I admit, these kinds of remarks always irk me. "God bless you," says the unbeliever. What does that even mean? God who? A blessing made up of what? Of goodwill, perhaps? Goodwill not from god, but from the unbeliever directly? Then why not say it that way in the first place, and forget all of this god language? That would make a lot more sense, not to mention being a lot more sincere.
The very act of affirming one’s nonreligiousness and then excepting it by offering a prayer anyway is a self-defeating contradiction, and at worst an act of self-denial. It is irrational and serves only to bolster the claims of the devout that we unbelieving folk lack something essential. Why give them that fodder? Is the secular world so hollow that there exists no nonreligious counterpart to prayers and oaths? "Unbelievers" who feel that way ought to go find a religion, because those of us who truly wash our hands of this whole religion business do not appreciate having our point of view undermined from within our own community. It obscures our social identity, hinders our ability to communicate, and, for these reasons, makes us less credible from the perspective of outsiders. It also makes it harder for everyone, religious and nonreligious alike, to understand what nonreligiosity really is.
May I suggest that prayer, religious ideas in general, and religious language especially, are never appropriate for the unbeliever to espouse? Is that so difficult a proposition? In addition to being insincere coming from an unbeliever, that kind of talk is also a sign of intellectual laziness. As religion dominates our society, so too do religious words and concepts abound in our language, but there is no secular idea, not a one, which cannot be conveyed without resorting to the sacred. It is no virtue to have a lazy mind.
At best, holy talk from an unbeliever can be seen as a show of goodwill, an "Out of respect, I speak your tongue." The problem I see with that is twofold: First of all, there is a fine but critical distinction between compromising with others and compromising oneself. Dining at a religious table obliges the unbeliever to sit quietly through grace, fair enough. But should he or she also pray during this time? No, that goes too far. People who are not religious should not behave as though they are. To do so is hypocrisy. Principles are not simply articles of convenience; they are the guiding lights that give our character its shape. If we violate them time and again—voluntarily, no less—then they are not our principles after all. Only when a choice is forced upon us—that is, when proverbially we are asked to pray or else leave the table—only then comes the time to choose between principles and practicals. Never before. It is worth repeating: Principles are not simply articles of convenience. They are the bones of our identity. If we violate them time and again, then they are not our principles after all...and, by consequence, we are not who we think ourselves to be.
The other problem is that, oftentimes, these holy remarks uttered by the nonreligious do not even occur in a religious context. If somebody is sick and about to have an operation, there is nothing inherently religious about that. If the space shuttle launches and another crew commit themselves to the perils of the celestial, that isn’t intrinsically religious either. Why, then, do so many unbelievers say things like "I’ll pray for you," or "Godspeed"? And why do they so often, maddeningly, preface it with "I’m not religious, but..." This is pure intellectual sloth; the convenience of convenient words. Is it too much to ask a little thought, a little consideration? After all, free thought is one of the greatest liberties earned by rejecting a belief in the divine. If a friend is sick and faces a risky surgery, then say something like, "You have been a dear friend, and I really hope you pull through. You shall be in my thoughts." Not only is that an honest thing to say, and an appropriate thing to say, but it raises no religious contentions. No one is spurned.
The devout revel in their prayers. Some of them pray many times every day. Good for them. Prayer, however, is not for us, nor are any of the religious words or holy ideas. We may use them in analogies, or in jest, or sometimes even figuratively, and we may use them when talking about the behaviors of believers, but we cannot in good conscience assimilate sacred points of view into our own, honest expressions of self...not because I say so, but because that is one of the rational tenets of being non-religious. The unbelievers who say these holy things, and who take up these holy points of view, either are not unbelievers, or are not honest unbelievers—and that is the inconvenient truth.
Please be aware.