This is a nice selective use of statistics.

11 to 16 percent of Americans state they believe that there is no God. This, pretty much, qualifies as being a non-believer. They may not - for various reasons - want to call themselves atheists. Perhaps they define "theist" more broadly than others. Perhaps they simply dislike the label. However, they are still non-believers.

Are you kidding me with this sorry excuse for an article?

Lets get some facts cleared up. The original pledge of allegiance did not have "God" in it and our national motto wasn't changed to "In god we trust" until the 1950's red scare. And there is no evidence that suggests that George Washington pledged on the bible.

How is Obama going through "great pains" simply by mentioning non-believers in a list of common worldviews?

According to the ARIS, self proclaimed atheists and agnostics make up 1.6% of the U.S. population. That is bigger than both the Jewish and Muslim population in the U.S.

A Gallup poll actually puts the number at 6%. The actual number is difficult to determine because of the reluctance of atheists to come out of the closet for fear of discrimination.

"Obama's insistence on giving the 0.7 percent atheist population equivalent status in his public declarations"

What are you suggesting? Just because we are a small minority that we shouldn't get equal treatment or even be recognized? Now THAT is an unpatriotic and un-American attitude.

"whose religious tradition is central to our nation's worldview and heritage"

You need to go back to grade school and learn your history. Our Nation was built on Enlightenment principals, not on Jewish or Christian traditions.

"Is Obama's repeated declaration ... that America is, among other things, a nation of "non-believers" truly accurate? Does it comport with Obama's professed strategy of reaching out to the Islamic world and improving America's standing there by increasing understanding of our true nature as a nation?"

YES AND YES!

"but we are and always have been an expressly God-fearing nation"

That is your delusion, far removed from reality. We have always been (in our governance) a SECULAR nation. Religion is a personal choice. Not one endowed by the state.

Why don't you just plainly admit that your article was simply to bash atheists. Your argument consists of: atheists are a minority and that we have "god" on our money. You are pathetic Terence Jeffrey.

People don't want to wear the atheist label in America, even if they don't believe in God, because people like you perpetuate untrue negative stereotypes about atheism. You make "atheist" a dirty word. You are happy to claim the fifteen percent who don't subscribe to any religion as "believers" if it helps you further marginalize atheists. But the truth is those fifteen percent are mostly atheists and agnostics who are afraid of the stigma imposed by narrow minded bigots like yourself who NEED for everyone to reinforce their own fragile beliefs. You even go so far as to imply that by simply being atheists we are somehow endangering America, making the country a target for terrorism. The irony is that by using the threat of terror to advocate the marginalization of people with whom you disagree, YOU have become the terrorist. You may not be setting off the bombs, but you are using the explosions the same way every other terrorist does; to persuade people to fall in line with your narrow ideology. I guess pure and simple reason doesn't work for you either.

Yikes. Somebody is clearly threatened by people choosing to adhere to logic and reason instead of blind faith.

If it bothers you that people are increasingly becoming unwilling to believe in fictitious stories of your space daddy figure, maybe you should take that as a signal that you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Nobody knows what happens when we die or why we exist. Pretending that you do know is beyond asinine.

America IS a nation of non-believers - NON-BELIEVERS IN THE MUSLIM INSTITUTE OF ORGANIZED DEVIL WORSHIP, TORTURE, TYRANNY, AND MURDER. President Hussein calls us infidels. They WILL use jihad to force us to convert or die AS SOON AS they have the majority our politicians are intent on giving them. IT IS TIME FOR ANOTHER CRUSADE.

America's real motto is what the President was talking about: E Pluribus Unum - Out of many, one. According to Pew Research, among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion. More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion - or no religion at all. 12.1% of the adult population overall is made up of people who simply describe their religion as "nothing in particular." We're not going away. We're growing and you can't stop it. Get over it.

There is one basic fallacy in Leftist thinking: that basic human nature is good. Once you accept that, rejecting a good God is easy; He's no longer necessary. The State becomes god. And so it then becomes just as easy to reject, with God, the principles this nation was founded on. This government was set up for one purpose: to protect citizen rights from the unrestrained passions of human nature - a nature that would, through absolute power, be absolutely corrupted. And from that, you all better hope and pray there is a God. You're going to need Him.

Is there any reputable surveys in the growth of 'non-believers'? That 18-29 age group stat is pretty typical, I was once in that group, but I would imagine the 30+ crowd you see many returning to faith (maybe not to the faith of parents).

To those 'non-believers' - I suggest we stop beating up on each other and start watching the real threat - radical Islam - since they don't care.

Walt: Why should we pray to your god and not the thousands of others that you ALSO are an atheist towards?

kevin: You ignored the fact 1 in 4 adults are leaving their religion for another and 12% have none.

Some of the best critiques of radical Islam have been written by atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins.

Wow--some of you sound pretty angry out there. There is no reason to be angry if you don't believe in the true Christian God. Although, you'd have a much better understanding of the world, and you'd be much less angry if you did. But isn't it great that we live in a country where we are free to choose what we believe--and we do all believe something, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

The article and most comments completely miss the point being made by the repeated use of "non-believers."

Americans look at the phrase as referring to atheists and agnostics.

It the muslim world, the term "non-believer" includes EVERY non-muslim on the face of the Earth.

Every time he says "non-believer" he is in truth saying "non-muslim."

Having lived in Muslim Countries since 1979, I've studied their thinking quite a bit, and, being Christian, in self defense. To a Muslim, "nonbeliever" has a specific context related to Islam, meaning anyone that is not Muslim, irrespective of belief in God or gods. Atheist has a different meaning, more in conformance with our thinking, in that Atheists believe in no deity at all, and, they lump Agnostic in with Atheist.

Muslims hate Traitors above all others (a Traitor will always sell out his own, as well as successors), they hate Atheists more than Jews, and, following the conquest of a nation, they will meet the Sword in that order, only outranked by Traitorous Athiest Jews.

Once again it becomes evident that what he says is less important than what he does. And it is true indeed that 'non-believer' is Muslim code for 'non-Muslim', and will always be understood as such by Muslims.

@Walt

"There is one basic fallacy in Leftist thinking: that basic human nature is good. Once you accept that, rejecting a good God is easy; He's no longer necessary."

... I don't think that basic human nature is good at all. It's still perfectly easy to reject the god hypothesis because there's no credible evidence for it. Further, it has long outlived it's limited original usefulness and genuinely is unnecessary--if not detrimental--to our society.

This reationale of yours which requires necessary falsehoods confuses me. What do you hate about yourself so much that it compels you to believe these illusions?

In general,a Christian would not refer to a non-Christian as a 'non-believer', but as 'unchurched', 'unsaved','needs the Savior' 'needs to find Jesus, or 'lost'.

'Unbeliever' is a term peculiar to Muslims, and as other posters have pointed out, it means 'non-Muslim', whether that person is Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu or atheist.

Barrack Hussein Obama is a Muslim.

Jack - While Leftists do tend to believe in good human nature (hence the reliance on government), you are right in that you can reject God or the concept of god while still believing that human nature is bad. But why would you? After all, if there is no good (God) by which to judge, who's to say what's bad? And even if nature is bad (based say on the outcomes of human history) then those who have no God have no hope. To live in such despair must be absolutely unbearable. Why, that would be like living in America where the republic has been replaced by communist muslims intent on our destruction but who keep getting reelected time and time again until we're all dead or in a gulag.

@walt but who's god do you let make the rules? Your hypothetical communist Muslims believe they are acting rightly based on the rules of their god, too. The sensible thing to do is for people to determine what behaviors are prohibited in our society because they infringe on the freedoms of others, and all other behaviors should be permissible (but not mandatory) regardless of anyone's moral stance on those behaviors. There's no need for god in the equation. Much like free-markets can adequately regulate trade, free-people can adequately regulate their own behavior.

I find the urge to subjugate others to the moral principles of an imaginary totalitarian father figure to be a glaring inconsistency in current right-wing ideology.

As for an atheistic worldview being unbearable and hopeless ... I assure you it is neither. Your comparison of christian oppression of atheists in the US to living in a Muslim dictatorship isn't without merit. It's just a sad irony that you fail to to notice how apt it really is.

Jack, your disbelief will have little effect on God's likes or dislikes, and, I predict that he will 'step on' the Kenyans toes again, within the next week.

@Gordon-Kenya you say? You mean an African country prone to droughts, flash-floods, fires, and landslides that has been having tremors since July, which stalled while trying to organize its new government, shares a border with Somalia, and has become a hot-bed for radical Muslims who've been setting up camp in and around Yemen ... is going to have problems next week?

Gee, what are the odds? Oh wait ... Really really good. That's no prophecy and has nothing to do with American Government.

This is clearly getting off-topic so I won't be back, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Saying that this is a secular nation is not entirely true. While it is true that our founding fathers did not believe in any one state religion, they were tremendously guided by Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. They believed that we were "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights" mostly to make clear that are freedoms are a gift from God, and no state can either give us these freedoms nor take them away. It was thought of as hubris for any man to say that another was free because his government allowed him to be. Such is still, in a way, tyranny. This is why the Nazi/Communist regimes of the twentieth century wanted to abandon any mention of religion, because without it, only the state determines what is right or wrong. Going by teachings and insight above their own, the founding fathers trusted in a Divine Creator as the ultimate master, and not any men who feel they "know best". This can be proven historically from quotes ranging from Washington even to Jefferson.

As to the fifteen percent who claim no connection to any religion, that does not necessarily mean that they are atheist/agnostic. Many people believe in God without a specific religion, and I happen to know quite a few.

Finally, I have never witnessed the horrible oppression of atheists by Christians myself. I could be wrong, but I assume it is nothing like the horrible oppression one would face in a Muslim country under sharia law. Actually, I've noticed a lot of anti-Christian vitriol coming from academia and the mainstream media of late. Being a public school teacher, I have witnessed this first-hand.

Finally, enough of the Dawkins "God-Delusion" nonsense. If a person believes there is no God then fine. If they believe in one, then fine. It all comes down to belief in a certain view of the universe, whether God exists in it or not. An atheist can no sooner prove in the non-existence of God than could a believer in Him. The only ones without faith are agnostics because they don't mind admitting that they don't know either way due to lack of proof either way. I look at the universe and see convincing signs of a God, but that is just my belief. Atheists are welcome to their beliefs as well, but when they engage in insulting rhetoric like "totalitarian father figure" and "space daddy figure", they sound every bit as hateful as those they decry as their persecutors.

It is "our", not "are" at the end of the third line. Typo -- sorry! :)

Like most bigots, the author gets the message wrong. Obama has never stated that this is a nation of non-believers (implying that the entire nation is non-believing).

What he has stated in his Inaugural Speech (and perhaps elsewhere, though the author didn't cite any and I've never heard of any others) was that we're a nation of many, diverse beliefs -which *includes* non-believers.

He rightfully acknowledged non-believers, a substantial minority in the U.S. (larger than Jews and Muslims).

This publication calls itself "The Patriot Post," yet there is a distinct undercurrent of anti-patriotism here. A clear bit of bigotry. That divisive rhetoric offered by the author of this piece is not only the work of bigotry but the work of someone who seeks to divide rather than unify. Such an act is not "patriotic" in my book, rather an act of a traitor to the American people and their diversity.

You cannot claim to be a patriot to the American cause in one breath and critical of diversity in another, yet this is what the author of this article attempts. Shame on him.

Chris: Looking at the actual words of John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and others, you would be hard-pressed to make such a sweeping claim of religiosity on the part of men who were rather anti-religion for thier time.

You are the ones who are making supernatural claims, not us. The burden of proof is on you. I am under no more obligation to disprove your god than you are to disprove my magic sandwich can cure cancer.

Hitler made dozens of pro-Christian statements right up till his defeat, even crediting his faith for his war against the Jews. Please name for me ONE time Stalin or Pol Pot said they committed their attrocities in the name of atheism. How many could we find done in the name of Christianity? If we used your standard, anytime a Christian commits a crime, it's in the name of Jesus.

Walt: Statistically, (look up each of these if you don't believe me) American Christians are more likely than atheists or agnostics to divorce, do hard time in prison, watch porn, not get a college education, even advocate torture (irony). Internationally, nations with high numbers of non-believers (with few exceptions) tend to have lower rates of crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and other social ills.

I've read the idea before that Muslims hate America not for its Christianity but for its secularism. That's their own irrationality. Just b/c they hate something about us doesn't make them justified and it certainly doesn't mean we should change to appease them.

stanisloski101:

Please peruse these quotes:

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity" -- John Adams in a letter to his wife, Abigail.

"God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without his aid?" -- Benjamin Franklin, in a manuscript of a speech at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. . ." -- Thomas Jefferson.

I could go on and on, and yes, I am aware of the cynicism our founding fathers felt toward organized religion, that it could and has been corrupted by men, but that does not mean that they were not compelled by its teachings and their belief in a Divine Creator (as many others were Deists).

What is important here is that you miss the point of our founding fathers' belief that our freedoms come not from our government, but were already given to us by our Divine Creator upon birth.

That leads, of course, to the horror of atheist regimes. Again, you miss the point. They did not commit such atrocities in the name of atheism; they rather did not want people to believe in any moral justice but that given to them by the state. Therefore, people become easy to control. This was also the case, and still is in many places, when the government hijacked a religion and made it the authority of the state, which is just as bad because they also told people what to believe. That is why the very essence of the first amendment is the personal choice and belief in one's faith, as this is where one get's his/her morals. The founding fathers realized this and didn't want the state to try to become God itself, recognizing that people's freedoms and morals were never theirs to dictate, only protect, and it is something greater than us all that gives us our freedoms and reasons for living, not the state. In any case, atrocities are perpetrated by people, not religions or lack thereof. Religion has been used by madman for power and control just like Darwinism has been used by madmen with no religion to achieve the same ends.

And the typical atheist argument that "people of religion made the claim, so I don't have to do anything" is an intellectually cowardly argument. I see reason for God in the great order of the universe. How could everything stem from Chaos with no reason, yet be perfectly ordered (as proven by science) now? How about life on other planets? There is no proof, but reason suggests that if it exists here, it should elsewhere. Can you see my thoughts? There is no proof of what I am thinking to you, yet my thoughts still exist. Your claim (and it is a claim just as mine, since it is one that lacks reason as far as I'm concerned)

that there is no God because there is no proof is based upon your five senses, and yet doesn't reason dictate that just because one cannot perceive something doesn't mean it doesn't exist? You saying God doesn't exist because you cannot perceive him is like the ant saying the mountain doesn't exist for the same reason. And your ridiculous magic sandwich example is a specious rebuttal devoid of any comparable analogy to a Divine Creator. (By the way, it is not an original one, either.)

About your statistics, I have looked them up and they are dubious, especially the one on countries. The one on prisons is based on population, the one on divorce is largely because of numbers of different denominations, and Catholics (of which I am one) had the same number as atheists.

As I said, believe what you want I'll believe what I want. Whether you know it or not, you may owe a lot of your values to Judeo-Christian values, no matter if you don't believe in any religion or God. Although bad things have been done in the name of God, so very many good things have been done as well, including the ideals for this country's view on freedom.

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" John Adams -letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson - letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

Benjamin Franklin was a deist. He believed (in the absence of science on the matter, then) in a deity, but one that was not involved in the affairs men, thus rendering religion false. He famously said: "In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

I, also, could go one & on. Trying to force evangelical meanings on deistic founders can only lead to further embarrassment. What is important here is that our founders had a deep-seated mistrust of the involvement of faith in politics as that was what they had worked so hard to avoid.

This leads to the point you missed on the murderous Christian regimes these men had escaped. Had these Christian monarchies access to the weapons of even the 20th century, they would have dwarfed any carnage by any atheist. Many of the founders recognized that natural subjectivity to whomever was able to shape religious thinking and interpretation. By establishing the value of man in our Constitution, it prevented the clergy from swaying public opnion toward their most recent interpretation of the will of God. The kings of the old world spoke with the "plural of majesty" and painted themselves in the pattern of heaven or the trinty to be attached to divine authority. Now government could no longer make such grandiose claims.

The only thing that I see as cowardly is your desperate attempt to use hyperbole to shift the burden of proof. I do not have to prove the natural world, sir. It is readily apparent. You are making the unnatural claim and are therefore even more obligated to provide proof than the man who says he saw a flying saucer (at least they are natural). Since your childhood, you have been told to drop to the ground in case of fire, knowing the different "weights" of gasses. Gasses, understood as the combinations of atoms they are, form patterns based upon varrying accumulations. These varrying accumulations form matter and energy since they, just we are ourselves, are atoms. Your thinking betrays thinkers like Franklin, bringing us back to the day where we did not know why bodies bled, grew hair and nails after death and created vampires out of our ignorance.

Your superficial examination against the need for Christian morality makes a better argument against your position than I ever could. Despite their claim to morality and divine guidance Christianity (including Catholicism) is indistinguishable, and therefore irrelevant, to the morality of the nation. Christians enjoy more special rights than any gay could ever dream of, from tax exemption to political influence, and are barely demonstrable asset to America, if that.

There's a film out called "I Can Do Bad All By Myself". No truer a retort could be made to the Christian faith. Thousands of abused children by your church can testify to at least that.

All three great men that you have quoted believed in God, and once again, the Supreme Being is the giver of freedom, not the government was their reasoning for founding this nation not on any religion, but in a belief in God above any state. As I have previously stated, many of the founding fathers were distrustful of religion, but ALL THREE MEN YOU QUOTED WERE INFLUENCED BY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN IDEALS, among others, even if they did not subscribe to the divinity of them. As their and other of their quotes suggest, it was a driving influence in their view towards government (including freedom, compassion, and justice) in this country.

About murderous Christian regimes, you make an assumption based upon your own apparent hatred of religion. Also, our founding fathers did not want one state religion, but they did (as over half the founders were devout Christians) believe in the value of morality given by religion, or they would not have invested in Bibles for public schools. Furthermore, they did not want the absence of God from the country, because, once again, they didn't want the government becoming God itself. This is exactly what atheist regimes have done, and yes, Christians and Buddhists both were killed for simply being religious in China under Mao, as he considered it "poison". Myanmar is guilty against the same offense against the religious. What you continue to fail to see is that if people want to kill or control, they will find a way to do it, with or without religion. Your hatred of religion blinds you to the fact that atheism can and has been used in the same way as religion, and neither belief system itself is the fault of megalomaniacs' wills to twist them.

Again, you fail to see my point on claims. If I say that "there is a God", then it is my burden to prove it. If you say "there is no God", then the burden of proof is on you. This is because God, by Judeo-Christian definition, defies total comprehension and cannot be explained in completely finite terms. He is not seen as supernatural by those who believe, but the source of all nature (as Deists, too, believed). In a way, in a reality that obviously can be explained by science, God is the ultimate scientist, if you will. Why else would some great scientists eventually come to believe in God, including Einstein and Franklin, as well as many scientists today, including my friend getting his doctorate in biophysics? Are you smarter than them all? However, if you state that you believe God doesn't exist just as I state that I believe he does, then it is all belief, making this argument pointless. (I have, however, already stated much reasoning for my belief in God).

I never made any examination against Christian morality, only that it, like atheism and everything else can and has been abused. I also stated that without Christian influence (regardless of your feelings on religion), your morals may be much different. What is common sense to one becomes entirely different to another in a completely different environment and upbringing.

Finally, the whole crux of your argument against religion stems from your naive view of it in general. You look at the negative history of it as opposed to the positive as well. I do not just look at the negative side of atheism; many people have been very productive and happy with it, JUST AS THOSE WITH RELIGION (e.g. charity, prisoner and drug/alcohol rehab, relationships, conscious self-evaluation, etc.) You seem to think that atheism gives you some moral and ethical superiority over us knuckle-dragging religious types. Could it be possible that religious types could be every bit as rational and ethical as you? Could it possibly be that religion has worked for them where it has failed for you? I live a happy and full life, despite my imperfections, and my religion is a key factor in that. I am by far not the only one. But when you come onto a thread combating belief which cannot be proven or unproven with such vehemence, you reveal much of your own arrogance against those unlike you, thus becoming exactly what you so greatly decry.

By the way, there are many more abused children by non-Christians, and nowhere in Christian teachings have I ever learned that child abuse was okay. You speak of deviants, once again betraying how your blind hatred of religion denies you true perspective on this issue.

Every creation requires a creator. End of the debate.

All three men did not believe in YOUR GOD, sir and you know this. The deistic god is not invloved in the affairs of men but simply a Creator, one they begrudgingly held to in the absence of science on the matter. You are simply trying to piggyback on their accomplishments. They were also influenced by the European Enlightenment. As you well know, neither democracy, nor the republic can be found in the Bible (being pagan inventions), only monarchy. Indeed, revolution is condemned in the New Testament (Romans 13:1-7).

Your psychic perception of my supposed "hatred" not withstanding (LOL), you fail to mention how in many countries, religious authorities often sought to usurp power, share it or seek power through acting on behalf of other nations. It is no surprise they continued the religious tradition of Europe and Asia with oppressing people with the WRONG SORT OF GOD. Burnings, hangings, torture, leveling of churches - I do believe your own church executed a family for teaching their children the Lord's prayer and the 10 Commandments in English.

Your knowledge of atheism is obviously limited to what you've been taught by the authorities to whom you are beholden. All an atheist is someone lacks a belief in a god or gods. Indeed, you are an atheist to the gods you deny like Neptune or Odin. There are atheists who theologically deny the existence of specific deities based upon contradictory information and falsified "evidence".

There are also atheists who philosophically do not believe in any gods because of the lack of available evidence. You may choose to call them agnostics, but many have chosen the term atheist to particularly emphasize how bad the evidence for any gods is. Also, unlike your god, Einstein believed in a pantheistic sort of deity while Franklin, a deistic one. They both wrote openly against a personal god and were publically criticized by Christians for doing so. Are you smarter than they?

The rest of your statements are completely irrelevant. Your personal happiness is something subsidized by the federal government through the avoidance of taxation. Quite frankly, you should get off your butt and pay for your own prayer. The evidence is clear that, by and large, there is not enough evidence of the societal benefit in religion verses it's costs to us all.

This is a nation that is comprised of all different types of people. I am a Christian and I find this article more offensive than Obama's quote.

To know that one has a secret

is to know half the secret itself.

-----Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887)

I'm agnostic. I actually appreciated that Obama acknowledged us nonbelievers since some people treat us like we're inferior sinners or don't have a right to be here. Excuse me for leaving the religion I was raised in because it hurt me.

We all have the right to believe or not believe in god and we all have the right to form our own personal spirituality. I'm kind of surprised that so many people are offended by his statement. He was simply saying our country represents a mixture of all kinds of people. Is that a bad thing? Does the fact that I'm agnostic make me unamerican?

People like me exist. The president acknowledges that. Sorry if that scares you.

Just kidding! I'm not even a little sorry! Go cry some more, Terence!