
him and in no position of power, he did not have the luxury of being the
curmudgeonly atheist of the group. In his mind, he was forced to go along to get
along. 133
In this reading, “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven” illustrates how the atheist – ‘the other’ – will
always stand alone; apart from the rest. “The one guy who saw things a little differently was
forced to keep it all to himself,” writes Fidalgo, referring to the Brain who fakes having
faith. 134 In Fidalgo’s eyes, “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven” shows the tragic fate a lot of today’s
atheists still seem to suffer:
So Family Guy gave us something weirdly close to reality (…), a shunned atheist
who had nowhere to go, and no options but to lie. While I use this column to
emphasize atheists’ moves out of marginalization and silence, [“Not All Dogs Go to
Heaven”] was an odd reminder of how things remain for so many of us. 135
In this view, it becomes clear that Family Guy’s “Not All Dogs Go to Heaven” is, of course, a
humorous satire of the 21st century religious climate in the United States, as perceived by the
sitcom’s creators. The episode underlines the fact that, as we have seen, in America, the
religious people outnumber the nonbelievers: as of 2008, the “Nones” – adults with no stated
religious preference, atheists and agnostics – make up only 15% of the population. 136
131
West, Steve. ‘The Atheist’s Dilemma: Family Guy Takes a Stand.’ Television Blend, March 31, 2009.
<http://www.cinemablend.com/television/The-Atheist-s-Dilemma-Family-Guy-Takes-A-Stand-16575.html>
132
Seth MacFarlane talked about his atheism on the May 8, 2009 episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. A
clip of this interview can be viewed at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3pExZs9IJA>
133
Fidalgo, Paul. ‘Brian the Atheist Dog on Family Guy Hits Home for Demonized Nonbelievers.’
Examiner.com, March 30, 2009. <http://www.examiner.com/secularism-in-national/brian-the-atheist-dog-onfamily-guy-hits-home-for-demonized-nonbelievers>
134
ibid
135
ibid
136
Kosmin, Barry A.; Ariela Keysar. The American Religious Identification Survey of 2008. Hartford, CT:
Trinity College, March 2009. <http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf>
49
Furthermore, a June 2011 Gallup poll concluded that “more than nine in ten Americans still
say ‘Yes’ when asked the basic question ‘Do you believe in God?’.” 137 Percentage-wise, the
American nonbeliever is a rarity – an ‘outsider’ who has to (struggle to) find his place amidst
the religious majority.
However, this would be the right moment to remind ourselves that Brian Griffin is, in
fact, a dog. Despite the series satirizing, seemingly in favor of the atheists, the imbalance
between believers and atheists, Family Guy has an absurd character give a voice to atheism.
Brian the atheist may well be intelligent, kind, calm, optimistic, and all other kinds of positive
things, but: he is a talking, intellectual dog. Dog may be man’s best friend, but a canine is
arguably not the most favorable or desirable cultural representative of something as important
and distinctly human as atheism.
5.2.2 South Park – “Go God Go” and “Go God Go XII”
Created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the animated sitcom South Park premiered on August
13, 1997 on American television network Comedy Central. The series' ongoing narrative
centers on the lives of four young boys – named Stan Marsh, Kyle Brovlovski, Eric Cartman
and Kenny McCormick – who get into the strangest adventures, in and around their hometown
of South Park, Colorado. Famed for its frequent coarse language, black humor, unforgiving
parodies, and wide-ranging satire, South Park has won four Emmy Awards. The series
fifteenth season premiered on April 27, 2011, with an episode titled “HUMANCENTiPAD”,
which was watched by 3.11 million American viewers. 138
There is probably no other episode of any other television series that addresses this
research’s subject matter as directly as do “Go God Go”, the November 1, 2006 episode of
South Park, and its November 7, 2006 follow-up episode “Go God Go XII”. A plot description
of these two episodes, which tell one long story, will make clear just how important they are to
this thesis.
Set in early November 2006, “Go God Go” sees Eric Cartman, one of South Park’s
ever-prepubescent main characters, eagerly awaiting the then-imminent release of Nintendo’s
137
Newport, Frank. 'More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God.' Gallup. June 3, 2011.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx>
138
Gorman, Bill. 'Wednesday Cable Ratings: South Park Premiere, NBA Playoffs Lead Night + Justified,
Mythbusters, Real World & More.' TV by the Numbers. April 28, 2011.
<http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/04/28/wednesday-cable-ratings-south-park-premiere-nba-playoffslead-night-justified-mythbusters-real-world-more/90875/>
50
new Wii home video game console. The prospect of having to wait three more long weeks
causes him to lie awake at night, exhausting him, plunging him into madness.
But then Cartman has an idea: he will cryogenically freeze himself for three weeks.
When that time has passed, and the Wii has come out, his friends can unfreeze him and “the
wait will seem instantaneously.” So be it. Cartman heads out into the Rocky Mountains
surrounding South Park, buries himself in the snow and, surely, freezes.
Meanwhile, a heated curricular debate is going on at South Park’s elementary school.
There, Mrs. Garrison – a transsexual, creationist Christian teacher – protests having to teach
evolution to her pupils. However, the school board forces her to and she reluctantly does so,
angrily summarizing Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection as man being
“the retarded offspring of five monkeys who had butt-sex with a fish-squirrel.” After this
‘mischaracterization’ of the theory of evolution, the school board replaces Mrs. Garrison with
none other than British evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins of The
God Delusion fame. Dawkins, of course, does an excellent job explaining evolution to the
schoolchildren, and even manages to ‘convert’ Mrs. Garrison to atheism. Dawkins and
Garrison even begin a romantic relationship and, in typical crude South Park fashion, are
shown having rough, vulgar sex.
From then on, Dawkins and Mrs. Garrison fervidly teach evolution and atheism,
ridiculing every pupil who expresses anything remotely resembling religious faith. “Evolution
doesn’t even happen by chance – it is, in fact, bound to happen,” Dawkins tells the
schoolchildren, with Garrison concluding, “That’s right, kids. And so you see: there is no
God.” When Roman Catholic Stan Marsh, another regular South Park protagonist, states that
“there could still be a God,” and asks, “Couldn’t evolution be the answer to ‘How?’ and not
the answer to ‘Why?’,” Mrs. Garrison is quick to yell out, “Oh oh, retard alert!” Stan is put in
front of the class and forced to wear a dunce cap that says “I Have Faith”.
That night, in a post-coital conversation, Dawkins and Mrs. Garrison forge a plan to
“change the future of the world” by ridding it of religion. “Can you imagine a world without
religion?” says Dawkins, “No Muslims killing Jews. No Christians bombing abortion clinics.
The world would be a wonderful place without God!” Mrs. Garrison stands by her man, telling
him, lovingly, “You’re the smartest man on Earth, Dick!”
We get back to Cartman, buried in the snow. We see his plan go awry, as an avalanche
covers his frozen body, hiding it from view. As a result, his friend Butters can’t find nor
unfreeze him three weeks later. A time-lapse montage then reveals young Cartman to
51
ultimately remain frozen for over 500 years, until, in the year 2546, his frozen body is
discovered and unfrozen by members of the so-called Unified Atheist League.
It turns out that, by the year 2546, the whole world has become atheistic. Apparently
every single human being lives a life dedicated only to science, rationality and reason. The
word “God” even seems to have left the people’s vocabulary, as the 26th century atheists use
“Science” to ‘curse’: “What in Science’s name was that?”, or “Science damn it!”
However, atheism is divided into three major denominations, and Cartman finds
himself in the middle of a war between these factions, which all claim to have the right answer
to “the Great Question”: what should atheists call themselves? There are the Unified Atheist
League, the United Atheist Alliance, and the Allied Atheist Alliance – the latter group
consisting of evolved, intelligent, talking sea otters.
The Unified Atheists reveal that someone from Cartman’s time founded their League:
“the great Richard Dawkins, who finally freed the world of religion, long ago. Dawkins knew
that logic and reason were the way of the future.” Even Mrs. Garrison has found her way into
the Atheists’ founding narrative, who praise her for teaching Dawkins that “logic and reason
isn’t enough,” and that, instead, “you have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like
you.”
The otters of the Allied Atheist Alliance are also shown to be ardent adherents to the
intolerance Dawkins supposedly taught. “The great Dawkins said we cannot tolerate those
who don’t use reason!”, the otters exclaim. When an old, moderate otter expresses doubt
(“[Dawkins] was intelligent, but some of the most intelligent authors ever known were
completely lacking in common sense. Maybe some otters do need to believe in something.
Who knows? Maybe just believing in God makes God exist.”), he is lynched by the angry otter
mob.
Eventually, Cartman manages to time-travel back to 2006, but not before telephoning
into the past to tell Richard Dawkins that Mrs. Garrison is actually a transsexual man. This
disgusts Dawkins, who leaves Mrs. Garrison, thereby never forging the plan to rid the world of
religion. Because of this, in the year 2546, there is no inter-atheist war. Instead, mankind has
gotten rid of all ‘-isms’, because “-isms are great for those who are rational. But in the hands
of irrational people, -isms always lead to violence.” Before he’s sent back to 2006, Cartman is
told to tell “everyone in the past that no one single answer is ever the answer!”
South Park’s “Go God Go” and “Go God Go XII” clearly are a critique of extremism –
be it religious or atheist. It portrays atheists as aggressive, blind followers of a ‘prophet’
(Dawkins) who ‘preaches’ intolerance towards irrationality, thus killing two birds with one
52
stone. However, although this critical depiction of atheists is also a critique of religious
extremism, it is the negative portrayal of atheists that is at the surface. We first see smallminded, intolerant atheists. It isn’t until we start reading into it that we might recognize the
satire of religious extremism.
Atheism, indeed, does seem to be worse off than religion in “Go God Go” and “Go
God Go XII”. Whereas belief is given a moderate voice by the old otter – who stresses
tolerance, spirituality and the people’s need to believe in something –, atheism is only
represented by unpleasant warmongers. Sure, the creationist Mrs. Garrison makes a fool of
herself when she incorrectly teaches evolution, but it appears that we shouldn’t blame her for
having faith in certain things.
In the two South Park episodes, atheism, as advocated by the real-world Richard
Dawkins, is equal to intolerance. Here, being an atheist means “you have to be a dick to
everyone who doesn’t think like you.” This is, of course, a gross mischaracterization of
(Dawkins’) atheism. The very notion of atheism or unbelief may shock or even insult the
sensitive believer, but atheism isn’t out to intentionally anger or hurt people. South Park,
however, portrays Dawkins – a prominent representative of modern atheism – as some sort of
evil ‘super-villain’, bent on taking over the world and brutally, intolerantly ridding it of all
religion. In reviewing “Go God Go” and “Go God Go XII”, Bruce Gorton of South African
newspaper The Times rightly states that both episodes “basically set out to be as offensive a
portrayal of [Dawkins] as was humanly possible.” 139 While offensiveness is not really the
issue here, it is true that the South Park episodes portray Dawkins in a very unfavorable way.
South Park's “Go God Go” and “Go God Go XII” appear to be advocating the middle
ground between religion and atheism, ridiculing both religious small-mindedness and atheistic
intolerance. Stan’s question – “Couldn’t evolution be the answer to ‘How?’ and not the
answer to ‘Why?’” – is the perfect proof for South Park urging us to meet each other in the
middle: we can use and teach evolution and science to explain the world around us, while
religion can still help us to answer philosophical questions. While this may be a fair
standpoint, it does counter atheism. Also, South Park portrays Richard Dawkins – one of
today’s most renowned representatives of atheism – as an intolerant, sexually exuberant, and
evil mastermind, which also hardly contributes to a positive image of atheists.
139
Gorton, Bruce. 'Atheist Fundamentalism: South Park.' Times Live. April 22, 2010.
<http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/expensive/2010/04/22/atheist-fundementalism-south-park/>
53
5.2.3 Glee – “Grilled Cheesus”
Atheism-versus-faith is a central theme in “Grilled Cheesus”, a 2010 episode of the FOX
Broadcasting Company’s musical comedy-drama series Glee. The series – created by Ryan
Murphy, Brad Falchuk and Ian Brennan – revolves around an Ohio high school glee club
called New Directions. Conducted by Spanish teacher Will Schuester (portrayed by Matthew
Morrison), New Directions consists of a wide range of teenaged characters, who all have to
deal with teenagers’ troubles. These characters are your typical American high schoolers: a
pretty cheerleader; a jock; an Afro-American girl; a wheelchair-bound boy; a Jewish girl; an
Asian-American girl; a kindhearted, flamboyant homosexual young man. Being a musical
series, Glee contains many songs – performed by the cast – that form a sizable part of the
narrative.
Glee premiered on May 19, 2009, receiving critical acclaim, and winning four Emmy
Awards, four Golden Globes, a Screen Actors Guild Award, and a Peabody Award. With 9.77
million 140 U.S. viewers in its first season, and 10.11 million 141 in the second, Glee's third
season is scheduled to premiere on September 20, 2011.
“Grilled Cheesus”, the third episode of Glee’s second season, centers on two New
Directions members, namely Kurt Hummel (Chris Colfer), the aforementioned homosexual
high school student, and Finn Hudson (Cory Monteith), the jock.
Finn, “not the most religious guy,” goes through a spiritual awakening. After seeing the
face of Jesus Christ in a grilled cheese sandwich (“Grilled Cheesus”), he decides “to see what
it feels like to pray.” He embarks on a relationship with God, and prays to Him, requesting
three things: he wants his football team to win a game, his Jewish girlfriend Rachel Berry (Lea
Michele) to let him touch he breasts, and to be appointed quarterback again. When his first
wish is granted, Finn, now even more convinced of God’s existence, asks his fellow glee club
members to join him in paying “tribute to Him in music.” Finn’s request divides the club.
“Sorry,” says Kurt, “but if I wanted to sing about Jesus, I’d go to church. And the reason I
don’t go to church is because most churches don’t think very much of gay people. Or women.
Or science.” Finn’s girlfriend Rachel, who adheres to the Jewish faith, is also upset by her
lover embracing Jesus. On the other hand, Afro-American Mercedes Jones (Amber Riley)
doesn’t “see anything wrong in with getting a little church up in here.” Quinn Fabray (Dianna
140
Andreeva, Nellie. 'Full Series Rankings for the 2009-10 Broadcast Season.' Deadline. May 27, 2010.
<http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/full-series-rankings-for-the-2009-10-broadcast-season/>
141
Gorman, Bill. '2010-11 Season Broadcast Primetime Show Viewership Averages.' TV by the Numbers. June 1,
2011. <http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/2010-11-season-broadcast-primetime-showviewership-averages/94407/>
54
Agron), the pretty cheerleader, chimes in: “I agree. I’ve had a really hard year, and I turn to
God a lot for help. I, for one, wouldn’t mind saying thanks.” Despite his own Judaism, Club
member Noah “Puck” Puckerman (Mark Salling) settles the discussion by stating that “true
spiritually, or whatever you want to call it, is about enjoying the life you have been given.” He
illustrates his point by saying, “I see God every time I make out with a new chick,” and
celebrates his lust for life by singing Billy Joel’s “Only the Good Die Young”.
Later, Kurt is absolutely devastated when his father suffers a near-fatal heart attack. To
comfort him, Mercedes sings Whitney Houston’s song “I Look to You” for him. Mercedes, a
devout Christian, hopes that Kurt will find support and strength in religious faith. However, as
his earlier statement already signified, Kurt doesn’t value religion. In fact, he reveals himself
to be an atheist.
KURT
Thank you, Mercedes. Your voice is stunning, but I don’t believe in God.
GIRL #1
Wait – what?
KURT
You’ve all professed your beliefs; I’m just stating mine. I think God is kind of like
Santa Clause for adults. Otherwise God’s kind of a jerk, isn’t He? I mean, He makes
me gay and then has His followers going around telling me it’s something that I
chose, as if someone would choose to be mocked every single day of their life. And
right now, I don’t want a Heavenly Father. I want my real one back.
MERCEDES
But Kurt, how do you know for sure? I mean, you can’t prove that there’s no God.
KURT
You can’t prove that there isn’t a magic teapot floating around on the dark side of the
moon, with a dwarf inside of it that reads romance novels and shoots lightning out
of its boobs, but it seems pretty unlikely, doesn’t it?
GIRL #2
Is God an evil dwarf?
QUINN
We shouldn’t be talking like this! It’s not right.
KURT
I’m sorry, Quinn. You all believe whatever you want to, but I can’t believe
something I don’t. I appreciate your thoughts, but I don’t want your prayers.
After that meeting, glee club director Will Schuester is called into the principal’s office.
Atheist cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch) – who is always competing with New
55
Directions for funding from the school board – reported Will to the principal for singing
religious songs in glee club. An argument ensues.
WILL
I’m giving a lesson on spirituality. I don’t understand what the big deal is.
SUE
Well, the big deal is that this is a public school, and there’s this little
thing called separation of church and state, which happens to be the
pillar of a functioning civil society.
PRINCIPAL FIGGINS
Sue, children should be allowed to profess whatever faith they choose.
SUE
At the BET Awards, but not in a public school.
WILL
I’m trying to help these kids. Kurt is struggling with some really tough issues.
SUE
Well, William, if your kids want to praise Jesus in class, I suggest they enroll at
Sweet Holy Mother of God Academy on I Love Jesus Street – but not here.
Later, in a heated conversation with guidance counselor Emma Pilsbury (Jayma Mays), Sue
explains herself further. Her sister Jean has Down syndrome, and as a child, Sue prayed that
God would cure Jean’s condition. Sue´s prayers went unanswered, so she concluded that God
just does not exist. She became an atheist, discarding religion altogether.
SUE
I prayed every night for her to get better. And nothing changed. So I prayed harder.
And after a while I realized it wasn’t that I wasn’t praying hard enough. It’s that no
one was listening. Asking someone to believe in a fantasy - however comforting –
isn’t a moral thing to do... It's cruel.
EMMA
Don’t you think that's just a little bit arrogant?
SUE
It's as arrogant as telling someone how to believe in God, and if they don’t accept it –
no matter how openhearted or honest their descent – they’re going to Hell? Well, that
doesn’t sound very Christian, does it?
EMMA
Well, if that's what you believe, that’s fine. But please keep it to yourself.
SUE
As long as you do the same.
Sue convinces Kurt – who she knows is a fellow atheist – to file an official complaint with the
school board about religion-related songs being sung in glee club, and, shortly after, faith56
based music is banned from the club. Kurt very much enjoys the new 'Godless' glee club: “It's
doing me some good,” he says. “Now I don't have to sit around, listening to all you mental
patients talk about how there's a God when I know there isn't one.” He sings the classic
Beatles song “I Want to Hold Your Hand” to express what he does believe in: love.
Meanwhile, Finn has his second and third prayer answered as well: his girlfriend
Rachel, while still displeased with Finn’s newfound love for Jesus, allows him to touch one of
her breasts, and he is reinstated as quarterback. The latter being made possible by Finn’s
replacement dislocating a shoulder makes Finn doubt his faith. Did his prayer cause the boy to
be in such physical pain? After the school’s guidance counselor tells him it is unlikely that
God is speaking specifically to him through a grilled cheese sandwich, a disillusioned Finn
sings R.E.M.’s “Losing My Religion” in glee club. “I used to think that God was up there,
looking over me,” he says, when asked about his song choice, “now I'm not so sure.”
Finn 'losing his religion' eases Kurt's mind, and calms his temper. Not wanting to turn
his back on his best friends, he goes to a musical church service with Mercedes. Mercedes
asks the churchgoers to dedicate the service to Kurt's hospitalized father, and tells Kurt:
I know you don't believe in God. You don't believe in the power of prayer and that's
okay. To each his own. But you've got to believe in something. Something more than
you can touch, taste or see. 'Cause life is too hard to go through it alone, without
something to hold on to. And without something that's sacred.
Mercedes and her gospel choir then sing “Bridge Over Troubled Water” by Simon &
Garfunkel. Kurt is moved by the music and the churchgoers' enthusiasm, but he remains an
unbeliever. He does, however, seem to have become a bit less hard on his religious peers. In
the hospital, he tells his comatose father, “I should have let those guys pray for you. It wasn't
about me, it was about you, and it was nice.” He adds: “I don't believe in God, Dad. But I
believe in you. And I believe in us. You and me. That's what sacred to me.”
Eventually, hardened atheist Sue also seems to find some peace of mind. She asks her
handicapped sister Jean whether she believes in God or not. Jean doesn’t answer the question
directly, but insists, “God never makes mistakes, that’s what I believe.” Sue is moved,
especially when Jean tells her she will pray for her.
At the end of “Grilled Cheesus”, the members of New Directions sing Joan Osborne's
“One of Us” – which contains lyrics such as “God is great”, “God is good”, and the famous
words “What if God was one of us.” “The kids really wanted to do to do this song,” glee club
director Will Schuester tells Sue, “so I let them. Are you going to get me fired? Report me?”
With a sad look upon her face, Sue responds: “No.”
57
As the summary above makes clear, Glee's “Grilled Cheesus” is all about this thesis’
core theme: atheists within American, Christian society. Let us have a closer look at how the
episode addresses said subject matter.
The religious characters in “Grilled Cheesus” are all kind and goodhearted. The two
atheists, however, both tend to act a bit mean to their environment. Although they both make
some very valid points, Glee atheists Kurt and Sue are both heard making rather hurtful
remarks. Kurt, for instance, calls his religious schoolmates “mental patients,” and Sue is
rather rude in general, insulting colleagues on a regular basis.
However, while the two atheists in Glee are both quite normal human beings – and,
thereby, already more desirable cultural representatives of atheism than, say, an animated dog,
or a super-intelligent sea otter – there is something more important about Kurt and Sue that
needs to be examined: their sexuality. Again, while Glee atheists Kurt and Sue are far from
being bizarre, talking animals, I wish to argue that they are, in fact, in a certain way,
exceptional. It is both characters’ sexuality that makes them this.
First, we have Sue, a middle-aged, single woman who – despite having one very brief
romantic relationship on the series – comes across as being slightly asexual, or unfeminine to
say the least. To go further still, one might argue that Sue embodies a certain lesbian
stereotype, namely that of the ‘dyke’: a lesbian who is noticeably masculine. 142 While Sue is
not actually a lesbian, the character does have several traits that may quickly be attributed to a
stereotypical dyke. For instance, Sue has fairly short hair, and is dressed, virtually always, in a
‘manly’ Adidas tracksuit. Also, her occupation with sports, as well as her frequent crude
remarks, make Sue not quite as feminine as her fellow female characters. Furthermore, a few
episodes after “Grilled Cheesus”, she, in fact, gets married to herself, which further stresses
her distance from conventional sexuality. Besides being an atheist, Sue is also, for lack of a
better term, a sexual deviant. Glee does not state or imply that there is any (causal) connection
between Sue's atheism and her unconventional sexuality, but the fact remains: besides her
atheism, Sue Sylvester possesses characteristics that make her less ‘normal’.
Then there’s Kurt Hummel. As mentioned earlier, at times, Kurt can be quite rude and
brutally honest to his peers, but in general, he is not kinder or meaner than the average person.
Kurt is, however, openly gay. Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but,
again, it does make him exceptional. Also, Kurt, too, embodies several gay stereotypes: he is,
for instance, flamboyant, fashionable, soft-spoken and gentle-mannered. One could argue that
142
The Free Dictionary. <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dyke>
58
these specific stereotypical qualities add to the character's perceived 'gayness'. Again, of
course, being gay is not at all wrong or strange, but it is – if only statistically – exceptional.
Not unlike atheists, homosexuals form a minority group – globally, as well as in American
society. To illustrate this point, as of April 2011, an estimated mere 3.5% of adults in the
United States self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. 143 It seems that in Kurt Hummel, Glee
attempts to conveniently personify two minority groups in one character. Kurt is both 'the
homosexual' and 'the atheist'. Also, while “Grilled Cheesus” implied no causal connection
between Sue's atheism and the other unconventional parts of her personality, it seems that
there is such a connection with Kurt. While he also puts forth several theological arguments,
Kurt's first reaction to religion is, “the reason I don’t go to church is because most churches
don’t think very much of gay people.” This remark suggests that Kurt's homosexuality is the –
or a – cause of him being an atheist. True, for a gay young man, organized religion's hatred
towards homosexuality could well be a reason for turning one's back on religious faith, but it
does seem a bit simplistic and convenient to make one character both gay and atheistic.
In terms of narrative, Glee's “Grilled Cheesus” episode gets close to the ‘atheismendorsing’ boldness of Family Guy, but, in the end, settles on a South Park-esque middle
ground. Kurt Hummel’s story mirrors that of Family Guy's Brian Griffin: like Brian, Kurt is
still an atheist at the end of the episode. As Matt Richenthal of American television website TV
Fanatic.com puts it:
Throughout the hour, I was assuming [Kurt's father] would awaken from his coma
and Kurt would acknowledge that God played a role in his dad's recovery. But the
show resisted such an obvious, politically correct resolution. 144
People try to get Kurt to believe, but he doesn’t give in. Jerome Wetzel of media reviewing
website Blogcritics.org adds: “It’s refreshing to see television not be so pushy about Jesus, and
to have an actual atheist, who won't be swayed into a conversion, represented. In our nation,
it's actually pretty rare.” 145
However, in the end, “Grilled Cheesus” settles on a fairly 'safe' middle ground. Kurt is
'allowed' to remain an atheist throughout the entire episode, but it seems that the general
narrative opts for a more risk-free message, voiced by the character of Mercedes Jones:
143
Gates, Gary J. 'How Many People Are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender?' April 2011.
<http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/How-many-people-are-LGBT-Final.pdf>
144
Richenthal, Matt. 'Glee Review: “Grilled Cheesus.” TV Fanatic. October 5, 2010.
<http://www.tvfanatic.com/2010/10/glee-review-grilled-cheesus/>
145
Wetzel, Jerome. 'TV Review: Glee “Grilled Cheesus.” Blogcritics. October 7, 2010.
<http://blogcritics.org/video/article/tv-review-glee-grilled-cheesus/>
59
I know you don't believe in God. You don't believe in the power of prayer and that's
okay. To each his own. But you've got to believe in something. Something more than
you can touch, taste or see. 'Cause life is too hard to go through it alone, without
something to hold on to. And without something that's sacred.
Granted, we could interpret the above as a humanistic, life-affirming message of hope, but if
we take into account the fact that Mercedes delivers these words at a church altar, it becomes
quite difficult to come up with an interpretation that does not stress the importance of some
sort of spirituality. It is “okay” to not believe in God, but faith in “something that's sacred” is
essential, “Grilled Cheesus” seems to suggest. The following quote from Glee co-creator Ryan
Murphy, taken from an Entertainment Weekly article discussing “Grilled Cheesus”, underlines
the series' 'belief in belief':
I love when people see Jesus in bird droppings on the windows and then there are
lines out the door and that seems to happen so often now. To me, it just shows
everybody in our society, particularly young people, are just desperate to believe in
something. 146
The fact that Murphy loves it “when people see Jesus in bird droppings” may lead us to
assume that he has got a certain amount of sympathy for faith. In fact, he believes in God,
stating, “I do believe in God. I think religion gave me great structure and discipline and
order.” 147 Knowing this, it is hardly surprising that Murphy and his fellow Glee creators Brad
Falchuk and Ian Brennan have said that they “really wanted to provide a balanced depiction of
faith and spirituality,” which indicates a ‘middle ground attitude’ towards the subject matter.148
Hovering, thus, somewhere in the middle between all-out atheism and religious faith, Glee
does not take any real stance. Another quote from Murphy more or less confirms this point:
We went through and counted it word by word and line by line. Every time somebody
said something anti-religious, we made sure somebody said something pro.149
These words seem to suggest that Glee is, indeed, unwilling to take sides in the matter, with
the writers literally carefully choosing their words, in order to not be partisan.
While Glee's “Grilled Cheesus” portrays atheists as decent, everyday people, the
episode’s narrative refrains from making an opinionated statement about atheism-versus-faith.
146
Stack, Tim. 'Glee Co-Creator Ryan Murphy Talks Tonight's Controversial Episode.' Entertainment Weekly.
October 5, 2010. <http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/10/05/glee-co-creator-ryan-murphy-talks-tonightscontroversial-episode/>
147
Martin, Denise. 'Are You There, God? Glee's Twist on Faith.' TV Guide. October 4, 2010. <http://www.
tvguide.com/News/Glee-Grilled-Cheesus 1023969.aspx?rss=news&partnerid=spi&profileid=05>
148
Stack, Tim.
149
ibid
60
Instead, it settles on a fail-safe message of tolerance and joy, summarized by the character of
Mercedes as, “To each his own.” As with the two South Park episodes examined earlier, such
a message may be fair, and fit for a large audience, but it does not really help, if you will, the
atheist cause.
Moreover, although Glee atheists Kurt Hummel and Sue Sylvester are perfectly good
people, their characters differ from the sexual norm: Kurt is openly gay, and Sue is
unconventionally independent from any form of (sexual and/or romantic) relationship. Also,
Sue arguably embodies the lesbian stereotype of the dyke. Let me repeat that there is
absolutely nothing wrong with these specific sexual aspects of these characters' personalities,
but it does make them stand out from the normative heterosexual crowd. Thereby, in Glee, too,
the atheists are outsiders who are, in a certain way, strange – not to mention despicable in the
eyes of a regrettably sizable homophobic part of the general audience. Even before Sue, and
especially Kurt have professed their atheism, they are already deviants. Thus, it seems that in
the case of Kurt Hummel, Glee conveniently lumps two cultural hot potatoes into one
character, almost as if the series doesn't want to 'waste' two whole characters on
homosexuality and atheism.
5.3 Atheist Characters
5.3.1 Brenda Chenowith from Six Feet Under
Created by Oscar-winning 150 screenwriter Alan Ball, Six Feet Under premiered in the United
States on June 3, 2001 on the premium cable network Home Box Office (HBO). The fiveseason drama series revolves around the fictional Fisher family, who run Fisher & Sons, a
funeral home in Los Angeles, California. The family consists of neurotic matriarch Ruth
Fisher (portrayed by actress Frances Conroy), and her children Nate (Peter Krause), David
(Michael C. Hall) and Claire (Lauren Ambrose). Nathaniel Fisher, Sr. (Richard Jenkins) –
Ruth's husband and father of her children – dies in the opening minutes of the series' very first
episode, but remains a recurring character throughout all five seasons, appearing to his family
in their fantasies and memories. Other regular characters include Fisher & Sons employee
Federico Diaz (Freddy Rodriguez), David's gay lover Keith Charles (Matthew St. Patrick), and
Brenda Chenowith (Rachel Griffiths), Nate's on-and-off girlfriend. Tracing these characters'
lives over a period of about five years, Six Feet Under is an all-compassing portrait of modern
150
In 2000, Alan Ball won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay for American Beauty (Sam Mendes,
1999).
61
human life, touching on big themes such as life, love, death, and everything in between.
Critically acclaimed, from its premiere in 2001 until its August 2005 series finale, HBO's Six
Feet Under received high ratings throughout its entire original run. The series won, amongst
other prizes, nine Emmy Awards, three Golden Globes, three Screen Actors Guild Awards, and
one Peabody Award.
Although there is not one specific episode of Six Feet Under that solely focuses upon
this thesis’ central theme of atheism-versus-faith, the series does contain a main character who
is arguably an atheist: Brenda Chenowith, portrayed by Australian actress Rachel Griffiths.
Let us first have a look at the ‘evidence’.
Following the death of the Fishers’ pater familias, one of the major story arcs in Six
Feet Under’s first season is about Nate Fisher, who, reluctantly, after years of living in Seattle,
Washington, has to take over the family business in Los Angeles. In “Life’s Too Short”, a July
2001 episode of Six Feet Under, Nate and his girlfriend Brenda Chenowith visit several
funeral homes, posing as potential customers. They do this so that Nate can get a taste of the
funeral business he is about to re-enter as the new director of Fisher & Sons. Discussing life
and death as they drive from funeral home to funeral home, Brenda makes a couple of remarks
that may lead us to believe she rejects religious faith. “Everybody dies,” she says to Nate, “We
all die. Everything we ever care about will disappear, so what's the fucking point of living?”
Furthermore, in a July 2001 episode titled “An Open Book”, Brenda and Nate have the
following conversation.
BRENDA
You don’t really believe in God, do you?
NATE
Well, yeah. I mean, I don’t believe in some bearded old white man up in
a cloud, but I believe in something; some sort of undefinable creative force.
BRENDA
I think it’s all just totally random.
NATE
Really?
BRENDA
Yeah. We live, we die. Ultimately, nothing means anything.
NATE
How can you live like that?
62
BRENDA
I don’t know. Sometimes I wake up so fucking empty, I wish I'd never
been born. But what choice do I have?
While the first quote – “...so what's the fucking point of living?” – may not directly say
anything about religious faith, I think it is fair to say that such a pessimistic train of thought is
hardly Christian, or in line with any mainstream religion’s life-necessitating teachings. The
conversation quoted above is a further indication that Brenda distances herself from any lifeembracing religious tradition or faith. However nihilistic or pessimistic a viewpoint it may
seem, being convinced “it's all just totally random,” and stating that, “Ultimately, nothing
means anything” is a somewhat probable consequence of being an atheist.
Later, in season two, in the March 17, 2002 episode “The Plan”, Brenda and Nate have
another conversation about the nature and meaning of existence, which goes as follows.
NATE
What about you saying that things happen that leave marks... in people,
in space, in time?
BRENDA
Yeah, that’s physics. Energy affecting matter. Talking to dead people
is delusional.
NATE
So you definitely don’t believe in any kind of life after death?
BRENDA
I think people live on through the people they love and the things they
did with their lives... If they manage to do things with their lives.
NATE
But that’s it? That’s it? That’s all there is? There's nothing more?
There's nothing, like, bigger?
BRENDA
Just energy.
NATE
But there’s no plan? No –
BRENDA
No, there’s definitely no plan. Just survival.
Brenda states that she doesn't believe in any kind of literal life after death. She points out that
the dead may be remembered by the living – and, in that way, ‘live on’ – but nothing more.
Also, Brenda stresses that “there's definitely no plan.” These are steadfast, atheistic statements.
63
Brenda's final emphasis on survival as the core aspect of life on Earth calls to mind
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Of course, advocating biological
Darwinism does not, by definition, equal atheism, but it would make much sense for an atheist
to do so.
In season five, Brenda’s then-husband Nate dies of a stroke, but he doesn’t completely
disappear from the series. Instead, like his dead father, Nate keeps appearing to his family, as
they imagine or remember him. In Six Feet Under’s penultimate episode – “Static”, aired
originally on August 14, 2005 – Brenda imagines her deceased husband speaking to her. As
she ponders her life and what to do with it, the imaginary Nate reminds her of an important
truth:
NATE
I'm just saying – you only get one life. There's no God, no rules, no judgments –
except for those you accept or create for yourself. And once it's over, it's over.
Dreamless sleep forever and ever. So why not be happy while you are here? Really.
Why not?
Again, strongly irreligious words spawn from Brenda's mind. The quote from Nate-asimagined-by-Brenda is full of atheistic notions: the idea of having only one life, the nonexistence of God, and the absence of absolute morality.
While she never actually, literally identifies herself as such, I think it is fairly safe to
say that Six Feet Under’s Brenda Chenowith is, indeed, an atheist. Now, after establishing this,
let us more closely examine the character in total.
The official HBO website for Six Feet Under contains in-universe biographies of all
the main characters. Brenda’s “Character Bio” goes as follows.
Brenda, once the great love of Nate's life, is highly intelligent, highly protective of
her emotions and highly skeptical of the possibility of being happy. She comes by her
misgivings honestly: at the age of six she was declared a genius and placed in the
care of psychiatrists who manipulated and scrutinized her every move. To make
matters worse, her hell wasn't even a private one – it became the subject of a bestselling book titled Charlotte Light and Dark.
In addition, Brenda's family life is dysfunctional in the extreme. Her relationship with
her parents (….), both psychiatrists, has always been openly antagonistic. And while
she loves and is protective of her brother, Billy, he's a manic-depressive who used to
have the habit of going off his medication. The last time Billy quit taking his meds,
he became dangerously violent and Brenda had to have him committed.
The one thing in Brenda's life that brought her happiness was her relationship with
Nate, and yet she compulsively sabotaged it. She asked Nate to marry her, then
engaged in anonymous sex – with individual men, a pair of twenty-something
stoners, a husband and wife at a swingers party – behind his back. When he
discovered her “secret life,” Nate broke off their engagement, devastating Brenda and
64
driving her to do something she vowed she would never would: seek psychiatric help.
She attended a support group for sexual addicts and later confessed to Nate that her
behavior was motivated by “...the fear, of feeling... something real.” 151
Although the above does not quite fully summarize five seasons' worth of Brenda Chenowith
narrative, it does give a very good first impression of the character. Brenda is highly
intelligent, and has a hard time finding happiness in life. She has a strained relationship with
her wealthy, self-absorbed parents – both mental health professionals – and feels both love and
hate for her younger brother, Billy. A striking feature of Brenda's unusually close relationship
with Billy – that isn't mentioned in the “Character Bio” – is that it, at times, borders the
incestuous. For instance, in the season five episode “Static”, Brenda imagines having sex with
her brother, even considering running away with him to live together as a couple, in a place
where nobody knows that they are, in fact, siblings.
Furthermore, as the “Character Bio” does tell us, Brenda is no stranger to actual
inappropriate sex. She cheats on her partner, Nate Fisher, engaging in vulgar sex with random
strangers in dressing rooms, at parties, in her own home, and with male customers during her
work as a shiatsu massage therapist. Citing “the fear of feeling something real” as the reason
for her adulterous, compulsive sexual behavior, Brenda clearly is a troubled mind. Her
unsettling childhood, and her complicated relationships with her unloving parents and
mentally-ill brother make Brenda a fiery, but psychologically unstable woman. Throughout the
series, she is quite difficult – though not impossible – to love, often making 'snappy' remarks
loaded with biting sarcasm. At one point, in an April 21, 2002 episode called “It's the Most
Wonderful Time of the Year”, Nate asks her, “Why do you treat me like shit all the time,
Brenda?” She responds: “Because I've had a really fucked-up life and I need sarcasm to hide
how ridiculously miserable I am!”
Brenda Chenowith is a troubled, ‘bitchy’, miserable, adulterous sex-addict. And she is
an atheist. Once again, a popular television series’ atheist character is, in a certain way,
strange. While it is true that every character in Six Feet Under is flawed, Brenda is arguably
the most imperfect person of them all. Every character has his or her troubles and quirks, but
none of that comes close to Brenda's nympho-maniacal and incestuous habits.
151
Home Box Office: Six Feet Under. 'Character Bio: Brenda Chenowith.' <http://www.hbo.com/six-feetunder/index.html#/six-feet-under/cast-and-crew/brenda-chenowith/bio/brenda-chenowith.html>
65
5.3.2 Dr. Gregory House from House M.D.
“Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no
religious people.” These are the poignant words of Dr. Gregory House, the titular central
character of the FOX Broadcasting Company's medical drama House M.D. – better known as,
and from here on referred to as House. Portrayed by British actor Hugh Laurie, Dr. House is
the Chief of Diagnostic Medicine at the fictional New Jersey Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching
Hospital. He leads a team of diagnosticians, consisting of – depending on the season – three or
four ambitious doctors, who, in a typical episode, attempt to diagnose and treat a primary
patient's illness. In most episodes, the right answers eludes the team, until House comes up
with a genius, last-minute insight that solves everything. Apart from chronicling these
professional medical endeavors, House follows the stormy private lives of its main characters.
House's first-ever episode, a pilot episode called “Everybody Lies”, originally aired on
FOX on November 16, 2004, and the series' eighth season is scheduled to premiere in the fall
of 2011. The most-watched television program in the world in 2008, the David Shore-created
House has won four Emmy Awards, two Golden Globes, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, one
BAFTA Award, and one Peabody Award. 152
Dr. Gregory House is an atheist. The quote above is one of several that make this very
clear. In the December 14, 2004 episode “Damned If You Do”, House has the following
conversation with a nun named Sister Mary Augustine (portrayed by actress Elizabeth
Mitchell), who is a patient of his.
AUGUSTINE
Why is it so difficult for you to believe in God?
HOUSE
What I have difficulty with is the whole concept of belief. Faith isn’t
based on logic and experience.
AUGUSTINE
I experience God on a daily basis, and the miracle of life all around.
The miracle of birth; the miracle of love. He is always with me.
HOUSE
Where is the miracle in delivering a crack-addicted baby? And watching her
mother abandon her because she needs another score? The miracle of love.
You’re twice as likely to be killed by the person you love than by a stranger.
AUGUSTINE
Are you trying to talk me out of my faith?
152
The Huffington Post. ‘House Becomes World’s Most Popular TV Show.’ July 13, 2009.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/house-becomes-worlds-most_n_214704.html>
66
HOUSE
You can have all the faith you want in spirits and the afterlife, and Heaven
and Hell, but when it comes to this world, don’t be an idiot. ‘Cause you can
tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it
comes to crossing the road, I know you look both ways.
AUGUSTINE
I don’t believe He is inside me and is going to save me. I believe He is inside
me whether I live or die.
HOUSE
Then you might as well live. You've got a better shot betting on me than on Him.
As this conversation shows us, House is unafraid to confront religious people with his own
atheistic views. Also, as the following quotes will illustrate further, he can be quite harsh and
unapologetic in his remarks about the faithful. In “Damned If You Do”, House, referring to
Sister Augustine, says, “She has God inside her. It would have been easier to deal with a
tumor.” On another occasion, one of Augustine's fellow nuns tells House, “Sister Augustine
believes in things that aren't real.” House's response: “I thought that was a job requirement for
you people.”
In the aptly-titled season two episode “House vs. God” – aired originally on April 25,
2006 – Dr. House and his team treat a young faith healer who suffers from spasms. The
episode's narrative gives House plenty of opportunities to say something about religion. “You
talk to God, you're religious,” he tells his team member Dr. Robert Chase (Jesse Spencer),
“God talks to you, you're psychotic.” Later, in the same episode, House delivers the striking
words, “Isn't it interesting that religious behavior is so close to being crazy, we can't tell it
apart?” In the February 8, 2008 episode “Don't Ever Change”, House proclaims, “Religion is a
symptom of irrational belief and groundless hope.” However, the best clue to House’s atheism
can be found in a conversation in the October 2, 2007 episode “The Right Stuff”.
HOUSE
Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there
would be no religious people.
RELIGIOUS DOCTOR
(disdainfully)
You're an atheist.
HOUSE
Only on Christmas and Easter. The rest of the time, it doesn't really matter.
RELIGIOUS DOCTOR
Where's the fun in that? A finite, un-mysterious universe?
67
HOUSE
It's not about fun. It's about the truth.
Here, House makes a very important atheistic point: in arguing about the nature and meaning
of existence, it doesn't matter what is more “fun,” or convenient, or comforting. What matters
is the truth, or that which is most likely to be the truth.
Now, having established that that the well-spoken title character of House is, in fact, an
atheist, let us take a closer look at his personality.
As with Six Feet Under's Brenda Chenowith, an official online “Character Bio” of Dr.
Gregory House says a lot – if not everything relevant – about the man:
Dr. Gregory House is the world-renowned chief of Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching
Hospital's diagnostic department. He is brilliant at solving medical mysteries but
unconcerned with social niceties. Rarely speaking to patients, he's misanthropic
and apt to disregard any rules he deems unreasonable.
A leg infarction he suffered years ago has left him walking with a cane and in
chronic pain, which he managed to by abusing Vicodin. Though he knew he was
addicted to the drug, he felt he didn't need treatment to get sober. But his drug use,
coupled with a string of deaths, contributed to his experiencing a psychotic break.
He was forced to detox and begin therapy in a psychiatric hospital.
He and colleague Dr. James Wilson are close friends, though House’s behavior has
frequently strained that friendship. 153
Again, a “Character Bio” like the one above does not do justice to Dr. House's entire sevenseason-long story, but it does map out a lot of his prominent characteristics: he doesn't care for
“social niceties” and hospital regulations, he rarely speaks to patients, he's misanthropic, he's
disabled, he's a (former) drug-addict, he's under psychiatric treatment, and all of the above has
a bad influence on his relationship with his best friend. Furthermore, as Time magazine's
James Poniewozik points out, when he does converse with his patients, House “insults them,
talks down to them and forgets their names.” 154 In his review of House, Poniewozik recites the
November 30, 2004 episode “Occam's Razor”, in which a patient asks House, “How can you
treat someone without meeting them?” The misanthrope doctor responds: “It's easy if you
don't give a crap about them.” Poniewozik rightly describes House as “the opposite of what a
TV doctor is supposed to be,” and calls him “arrogant,” and a “jerk” who “pops Vicodin like
Tic Tacs.” 155 In short, while he may be a medical genius, Dr. House has got several character
153
The FOX Broadcasting Company: House M.D. ‘Character Bio: Dr. Gregory House.’
<http://www.fox.com/house/bios/hugh-laurie.htm#type:character>
154
Poniewozik, James. ‘Television: Scorn Is the Best Medicine.’ Time. November 22, 2004.
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995688,00.html>
155
ibid
68
traits that are quite unpleasant, or, simply put, negative. He is also an atheist. A socially and
morally unconventional lead character may make for highly enjoyable, refreshing television,
but once more, it is the unconventional character who is the series outspoken atheist.
5.3.3 Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory
CBS’s sitcom The Big Bang Theory premiered on September 24, 2007. The Pasadena,
California-set comedy series centers on the everyday lives of five main characters: genius
physicists and roommates Sheldon Cooper (portrayed by Jim Parsons) and Leonard Hofstadter
(Johnny Galecki), their friends Howard Wolowitz (Simon Helberg) and Rajesh Koothrappali
(Kunal Nayyar), and Penny (Kaley Cuoco), Sheldon and Leonard’s attractive next door
neighbor. The four young men are all highly intelligent scientists – Sheldon’s IQ is 187;
Leonard’s is 173 – but they are also extremely geeky and, moreover, lacking in social skills.
Most of the series’ humor results from the geeks’ intellect and social ineptness clashing with
Penny’s common sense and outgoing personality.
Drawing an average of 11.5 million U.S. viewers per season, The Big Bang Theory was
the nation’s twelfth most-watched series in the 2009-2010 television season. 156 A year later, it
ranked thirteenth. 157 A ratings success, the series has won several prizes, including an Emmy
Award and a Golden Globe, both awarded to lead actor Jim Parsons for his role as Sheldon
Cooper. Concluding its fourth season on May 19, 2011, The Big Bang Theory has been
ordered by CBS to continue until at least 2014.
While raised a Christian, the adult Sheldon Cooper doesn’t seem to adhere to any
religion. Throughout the (as of June 2011) four seasons of The Big Bang Theory, the character
makes several statements that lead us to assume this.
In the September 21, 2009 episode “The Electric Can Opener Fluctuation”, a
disgruntled Sheldon moves back to his East Texas hometown after a disagreement with his
three best friends – Leonard, Howard and Rajesh. Back in Texas, Sheldon stays with his
mother, Mary (Laurie Metcalf), who, unlike her son, is still a devout Christian. For the bright,
scientific-minded Sheldon, living with his religious mother is no easy task. One evening, when
Sheldon starts eating his dinner without having prayed first, mother and son have an argument:
156
Andreeva, Nellie. ‘Full Series Rankings for the 2009-10 Broadcast Season.’ Deadline. May 27, 2010.
<http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/full-series-rankings-for-the-2009-10-broadcast-season/>
157
Andreeva, Nellie. ‘Full 2010-2011 TV Season Series Rankings.’ Deadline. May 27, 2011.
<http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/full-2010-11-season-series-rankers/>
69
MARY
Hold your horses, young man. Here in Texas, we pray before we eat.
SHELDON
Oh, Mom..!
MARY
This is not California, Land of the Heathen.
She takes her son’s hand in hers, and they say grace together. A reluctant Sheldon sighs his way
through the prayer.
MARY
Amen. Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
SHELDON
My objection was based on considerations other than difficulty.
MARY
Whatever. Jesus still loves you.
Later, when Leonard, Howard and Rajesh arrive at Mary’s house to apologize to Sheldon, the
following conversation takes place.
LEONARD
We came to apologize. And bring you home. So why don’t you pack up
your stuff, and we’ll head back?
SHELDON
No. This is my home now. Thanks to you, my career is over, and I will
spend the rest of my life here in Texas, trying to teach evolution to creationists.
MARY
You watch your mouth, Sheldon. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion…
SHELDON
Evolution isn’t an opinion. It’s fact.
MARY
And that is your opinion!
Sheldon angrily stares at Mary. Then, after a few seconds, he turns to his friends.
SHELDON
I forgive you. Let’s go home.
Also, in the April 12, 2010 episode “The Wheaton Recurrence”, the four friends and Penny go
bowling. After he throws a strike, Sheldon exclaims, “Thank You, Jesus!” His friends are
visibly surprised by this sudden statement, and Sheldon is quick to add, “As my mother would
say.”
70
Although Sheldon never explicitly states he is an atheist, or that he doesn’t believe in
God, I think the scenes above are a good indication of the character’s views on religious
matters. His initial unwillingness to pray says a lot, as does his profound reluctance when he
does say grace with his mother. Sheldon’s remark, “My objection was based on considerations
other than difficulty,” hints at a reasoned resentment of religious faith. His short-lived idea to
stay in Texas “to teach evolution to creationists,” and his statement, “Evolution isn’t an
opinion. It’s fact,” are evidence of Sheldon being a strong supporter of the theory of evolution
– as opposed to religious stories of creation and design. Sheldon hastily fixing his bowling
alley slip-of-the-tongue – arguably a nasty leftover of his Christian upbringing – reveals his
need to make crystal clear that for him, a ‘religious’ exclamation like “Thank You, Jesus!”
does not hold any truth.
Even without examining scenes from The Big Bang Theory we can try to say
something about Sheldon Cooper’s religiosity. Let us consider the fact that he is a professional
scientist – a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology. In today’s polemics
about the validity of religion, science and religious faith are often made polar opposites –
South Park’s “Go God Go” two-piece is a perfect example of this – and it seems belief in God
is uncommon within the American scientific community, indeed. A May 2007 survey revealed
62.2% of American academic scientists to be either atheist (31.2%) or agnostic (31%), which
indicates that the majority of U.S. scientists does not believe in God. 158 The remaining mere
37,8% confessed to belief in a higher power. Interestingly, the same survey showed that of all
scientists, those working within the field of physics are amongst the most likely to be
nonbelievers. Among physicists, a majority of 70,2% are either atheist (40.8%) or agnostic
(29.4%). Only amongst biologists these percentages are (slightly) higher. 159 Thus, within the
American scientific community, one is most likely to find atheists in biology and physics.
The Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper is a professional physicist. Combining the
statistics above with Sheldon’s objections to matters of religion, I think it is reasonable to
assume that he is an atheist.
Now, once more, let us examine this atheist character. Sheldon Lee Cooper is a highly
intelligent young man. The proud possessor of both Ph.D and Sc.D degrees, he works as a
theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. However, as I
158
Ecklund, Elaine Howard, Christopher P. Scheitle. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions,
Disciplines, and Demographics.’ In Social Problems, Vol. 54, No. 2 (May 2007), pp. 289-307.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4488208>
71
mentioned earlier, while he is an intellectual genius, Sheldon is severely lacking in social
skills. Seemingly incapable of grasping sarcasm and humor, he lacks empathy, and has great
difficulty with even the simplest conversation. Sheldon adheres to a strict day-to-day routine,
from which he doesn't ever divert. For instance, he uses the bathroom on a specific time every
morning, and he does his laundry every Saturday at 8:15 P.M. Sheldon is also a stereotypical
‘geek’, obsessed with comic books, video games, and the science fiction genre. 160
Sheldon’s severe social inadequacy, his rigid everyday routine, and his intense interest
in scientific matters have led fans and reviewers of The Bang Theory to suggest that the
character suffers from Asperger's syndrome. 161 While the series' creators – Chuck Lorre and
Bill Prady – have denied that this is the case, Sheldon's behavior seems to be the result of
some form of autism, indeed. In fact, actor Jim Parsons has said that he thinks his character
“couldn't display more facets of it.” 162
As with Glee's atheist character, Kurt Hummel, and his homosexuality, there is, of
course, nothing morally wrong with Sheldon Cooper's distorted social behavior. It does,
however, make him stand out from the crowd. Like Glee's Kurt Hummel, House's Dr. Gregory
House and Six Feet Under's Brenda Chenowith, Sheldon is a remarkable person whose
defining characteristics are uncommon and – since he acts as if he has got a mental disorder –
arguably undesirable. Sheldon is exceptional, even without his atheism. Although Sheldon's
religious friends – Howard is Jewish, Rajesh is a Hindu – are just as geeky, educated, and
socially eccentric as him, the fact remains that The Big Bang Theory's atheist character is a
highly intelligent and seemingly autistic scientist. One could argue that, this way, the series
almost makes it appear as if only people with such uncommon and extraordinary
characteristics as Sheldon’s can be atheists.
5.3.4 Dr. Perry Cox from Scrubs
ABC’s hospital-set sitcom Scrubs premiered on October 2, 2001. Created by Bill Lawrence,
the series revolves around the everyday lives of a number of employees of the fictional Sacred
159
Ecklund, Elaine Howard, Christopher P. Scheitle. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions,
Disciplines, and Demographics.’ In Social Problems, Vol. 54, No. 2 (May 2007), pp. 289-307.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4488208>
160
Funnily, in the December 9, 2010 episode “The Alien Parasite Hypothesis”, Sheldon’s love for Star Trek
mirrors religious devotion, as he refers to the science fiction franchise as “a force greater than” himself.
161
Keller, Joel. 'Does Big Bang's Sheldon Have Asperger's Syndrome?' AOL TV. February 9, 2009.
<http://www.aoltv.com/2009/02/09/does-big-bangs-sheldon-have-aspergers-syndrome/>
162
Collins, Paul. 'Must-Geek TV: Is the World Ready for an Asperger's Sitcom?' Slate. February 6, 2009.
<http://www.slate.com/id/2210635/>
72
Heart teaching hospital in California. Actor Zach Braff portrays John “JD” Dorian, a head-inthe-clouds, thirtysomething doctor working at the hospital, who is the series' main character.
Other principal characters include Dr. Elliott Reed (portrayed by Sarah Chalke), Chief
Surgeon Christopher Turk (Donald Faison), Chief of Medicine Bob Kelso (Ken Jenkins), Head
Nurse Carla Espinosa (Judy Reyes), and Dr. Perry Cox (John C. McGinley). Until it was
canceled by the ABC network in May 2010, Scrubs ran for nine seasons, drawing an average
of 8.1 million American viewers per season. The comedy series has won two Emmy Awards
and a Peabody Award.
It is in the Scrubs character of Dr. Perry Cox that we may recognize an atheist. Once
more, while the character never explicitly states he is an atheist, there are several scenes from
the series that may lead us to assume he is, in fact, a skeptic, science-loving nonbeliever. Let
us have a look at these specific scenes.
In the January 17, 2006 episode “My New God”, Dr. Cox has the following
conversation with his wife, Jordan (Christina Miller Lawrence), in which he likens a baptism
service in church to a magic show.
DR. COX
Remind me again why you're having our son baptized.
JORDAN
Oh, what do you care? You're not even going.
DR. COX
Fine, let him go to church. I mean, I let him go to magic shows. I'll just tell him it's
all a lie when he gets home, so he doesn't have any of those crazy nightmares.
Shortly after, much to his disliking, Cox learns that Jordan has invited his sister, Paige, to the
baptism service. Paige is a born-again Christian (“I embrace the Lord Jesus Christ as my
personal savior.”), and Cox makes no effort to hide his cynical views on her religious beliefs.
JOHN “JD” DORIAN
How did you end up with a born-again Christian sister?
DR. COX
I don’t know. Maybe the TV was broken one day, so she picked up the Bible
instead, and found it to be just a darn good read. Or maybe it had something to do
with her mother's ability to watch in silently as her dad drunkenly knocked us from
room to room.
Later, when Cox witnesses Paige talk to a dying patient, brother and sister have the following
conversation:
73
DR. COX
I wish I had better news for you. Unfortunately, we're not seeing the
improvement we'd hoped for with his medication
PATIENT'S WIFE
What are our options?
Paige enters the room.
PAIGE
There's always prayer. You know, with God by your side, anything is possible.
DR. COX
Could I see you in the Stop-Filling-My-Patient's-Head-with-False-Hope ward?
Dr. Cox and Paige leave the room.
DR. COX
Paige, we have protocol here. First, we shake our Magic 8-Ball, then we explore
all witchcraft-related options.
PAIGE
Oh, right, because people who believe in God are crazy. And you're the sane one.
Jerk.
DR. COX
Republican.
Later still, when Paige, Cox, and his little boy Jack are getting to ready to leave for the
baptism, the religion debate continues.
PAIGE
Thank God for creating medicine.
DR. COX
Eh! That's it! That is it!
He walks over and picks up young Jack.
DR. COX
Now, you – you may be a total goner. But God's not getting his hands on this one!
No way! No how! Come on, Jack. We've got places to go.
Cox comes around in the end. He returns Jack on time for his baptism, and confesses he
doesn't dislike his sister because of her religious faith, but because she reminds him of their
difficult childhood. The fact remains, however, that Scrubs does have the character express the
anti-religious sentiments quoted above. Cox makes clear that Paige’s pious religiosity isn’t the
sole reason he doesn’t like her, but that does not mean he doesn’t oppose religion. Cox
referring to a devout Christian as “a total goner,” and to prayer as “witchcraft,” is arguably still
a very good indication of the character’s contempt of religious beliefs and practices.
74
Throughout the March 22, 2007 episode “My No Good Reason”, Dr. Cox discusses the
notion of a divine plan with passionately Christian nurse Laverne (Aloma Wright). In the first
of several short conversations, Laverne attempts to comfort a stressed-out Cox by telling him
about Jesus.
DR. COX
Now, if you look to your right, you'll see my waning libido, my crushed soul, and
my very last nerve, which I would advise you not to get on, under, or even close
to.
LAVERNE
Does it help to know that Jesus loves you?
DR. COX
It does not.
LAVERNE
Well, everything happens for a reason.
DR. COX
Are you really trying to tell me that things like New Orleans, AIDS, sugar-free ice
cream, crack babies, Hugh Jackman and cancer all happen for a reason? Because
I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that.
LAVERNE
“God works all things for good.” Romans 8:28.
DR. COX
“Bulldinky.” Perry Cox. Six-one. A buck eighty-five after lunch.
Later, their argument continues.
DR. COX
There is no rhyme or reason to anything. Why can’t you just get that?
LAVERNE
Why is it so important that everyone believes what you do?
DR. COX
Because I’m right, and I’m the only one with any proof.
LAVERNE
You don’t need proof when the good Lord fills your heart with faith.
DR. COX
Oh, my God!
LAVERNE
You can keep on huffing and puffing all you want, dear. You’re never
going to change the way I feel.
75
DR. COX
Oh, please! I am so angry right now!
When an eight-year-old girl, “stabbed by a guy in a grocery store,” is brought into the
hospital, Cox tells Laverne, “Why don't you go ahead and tell me what the reason is for this.”
Cox, determined to prove Laverne wrong, keeps asking her about the reason for the little girl
getting knifed. Eventually, Laverne finds an answer:
X-RAY SPECIALIST
There’s a tumor the size of a golf ball, right where the knife went in. If we hadn't
found this, she'd be a goner.
Dr. Cox doesn’t yield, but it turns out there is more to Laverne than just blind faith.
DR. COX
That was a coincidence!
LAVERNE
What?
DR. COX
That knife. It just happened to go in at the exact right spot. You do not get to win
for dumb luck!
LAVERNE
Look, if that's the way you choose to see the world, so be it. But don't you dare try
to take this away from me! I’ve been coming in here every day for twenty-four
years, watching children die, and seeing good people suffer. And if I couldn’t
believe there was a bigger plan behind all this, well, I just wouldn't be able to
show up tomorrow! So just stop it!
DR. COX
I’m sorry.
LAVERNE
It’s okay. You'd be surprised how many bad things happen around here for
a reason.
DR. COX
Well, I wish I could believe that.
Although, again, he softens his attitude in the end, these scenes from “My No Good Reason”
make it fair to assume that Scrubs’s Dr. Perry Cox is an atheist. His initial responses to
Laverne's faith-based statements reveal an anger and deep frustration about religion.
Furthermore, quite frequently, Cox mocks belief in God by talking to Him as if He actually
exists. For instance, in the February 7, 2006 episode “My Half-Acre”, he 'celebrates' winning
an argument by saying, “God? My brilliance is now becoming a bit of a burden. Get back to
me.” Later, in the same episode, when an elevator arrives at his floor at the exact moment he
76
desires it (“God? Elevator!”), a grinning Cox exclaims, “He's got my back. Even if I don't
technically believe in Him.”
Having established Scrubs's Dr. Perry Cox is most likely to be an atheist, let us further
examine the character's personality.
Being one of the oldest doctors working at Sacred Heart hospital, forty-to-fifty-yearold Dr. Cox is something of an authoritative figure to Scrubs's twenty-to-thirtysomething
central characters JD, Elliott, Turk and Carla. Both loved and hated by the hospital staff, Cox
is a mentoring father-figure to his younger colleagues.
He has an elaborate opinion about everyone and everything, which he expresses in
frequent, lengthy, and vicious rants. Almost every regular Scrubs character has been verbally
attacked by Cox, and just about everything he says is laden with razor-sharp sarcasm,
bitterness, and cruel wit. For dramatic effect, Cox is often revealed to be kindhearted in the
end, but most of the time, he is humorously but relentlessly mean and condescending to his
environment. To illustrate this, here is one of Dr. Cox's unforgiving speeches, this one being
delivered in the April 10, 2003 episode “My Drama Queen”, to an obese patient who, despite
Cox's orders, failed to lose any weight.
Let me ask you a quick question. Are you trying to make my head explode?
Because you have no idea just how frustrating it is, working your ass off, trying to
inflate a tiny little balloon inside somebody's clogged artery, when all that person
has to do, really, is – oh, I don't know – go for a walk in the morning, or choke
down a fresh green salad. And you come back here looking like that? And I know,
here, I'm supposed to be Dr. Give-a-Crap, but you want to know the God's honest
truth – and this is a fact: you are what you eat, and you clearly went out and
devoured a big fat guy, didn't you?
In addition to his frequent unkindness, Cox is egotistically proud of his own intellectual and
medical capabilities, often applauding himself when he turns out to be right about something,
making sure nobody fails to notice his superiority. Also, he is often seen consuming whiskey,
with episodes like 2001’s “My Mentor” suggesting that he has an actual drinking problem.
Unsurprisingly, Dr. Cox has been compared to House’s Dr. Gregory House. Funnily,
this has been done by Scrubs itself, with Chief of Medicine Bob Kelso telling Cox, at one
point, “Oh Perry, you are so edgy and cantankerous; like House without the limp.” The
January 4, 2007 episode “My House” was a full-on parody of House, in which Cox develops a
limp like Dr. House’s, and ends up brilliantly solving all of the episode’s medical mysteries.
Cox and House’s personalities are alike, indeed. Both are, if you will, grumpy, know-it-all
misanthropes who make little effort to hide their feelings of superiority. Or, as the American
77
Humanist Association’s Erin Williamson puts it, “Both Cox and House are sardonic,
condescending addicts (alcohol for Cox, painkillers for House) that belittle their employees
and ridicule God-fearing patients, relatives, and coworkers.” 163 As with Dr. House, the harsh
Dr. Cox may make for refreshing, admittedly funny television, but, once again, the atheist
character in a major American television series is notable for his – in essence – unpleasant
characteristics.
5.4.5 Dexter Morgan from Dexter
The fifth and final character I wish to examine is Dexter Morgan, the antihero of the crime
thriller series Dexter. I believe, however, relatively few words are necessary to make clear
why this atheist character supports my argument: he is a psychopathic serial killer.
Based upon the 2004 novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter (and its sequels) by American
author Jeff Lindsay, Dexter premiered on the premium cable television channel Showtime on
October 1, 2006. The well-received series has won three Emmy Awards, two Golden Globes,
and a Peabody Award. By the time Dexter reached its fifth season, the series drew an average
five million U.S. viewers per week – a Showtime highpoint. 164 The sixth season of Dexter is
set to premiere in October 2011.
Dexter centers on the titular main character, who is a forensic bloodstain pattern
analyst working for the Miami Police Department. Dexter (portrayed by Six Feet Under actor
Michael C. Hall) is a hardworking crime scene investigator during the day, but he spends his
spare time doing something rather unusual: at night, Dexter hunts down and murders
criminals. Although he ‘only’ kills criminals that have ‘escaped justice’ – people, in other
words, who ‘deserve to die’ – Dexter is, quite simply, a serial killer.
Dexter’s modus operandi includes kidnapping his victims to a prepared ‘kill site’,
where he takes his time to confront them with their crimes. Then, after sporadically torturing
them, Dexter kills his victims, using a variety of weapons, ranging from a machete to a dinner
knife or a chainsaw. The ongoing narrative of Dexter revolves around its psychopathic
protagonist’s struggles to combine his murderous habits with being a family man, a successful
forensic professional, and avoiding getting caught by the police.
163
Williamson, Erin. ‘”Angry Atheists” in Pop Culture.’ Humanist Network News. January 2011.
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-01-angry-atheists-in-pop-culture>
164
Andreeva, Nellie. ‘Dexter Finale Ratings on Par with Last Year.’ Deadline. December 13, 2010.
<http://www.deadline.com/2010/12/dexter-finale-ratings-on-par-with-last-year/>
78
Dexter Morgan doesn’t believe in God. Throughout the series, the character makes a
number of remarks that make this quite clear. Most of them come to us through a voice-over,
in which Dexter reveals his inner thoughts. For instance, in the November 8, 2006 episode
“Crocodile”, Dexter ‘thinks’ the following: “If God is in the details, and if I believed in God,
then He’s in this room with me.” Another example can be found in the October 7, 2007
episode “Waiting to Exhale”, in which Dexter walks into a church, and tells us, “If I believed
in God – if I believed in sin – this is the place where I’d be sucked straight to Hell… If I
believed in Hell.” Clearly, then, Dexter does not believe in God, sin, or Hell. The character’s
dismissal of these three core religious concepts may well lead us to assume Dexter is, in fact,
an atheist – or at least he has, as Hemant Mehta of the website Friendly Atheist puts it, a
sincere “distaste of religion.” 165
Furthermore, Dexter seems to suggest its main character’s unbelief is an aspect of his
‘unbridled’ personality. Just as Dexter-the-serial-killer is autonomously detached from the law
and, more importantly, morality, he is also free from the guiding restraints of religion. To
illustrate this thought, theologian Arni Zachariassen of the website I Think I Believe states,
“Dexter’s atheism is part of his psychopathic nature: he doesn’t feel any emotion, neither
towards people nor God.” 166 In this reading, Dexter is an atheist because he is a psychopath.
Being a psychopath has caused Dexter to become an atheist, which, in turn, makes him reject
any form of religious morality – which might be a cause of his unchecked behavior. Thus, one
could boldly argue, in the world of Dexter, only an atheist who ignores any notion of God, sin,
or Hell is capable of the brutally violent, meticulous and compulsive crimes that Dexter
Morgan so often commits. We could also turn this argument around: in Dexter, only a
psychopath can be an atheist. While fiction about (violent) vigilantism often offers fascinating
food for thought, it is needless to say a murderous psychopath is not a favorable or truthful
representative of (American) atheists.
5.5 Evaluation
Now, if we are to have one last look at the portrayals of atheists that have been examined in
this chapter, several things come to our attention. First, it is interesting to see that Family Guy
and Glee use ‘coming out of the atheist closet’ in the atheism-themed narrative. Like Family
165
Mehta, Hemant. ‘Dexter vs. a Religious Killer.’ Friendly Atheist. July 22, 2011.
<http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/22/dexter-vs-a-religious-killer/>
166
Zachariassen, Arni. ‘Atheists on TV.’ I Think I Believe. September 10, 2010.
<http://www.arnizachariassen.com/ithinkibelieve/?p=1199>
79
Guy’s Brian Griffin’s, Kurt Hummel’s professed atheism comes as a shock to his peers. The
very first response to Kurt’s statement, “I don't believe in God,” is an incredulous, “Wait –
what?” This says a great deal about the community Kurt inhabits, namely Glee’s fictional
William McKinley High School in Lima, Ohio. There, just like in Family Guy’s Quahog, not
believing in God – and making reasoned arguments against religion – is an oddity. And like
Brian Griffin making his atheism public, Kurt’s doing so also evokes a homosexual’s comingout-of-the-closet. It seems that Kurt, who actually ‘came out’ as a homosexual in one of the
first episodes of Glee, experiences a second coming-out in “Grilled Cheesus”: from ‘closeted’
atheist to ‘out’ atheist. However, contrary to what befalls Brian Griffin after his ‘coming-out’,
Kurt the atheist isn’t treated harshly by his environment. Instead of anger, disgust, and fear,
Kurt’s schoolmates mostly seem to express a certain degree of sadness about him not having
faith. Having observed the New Atheists encourage nonbelievers to come out and assert
themselves, it is certainly intriguing to come across this theme in television fiction.
Second, there seems to exist a stereotypical ‘angry atheist’. The atheist characters in
South Park, Glee, House, and Scrubs are all rather mean, snarky individuals who angrily
express their anti-religious opinions. On this topic, Erin Williamson of the American Humanist
Association rightly makes the following observation:
Storytelling, since the dawn of civilization, has followed distinct patterns that
anthropologists today can identify. Like any dutiful liberal arts major in college, I
learned about “the hero,” “the wise man,” “the journey,” “the villain,” and other
characteristics that structure stories, myths, legends, and literature. In today’s
world, plot lines, stock characters, the battle of good vs. evil, and personal growth
are all thematic mainstays in the realm of what we call pop culture. While we still
relate to heroes, villains, fools, and sidekicks, the 21st century stock characters
often include “the dumb blonde,” “the sexy doctor,” “the mysterious Russian spy,”
and “the underappreciated guy who is secretly very good looking and gets the girl
at the end,” to name a few. However, with the religious climate in the country
today, one of the more interesting stock characters in pop culture is “the angry
atheist.” Who are these “angry atheists?” Generally, they are cantankerous, middle
aged men or women of science, who have a few bones to pick with religious
people. They are often aggressive in mocking religion, beliefs, and faith. Two
examples I can think of from my own television watching are Dr. Gregory House
(House) and Dr. Perry Cox (Scrubs). 167
Indeed, House and Cox qualify as angry atheists. They both make little effort to hide their
contempt of religion, and are known to scold the religious people they encounter. However,
House and Cox aren’t they only characters we could label angry atheists. The atheist factions
167
Williamson, Erin. ‘”Angry Atheists” in Pop Culture.’ Humanist Network News. January 2011.
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-01-angry-atheists-in-pop-culture>
80
in South Park do as their ‘great leader’ Richard Dawkins once taught them: “you have to be a
dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you.” Also, Kurt Hummel from Glee is a rather kind
young man, but when it comes to discussing God, he doesn’t think twice about calling his
religious schoolmates “mental patients.”
Third, knowing FOX is the home of Bill O’Reilly and his devoutly Christian, antiatheist beliefs, it is interesting to see FOX also broadcasts Family Guy, Glee, and House –
series that, as we have observed, contain outspoken atheist characters. If we, for argument’s
sake, simply assume FOX is anti-atheist, why does it ‘allow’ such explicit atheism in three of
its most prominent programs? How can we explain this apparent inconsistency in FOX’s
ideology? Perhaps the Gramscian notion of hegemony could be helpful in answering these
questions. Although envisioned in pre-television times, Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s
(1891-1937) idea of hegemony suggests that the dominant cultural ideology in society will
allow the expression of minority thought to reinforce its own dominance. 168 In present-day
America, the dominant cultural ideology is arguably Judeo-Christian philosophy, and atheism
certainly qualifies as minority thought. However, future research should explore this idea
further.
There could also be other explanations for some of FOX’s standout characters being
nonbelievers. If we stick to the assumption that FOX seeks to express an anti-atheist
sentiment, it makes sense that the channel ‘allows’ its hit series Family Guy, Glee, and House
to contain atheists that – as we have seen – are such peculiar and/or flawed individuals. Maybe
FOX is unafraid to depict fictional atheists because it gives the channel the opportunity to
show to its core audience just how strange a person ‘the atheist’ is. We could also turn this
argument around: FOX portrays atheists as being odd, flawed persons, because the channel
wants to confirm its regular audience’s existing unfavorable opinions and perceptions of
atheists. These are interesting speculations, but they, too, should be further examined in future
research.
Fourth, having established that Bill Maher – an outspoken, ardent nonbeliever – is
arguably the chief representative of Home Box Office, it is quite surprising that Six Feet
Under’s atheist character is such a flawed person: Brenda Chenowith is a sarcastic, disturbed,
bitchy, miserable, adulterous sex-addict. From HBO, the channel that also airs the strongly
anti-religious Bill Maher’s talk show Real Time with Bill Maher, one might have expected a
more favorable atheist character.
168
Hermes, Joke; Maarten Reesink. Inleiding Televisiestudies. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom, 2004. p.49
81
Fifth, I think we can recognize CNN’s moderate views in South Park’s middle ground
attitude towards atheism and religion. Of course, South Park employs a far cruder ‘rhetoric’, if
you will, than CNN’s Paula Zahn Now, but in essence, both programs seem to advocate a
similar opinion of (Richard Dawkins’) outspoken atheism. CNN emphasizes the possibility of
aggressive atheism intimidating, or offending religious believers, and South Park, in a way,
does the same. South Park, while also ridiculing religious fundamentalism, suggests that being
an atheist means being “a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you.” Naturally, the
animated sitcom phrases it more colorfully than the CNN show does, but I think both
programs express a similar moderate view on the clash between atheism and religion.
Now, let me describe each examined fictional atheist in one word or short sentence:
•
Brian Griffin from Family Guy: a talking dog;
•
Richard Dawkins in South Park: an intolerant, sexually exuberant, evil mastermind;
•
The Allied Atheist Alliance from South Park: intolerant, talking sea-otters;
•
Kurt Hummel from Glee: a snarky, stereotypically flamboyant homosexual;
•
Sue Sylvester from Glee: a mean-spirited, unconventionally asexual woman;
•
Brenda Chenowith from Six Feet Under: a sarcastic, disturbed, bitchy, miserable,
adulterous sex-addict;
•
Dr. Gregory House from House: an arrogant, misanthropic, know-it-all drug-addict;
•
Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory: a seemingly autistic, stereotypical geek;
•
Dr. Perry Cox from Scrubs: a grumpy, know-it-all misanthrope, and possible alcoholic;
•
Dexter Morgan from Dexter: a violent, psychopathic, serial-killing vigilante;
Needless to say, characters like the ones above are hardly representative of the majority of
actual (American) atheists. Furthermore, it seems fair to say that such negative representations
of nonbelievers in American popular culture do not help to end stigmatized views on atheists
and atheism. This thesis, however, is not really the place to make such speculations. Instead,
future research must examine the actual effects of unfavorable portrayals of atheists.
Atheists, then, are misrepresented in American television fiction. While I think the list
above offers sufficient explanation of this point, there is actual scientific evidence that
nonbelievers are not as bad or strange as the eight television series I have discussed suggest. In
fact, as Pitzer College’s Phil Zuckerman puts it, “a growing body of social science research
[that] reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory
82
beings many assume them to be.” 169 Zuckerman points to a number of studies that prove the
following:
On basic questions of morality and human decency – issues such as governmental
use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism,
homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights – the
irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared
with those who describe themselves as very religious. (…) [In the United States,]
those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and
Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states
such as Vermont and Oregon. As individuals, atheists tend to score high on
measures or intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. (…) They
are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less
likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. They value freedom of thought. 170
Why, then, are atheists so unjustly misrepresented in American television fiction? Erin
Williamson of the American Humanist Association asks herself the same question, and offers a
possible answer:
Why are these pioneering atheists of pop culture so crotchety, then? Why can’t
their personalities be a little more representative of the diversity of Americans who
are atheists? My guess is that these characters reflect the common (and arguably
false) perception of atheist leaders such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher
Hitchens, and Sam Harris. Some argue that these leaders can be aggressive and
condescending to those who hold religious beliefs, and certainly there’s a place in
our society for such strong criticism of religion. 171
This is a rather unfortunate, but not very improbable explanation. Indeed, in the eyes of
religious America, the passionate New Atheists are likely to be unwelcome troublemakers.
However, as Williamson understands as well, “although [the prominent New Atheists] may be
the most publicly recognized atheist figures, the spectrum of nontheists ranges from the
apathetic to the militant.” 172 Indeed, perhaps the fiery rhetoric of Richard Dawkins and his
fellow New Atheists are a cause of the misrepresentation of American nonbelievers, but that
does not justify said misrepresentation.
“Pop culture,” Erin Williamson writes, “often attempts to reflect common perceptions
about society.” 173 If this is true, American pop culture has some gross misperceptions of
169
Paul, Gregory; Phil Zuckerman. ‘Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?’ The Washington Post. February
18, 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislikeatheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html>
170
Paul, Gregory; Phil Zuckerman. ‘Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?’ The Washington Post. February
18, 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislikeatheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html>
171
Williamson, Erin. ‘”Angry Atheists” in Pop Culture.’ Humanist Network News. January 2011.
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-01-angry-atheists-in-pop-culture>
172
ibid
173
ibid
83
atheists. University of Minnesota scholars Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas
Hartmann state, “We believe that attitudes towards atheists tell us more about American
society and culture than about atheists themselves.” 174 I think this is very true. As we have
seen, the United States is a predominantly Christian nation. Assuming mainstream American
popular culture to be a ‘product’ of that nation’s dominant Judeo-Christian ideology, it is fairly
logical that American pop culture portrays atheists in such negative ways. After all, in
orthodox Christian thought, the unbeliever is the lesser man.
174
Edgell, Penny; Joseph Gerteis, Douglas Hartmann. ‘Atheists as “Other”: Moral Boundaries and Cultural
Membership in American Society.’ In American Sociological Review, Volume 71, Issue 2.
<http://www.soc.umn.edu/assets/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf>
84
Conclusion
At the dawn of the twentieth century, irreligious thought began seeping into European
consciousness. Rapid developments in industrialization, as well as a growing understanding of
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, heralded the imminent death of
religion. And indeed, throughout the century, European believers waned, and church
attendance dropped significantly. This is not to say religion actually died out in Europe – as of
2005, 79% of Europeans still believe there some sort of God, spirit, or life force – but the
number of European nonbelievers has increased substantially over the last hundred years or so.
In the United States of America, however, religion – Christianity in particular – is as
popular as ever. From 1947 until 2001, the percentage of Americans who believe in God never
went below 93%, and a 2011 Gallup poll revealed more than nine in ten Americans still say
‘Yes’ when asked the basic question ‘Do you believe in God?’
Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States: between 76% and 78.5% of
Americans self-identify as Christians. The United States, then, has long been a particularly
Christian nation, where the Christian faith is practiced in a great variety of ways – some of
which, such as Mormonism, are distinctly American.
Within the highly religious United States, nonbelievers form a minority group. A mere
15 to 16.1% of Americans does not adhere to any kind of religion, with a staggering 0.7 to
1.6% of Americans self-identifying as actual atheists.
Moreover, in America, there exists widespread social stigma surrounding atheists and
atheism. There is ample statistical evidence – as well as many anecdotal examples – of atheists
being the nation’s most distrusted minority. As a result, asserting oneself as a nonbeliever has
become a rather stressful endeavor. In fact, the term ‘coming out of the closet’ – usually
associated with a person revealing him- or herself to be homosexual – has gained common
usage in relation to sharing one’s unbelief with one’s peers.
Despite nonbelievers being a severe minority, the early 21st century saw the emergence
and popularization of an irreligious movement that has become known as New Atheism. Led
by a number of popular-academic authors and scientists, New Atheism actively advocates an
anti-religious outlook on life, based solely upon science and rational thought.
The central work of New Atheism is arguably The God Delusion, a 2006 best-selling
book by British evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins. In this book, Dawkins
offers several rational arguments against the existence of God, as well as the notion of atheist
85
pride. Being an atheist, Dawkins says, is nothing to be ashamed of, and he encourages people
to ‘come out of the atheist closet’.
Within the realm of American non-fiction television, the topic of atheism is handled in
three different ways. First, there is comedian and political satirist Bill Maher, whose talk show
Real Time with Bill Maher airs on Home Box Office. Maher is an outspoken nonbeliever, and
frequently expresses his anti-religious opinions. Consequently, Maher is an admirer of Richard
Dawkins. Second, voicing a neutral, moderate opinion of religion and atheism, there is CNN.
When Dawkins appeared on the CNN news program Paula Zahn Now in early 2007, the main
topic of conversation was whether Dawkins’ outspoken atheism would be intimidating to
religious people. While CNN’s Paula Zahn did not attack Dawkins, she did defend religion.
Third, there is FOX’s prominent anchorman Bill O’Reilly, a devout Christian who used a 2007
interview with Dawkins to express his outright anti-atheist views.
This thesis’ core chapter analyzed the portrayal of atheists in eight major American
television series: Family Guy (FOX, 1999-present), South Park (Comedy Central, 1997present), Glee (FOX, 2009-present), Six Feet Under (HBO, 2001-2005), House (FOX, 2004present), The Big Bang Theory (CBS, 2007-present), Scrubs (ABC, 2001-2010), and Dexter
(Showtime, 2006-present). As the content analysis revealed, the atheist characters in these
series are all, simply put, unusual individuals, including a talking dog, an adulterous sexaddict, a misanthropic drug-addict, an autistic geek, and a psychopathic serial killer. Needless
to say, ‘exotic’ characters like these are gross misrepresentations of the vast majority of
American nonbelievers.
Perhaps the most interesting additional observation made as a result of the content
analysis is that Family Guy, Glee, and House – series that contain outspoken atheist characters
– air on FOX. If we, for argument’s sake, simply assume FOX is anti-atheist, why does it
‘allow’ such explicit atheism in three of its most prominent programs? Since, as we have seen,
the atheists in Family Guy, Glee, and House are strange and/or flawed individuals, does FOX
use the characters to express an arguably anti-atheist ideology? Or does the channel portray
nonbelievers so unfavorably because it seeks to satisfy a religious, anti-atheist audience?
These are highly interesting questions, to which future research should provide more definitive
answers.
We have established that the contemporary United States is a highly religious –
particularly Christian – nation, in which atheists are a stigmatized minority group. As the
analysis of fictional atheists has revealed, this stigmatization can also be recognized in
American television fiction. Future work should investigate the actual effects of this
86
misrepresentation on the television audience’s perception of atheists, but for now, I hope to
have made clear that religious America’s dislike of nonbelievers is – albeit implicitly – present
in mainstream American television fiction. Let us hope this will soon change. Atheists, I
daresay, deserve more favorable fictional characters to represent them.
There is, of course, more at work here than just the portrayal of atheists in American
television fiction. The fictional atheists discussed in this thesis are relevant because of a
broader socio-cultural phenomenon: the struggles of secularity and atheism to really take root
in the United States. As we have seen, American irreligion still has long ways to go. As of
2011, more than nine in ten Americans continue to believe in God. Will American
nonbelievers grow in numbers any time soon? Will they ever get a taste of the religious
tolerance and acceptance that the faithful settlers enjoyed in colonial America? In the Christian
nation of the United States, in which those who are without faith are still the most distrusted
minority, it seems unlikely. If us atheists didn’t know better, we would pray for a miracle.
87
Complete Bibliography
The American Presidency Project. ‘38 – Remarks Recorded for the “Back-to-God” Program of
the American Legion. February 20, 1955.’ <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
ws/index.php?pid=10414>
Amundson, Stephen. ‘Separation of Church and State: How It Has Impacted Religious
Diversity.’ Indiana University: School of Public & Environmental Affairs, 2008.
<http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/honors_vol.2_no.12.pdf>
Andreeva, Nellie. ‘Full Series Rankings for the 2009-10 Broadcast Season.’ Deadline. May
27, 2010. <http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/full-series-rankings-for-the-2009-10broadcast-season/>
Andreeva, Nellie. ‘Full 2010-2011 TV Season Series Rankings.’ Deadline. May 27, 2011.
<http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/full-2010-11-season-series-rankers/>
Andreeva, Nellie. ‘Dexter Finale Ratings on Par with Last Year.’ Deadline. December 13,
2010. <http://www.deadline.com/2010/12/dexter-finale-ratings-on-par-with-last-year/>
Angier, Natalie. ‘Confessions of a Lonely Atheist.’ The New York Times. January 14, 2001.
<http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html>
Ariens, Chris. ‘Q3 Cable Ratings: FNC Shows Fill Top 10; #3 Network on Cable; Beck Grows
Timeslot 136%.’ TVNewser. September 29, 2009. <http://www.mediabistro.com/
tvnewser/q3-cable-ratings-fnc-shows-fill-top-10-3-network-on-cable-beck-growstimeslot-136_b27054?c=rss>
Beckford, Martin. ‘Atheist Buses Denying God’s Existence Take to Streets.’ The Telegraph.
January 6, 2009. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/’
howaboutthat/4141765/Atheist-buses-denying-Gods-existence-take-to-streets.html>
BibleGateway.com. The New American Standard Bible: ‘Psalm 14.’
<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2014&version=NASB>
Black, Jay. ‘Was Last Night’s Family Guy the First-Ever Endorsement of Atheism on
Mainstream TV?’ TV Squad. March 30, 2009. <http://www.tvsquad.com/
2009/03/30/was-last-nights-family-guy-the-first-ever- endorsement-of-atheis/>
Blake, Heidi. ‘Richard Dawkins in Bitter Web Censorship Row with Fellow Atheists.’ The
Telegraph. February 26, 2010. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/
7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html>
Brown, Lori Lipman. ‘Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) Is First Congress Member in History to
Acknowledge His Nontheism.’ Secular Coalition for America. March 12, 2007.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20070928021401/http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark
_070312.html>
Bruce, Steve. God Is Dead: Secularization of the West. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell, 2002.
Bush, George. Decision Points. London, England: Virgin Books, 2010.
Chidester, David. Christianity: A Global History. London, England: Penguin Books, 2000.
Collins, Paul. ‘Must-Geek TV: Is the World Ready for an Asperger’s Sitcom?’ Slate. February
6, 2009. <http://www.slate.com/id/2210635/>
88
Constitution of the State of Arkansas of 1874. Article 19: Miscellaneous Provisions. Section 1:
Atheists Disqualified from Holding Office or Testifying as Witness.
<http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/Summary/ArkansasConstitution1874.pdf>
Constitution of the State of Tennessee. Article IX: Disqualifications. Section 2.
<http://www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/05-06/46-tnconst.pdf>
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London, England: Transworld Publishers, 2006.
Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.
London, England: Penguin Books, 2007.
Ecklund, Elaine Howard, Christopher P. Scheitle. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists:
Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.’ In Social Problems, Vol. 54, No. 2 (May
2007), pp. 289-307. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4488208>
Edgell, Penny; Joseph Gerteis, Douglas Hartmann. ‘Atheists as “Other”: Moral Boundaries
and Cultural Membership in American Society.’ In American Sociological Review,
Volume 71, Issue 2. <http://www.soc.umn.edu/assets/pdf/atheistAsOther.pdf>
Ethics and Public Policy Center. ‘About EPPC.’ <http://www.eppc.org/about/>
European Commission. Special Eurobarometer: ‘Social Values, Science and Technology.’ June
2005. p.9 <http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf>
Fiala, Andrew. ‘Militant Atheism, Pragmatism, and the God-Shaped Hole.’ In International
Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 65, Issue 3, 2009.
<http://www.springerlink.com/content/qp43432050116373/>
Fidalgo, Paul. ‘Brian the Atheist Dog on Family Guy Hits Home for Demonized
Nonbelievers.’ Examiner.com, March 30, 2009. <http://www.examiner.com/secularismin-national/brian-the-atheist-dog-on- family-guy-hits-home-for-demonizednonbelievers>
The FOX Broadcasting Company: House M.D. ‘Character Bio: Dr. Gregory House.’
<http://www.fox.com/house/bios/hugh-laurie.htm#type:character>
Funrham, Adrian; Nicholas Meader, Alastair McClelland. ‘Factors Affecting Nonmedical
Participants’ Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources.’ In Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, Volume 13, Issue 4, 1998.
Gates, Gary J. 'How Many People Are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender?' April 2011.
<http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/How-many-people-are-LGBTFinal.pdf>
Gerstein, Josh. ‘California Lawmaker Becomes Highest-Ranking Official to Say He’s a
Nonbeliever.’ The New York Sun. March 13, 2007. <http://www.nysun.com/
national/california-lawmaker-becomes-highest-ranking/50312/>
Gordon, Dennis. ‘Richard Dawkins and the God Controversy.’ In Stimulus, Volume 16, Issue
2, May 2008. <http://www.stimulus.org.nz/index_files/STIM%2016_2%20
Dennis%20Gordon.pdf>
Gorman, Bill. ‘Wednesday Cable Ratings: South Park Premiere, NBA Playoffs Lead Night +
Justified, Mythbusters, Real World & More.’ TV by the Numbers. April 28, 2011.
<http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/04/28/wednesday-cable-ratings-south-parkpremiere-nba-playoffs-lead-night-justified-mythbusters-real-world-more/90875/>
89
Gorman, Bill. ‘2010-11 Season Broadcast Primetime Show Viewership Averages.’ TV by the
Numbers. June 1, 2011. <http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/01/2010-11season-broadcast-primetime-show-viewership-averages/94407/>
Gorton, Bruce. ‘Atheist Fundamentalism: South Park.’ Times Live. April 22, 2010.
<http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/expensive/2010/04/22/atheist-fundementalism-southpark/>
Harris, John F. ‘God Gave U.S. ‘What We Deserve,’ Fallwell Says.’ The Washington Post.
September 14, 2001. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A286202001Sep14>
Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.
New York City: W.W. Norton, 2004.
Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation: A Challenge to Faith.
New York City: Random House, 2006.
Haught, John F. God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and
Hitchens. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.
Hermes, Joke; Maarten Reesink. Inleiding Televisiestudies.
Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom, 2004.
Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
New York City: Hachette Book Group, 2007.
Home Box Office: Six Feet Under. ‘Character Bio: Brenda Chenowith.’
<http://www.hbo.com/six-feet-under/index.html#/six-feet-under/cast-and-crew/brendachenowith/bio/brenda-chenowith.html>
Hooper, Simon. ‘The Rise of the ‘New Atheists’.’ CNN.com. November 9, 2006.
<http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/08/atheism.feature/index.html>
Horne, Marc. ‘Richard Dawkins Calls for Arrest of Pope Benedict XVI.’ The Sunday Times.
April 11, 2010. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece>
Howe, Richard G. ‘Answering the Village Atheists: The Four Horsemen of the “New
Atheism”.’ Matthews, North Carolina: Southern Evangelical Seminary, 2008.
<http://www.richardghowe.com/VillageAtheists.pdf>
The Huffington Post. ‘House Becomes World’s Most Popular TV Show.’ July 13, 2009.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/house-becomes-worldsmost_n_214704.html>
Jagodzinski, Wolfgang; Karel Dobbelaere. ‘Secularization and Church Religiosity.’ In The
Impact of Values. Eds. Jan W. van Deth and Elinor Scarbrough. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
Keller, Joel. ‘Does Big Bang’s Sheldon Have Asperger's Syndrome?’ AOL TV. February 9,
2009. <http://www.aoltv.com/2009/02/09/does-big-bangs-sheldon-have-aspergerssyndrome/>
Klinghoffer, David. ‘Prophets of the New Atheism.’ The Seattle Times. April 6, 2007.
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003653502_klinghoffer06.html>
Kosmin, Barry A.; Ariela Keysar. The American Religious Identification Survey of 2008.
Hartford, CT: Trinity College, March 2009. <http://www.americanreligionsurveyaris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf>
90
Knox, Noelle. ‘Religion Takes a Back Seat in Western Europe.’ USA Today: October 8, 2005.
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-10-europe-religion-cover_x.htm>
MacAskill, Ewen. ‘George Bush: God Told Me to End the Tyranny in Iraq.’ The Guardian.
October 7, 2005. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa>
Marinucci, Carla. ‘Stark’s Atheist Views Break Political Taboo.’ San Francisco Chronicle.
March 14, 2007. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/
03/14/MNG7BOKV111.DTL>
Maher, Kevin. ‘Bill Maher: The God Botherer.’ The Sunday Times. April 1, 2009.
<http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article601043
2.ece>
Mehta, Hemant. ‘Breakdown of Family Guy: Brian Becomes an Atheist.’ Friendly Atheist.
March 30, 2009. <http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/30/breakdown-of-family-guybrian-becomes-an-atheist/>
Mehta, Hemant. ‘Dexter vs. a Religious Killer.’ Friendly Atheist. July 22, 2011.
<http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/22/dexter-vs-a-religiouskiller/>
Martin, Denise. ‘Are You There, God? Glee's Twist on Faith.’ TV Guide. October 4, 2010.
<http://www. tvguide.com/News/Glee-Grilled-Cheesus 1023969.aspx?rss=
news&partnerid=spi&profileid=05>
Mehta, Hemant. ‘Breakdown of Family Guy: Brian Becomes an Atheist.’ Friendly Atheist.
March 30, 2009. <http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/30/breakdown-of-family-guybrian-becomes-an-atheist/>
Newport, Frank. ‘Americans More Likely to Believe in God Than the Devil, Heaven More
Than Hell.’ Gallup. June 13, 2007. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/27877/AmericansMore-Likely-Believe-God-Than-Devil-Heaven-More-Than-Hell.aspx>
Newport, Frank. ‘Americans’ Church Attendance Inches Up in 2010.’ Gallup. June 25, 2010.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/141044/americans-church-attendance-inches-2010.aspx>
Newport, Frank. ‘More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God.’ Gallup. June 3,
2011. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx>
Norris, Pippa; Ronald Inglehart. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2004
Oduah, Chika; Lauren E. Bohn. ‘Blacks, Mirroring Larger U.S. Trend ‘Come Out’ as
Nonbelievers.’ The Huffington Post. May 24, 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2010/05/24/blacks-mirroring-larger-u_n_587854.html>
Orr, H. Allen. ‘A Mission to Convert.’ The New York Review of Books. January 11, 2007.
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/>
Paul, Gregory; Phil Zuckerman. ‘Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?’ The Washington
Post. February 18, 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-doamericans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html>
Peterson, Gregory R. ‘Why the New Atheism Shouldn’t Be (Completely) Dismissed.’ In
Zygon, Volume 42, Issue 4, December 2007. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2007.00869.x/abstract>
91
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. ‘Religious Composition of the U.S.’ 2007 U.S.
Religious Landscape Survey. <http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-alltraditions.pdf>
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. ‘How Religious Is Your State?’
December 21, 2009. <http://www.pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your-State-.aspx>
Poniewozik, James. ‘Television: Scorn Is the Best Medicine.’ Time. November 22, 2004.
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995688,00.html>
PurposeDrivenLife.com. ‘About the Author: Rick Warren.’ <http://www.purposedrivenlife.
com/en-US/AboutUs/AboutTheAuthor/AboutTheAuthor.htm>
RichardDawkins.net. ‘The God Delusion – Back on the Times Extended List at #24.’
January 27, 2007. <http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5000-the-god-delusion-back-onthe-times-extended-list-at-24/>
RichardDawkins.net. ‘The God Delusion One-Year Countdown.’
September 3, 2007. <http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1599>
RichardDawkins.net. Letter in the Convert’s Corner. Posted July 21, 2011.
<http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts?page=1#letter_642237>
Richenthal, Matt. ‘Glee Review: “Grilled Cheesus.”’ TV Fanatic. October 5, 2010.
<http://www.tvfanatic.com/2010/10/glee-review-grilled-cheesus/>
Rothstein, Edward. ‘Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs.’ Review of the Creation
Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The New York Times. May 24, 2007.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html>
Russell, Bertrand. ‘Is There a God?’ Commissioned by, But Never Published in Illustrated
Magazine, 1952. <http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/russell10.htm>
Saad, Lydia. ‘In U.S. 22% Are Hesitant to Support a Mormon in 2012.’ Gallup. June 20, 2011.
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx>
Sherman, Robert. ‘Documents at Bush Presidential Library Prove VP Bush Questioned
Citizenship and Patriotism of Atheists.’ Rob Sherman Advocacy. April 1, 2006.
<http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm>
Stack, Tim. ‘Glee Co-Creator Ryan Murphy Talks Tonight's Controversial Episode.’
Entertainment Weekly. October 5, 2010. <http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/10/05/glee-cocreator-ryan-murphy-talks-tonights-controversial-episode/>
Sweeney, Julia. Letting Go of God. 2004. <http://www.american-buddha.com/
lit.letgoofgodsweeney.5.htm>
Thornton, Paul. ‘Disliked, Not Oppressed.’ The Baltimore Sun. April 18, 2007.
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/a-oew-thornton18apr18,
0,5841004.story>
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Volume Two. 1840. English Translation by
Henry Reeve, revised by Francis Bowen. Ware, Hertfordshire, England: Wordsworth
Editions, 1998.
Volokh, Eugene. ‘Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions.’ In New York
University Law Review, Volume 81, Issue 2, 2006. <http://www2.law.ucla.
edu/volokh/custody.pdf>
92
Wallenstein, Andrew. ‘Netflix Narrows Subscriber Gap with HBO.’ PaidContent: The
Economics of Digital Content. March 11, 2011. <http://paidcontent.org/article/419netflix-narrows-subscriber-gap-with-hbo/>
West, Steve. ‘The Atheist’s Dilemma: Family Guy Takes a Stand.’ Television Blend. March 31,
2009. <http://www.cinemablend.com/television/The-Atheist-s-Dilemma-Family-GuyTakes-A-Stand-16575.html>
Wetzel, Jerome. ‘TV Review: Glee “Grilled Cheesus.”’ Blogcritics. October 7, 2010.
<http://blogcritics.org/video/article/tv-review-glee-grilled-cheesus/>
Williamson, Erin. ‘”Angry Atheists” in Pop Culture.’ Humanist Network News. January 2011.
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-01-angry-atheists-in-popculture>
Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers.’ Wired. November 2006.
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html>
Zachariassen, Arni. ‘Atheists on TV.’ I Think I Believe. September 10, 2010.
<http://www.arnizachariassen.com/ithinkibelieve/?p=1199>
Zuckerman, Phil. ‘Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science
Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions.’ In Sociology Compass, Volume 3,
Issue 6, 2009. <http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_
on_Atheism.pdf>
93