Although in the last post on this subject I didn’t focus specifically on the current lawsuit, John Hanna of the AP reported two days ago on the lawsuit’s recent expansion (from the “Kansas City Star” kansascity.com).  It seems that the more people in the military hear about the lawsuit, the more are revealing their stories.  Most interesting, although the bigots will ignore it, is that the majority of the 11,000 personnel who are members of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (who filed the lawsuit) are Christians.  As I have said many times, the nonreligious are not the only ones whose rights are violated when captive audiences are made to listen to religious proselytizing.  All members of all faiths or no faith are having their First Amendment rights violated.

In the words of the foundation’s president Mikey Weinstein:

Our amended complaint is specifically designed to further stab at the throbbing unconstitutional heart of darkness that comprises the systemic fundamentalist Christianity so pervasive and pernicious in today’s American armed forces.

So what has been added to the suit?

[...] examples of what Weinstein called “the noxiously unconstitutional pattern and practice of fundamentalist Christian oppression” within the armed forces includ[ing] attempts to convert Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan[,] comments from two soldiers, including a chaplain, that appeared in Christian missionary publications about such activities, including their desire to distribute Bibles.

The lawsuit also criticizes the Army’s 2008 manual on suicide prevention, quoting it as promoting “religiosity” as a necessary part of the effort and describing “connectivity to the divine” as “fundamental.”

Read the article to see the rest of the added claims.

One of the aspects of what is reported that bothers me the most is Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Laine’s response, which in short says that they have only received less than 50 complaints.  Although I question this number, let’s take this at face value for argument’s sake.  What difference does this make?  Since when is the Constitutionality of something determined by how many people complain?  It’s irrelevant and I don’t believe for a second that the Defense Department doesn’t know that.  It’s disgustingly disingenuous, to say the least.

Madeleine Bunting from “The Guardian” has unfortunately used Darwin’s 200th birthday as an excuse to express her anti-atheist bigotry.  She dares to blame the hate many theists feel against Darwin and his ideas on, get this, atheism.  It’s not the fear that the religious have of anything scientific that challenges their beliefs.  It’s atheism!  Isn’t it interesting how theistic bigotry against atheists is consistently them projecting their issues on others?

To steal from and modify something from a commenter on Pharyngula, here’s a message to Ms. Bunting from “Secular Discrimination Report:” We’re here, we’re atheist, get used to it.

I’d write more, but biologist P.Z. Myers over at Pharyngula does a great job.  Be sure to comment on her article (registration required) and let her know exactly what you think.

Jason Leopold from The Public Record thinks so.  The basis of Leopold’s argument is the fact that Obama has decided to have Robert Gates stay on as Secretary of Defense.  He explains exactly why this is a threat to nonreligious service members.

Despite being named in several lawsuits filed against the Pentagon for allowing military chaplains to proselytize to soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the numerous letters he has received  from civil rights organizations and government watchdog groups since he was tapped as Defense Secretary two years ago, letters demanding that he launch investigations into widespread proselytizing, Gates has failed  to issue a response of any kind to these groups and has refused to take steps to address the matter. Meanwhile, soldiers continue to have fundamentalist Christianity shoved down their throats.

Secretary gates has given no indication that he will do anything about the clear systematic First Amendment violations.  As far as our rights are concerned, I don’t see the “change” that President-elect Obama continues to trump.  Obama is a Constitutional scholar; I’m sure he understands the First Amendment and that it protects all of us, not just the religious.  Furthermore, this is not simply a violation of nonreligious service members’ rights,  but a violation of the rights of all service members: Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, etc.  No one should have to be a captive audience to religious proselytizing.

This is still a democracy (although the previous administration would make you think otherwise).  All is not lost.  Make sure Obama is aware of the bigotry and proselytizing in the armed forces.  Let him know that business as usual will not be acceptable.   Especially if you are in the military and have experienced this firsthand, definitely let Obama know your story.

change.gov

Don’t forget to read the rest of the article I quoted.  There is important background information.

I just read an interesting post from Atheist Ethicist discussing the possibility of bigotry (or more correctly, self-loathing) of atheists against other atheists.  No evidence is given that this currently exists in any major way, and the author doesn’t claim it does.  It is, though, an interesting wake-up call as to what can happen as a group internalizes the bigotry leveled against them from the outside.

It also mentions anti-theist bigotry among atheists, which will tend to grow especially as we become the majority (and we are growing fast enough that this may be a possibility in the near future).  The fact is religious people do turn off their logical reasoning skills when they focus on a religious issue.  We can see this as a flaw, though, without being bigoted and without hating.  There are times when we all aren’t as logical or rational as we should be, it’s part of being human.

For better or worse, evolution made us all that way, religious or not.  It’s something to think about over the continuing holiday season.  We should be just as critical of ourselves, if not more so, than of others.

In other news, the ridiculous controversy over the fact that atheists dared assert their First Amendment rights by installing their own holiday display.  Charles C. Haynes, writing for theithicajournal.com “Inside the First Amendment,” explains as the Governor herself has repeatedly, that religions don’t get special treatment in this country.

If a religious group is allowed to put a display on public land funded by atheists and theists alike, then they all must be allowed the same right.  It’s simple, but the bigots would rather be the only ones with rights.

I am still recovering from my recent medical procedure, so it will still be a bit until I can continue regular posting.

Never-the-less, I wish you all a great holiday, no matter what you celebrate: Hanukkah, the New Year, and especially a very merry Christmas. Surprised? Well, as far as the U.S. Government is concerned, Christmas is a wholly secular holiday. The First Amendment required that once it became a legal holiday it became secular.

A merry secular Christmas to you all!

Recently there has been such a huge influx in events that are related to atheist rights that I, between work and recent medical issues, don’t have anywhere near the time or energy to get to all of them.  In short, I need help, so I’m looking for one or two volunteers.  I originally envisioned Secular Discrimination Report as a collaborative site anyway, so I’d be happy to have anyone who would fit well.

Are you a good writer with an interest in helping bring attention to discrimination against the nonreligious?  Can you post at least one short to medium length (of course longer is always welcome too) analysis of recent related news or events a week?  Send me an email at sdreport [at] bunda.org including a sample article about a relevant topic or news article.  If you seem right for Secular Discrimination Report, it might end up as your first post.

Both of these articles on what About.com’s Austin Cline calls “Uncle Tom Atheism” are of importance to those concerned with atheist rights, whether you agree with his views or not.

• You Might Be an Uncle Tom Atheist If…

Are you truly committed to equality, liberty, and liberation for all atheists or are you more of an “Uncle Tom” atheist? Would you turn your back on working for real equality in exchange for a few scraps from the tables of religious theists so you can pretend you’re being treated as an equal? Would you support increased privileges for Christians in the hope that a few of those privileges might drip down to benefit you personally? You might, and without even realizing it.

• Avoiding Uncle Tom Atheism & Dealing with Uncle Tom Atheists

I’ve explained some of the signs and behaviors which might indicate that a person is falling into the trap of Uncle Tom Atheism, which means making it easier for atheists to be discriminated against, hated, and otherwise oppressed in the name of Christian Supremacism. Avoiding the trap of Uncle Tom Atheism isn’t just a matter of doing the exact opposite in each case, though, and so many of the behaviors can appear completely innocuous or reasonable on their own. Avoiding Uncle Tom Atheism requires some consciousness raising and attitude adjustment.

It’s important to me that I make it clear that my intentions in exposing the bigotry of many believers against atheists is not to disparage all those who hold any sort of religious and/or spiritual beliefs.  I am reminded of this consistently by the respect and equality my many friends who are believers show me and others who don’t agree with them.  Although much rarer, this can even show itself through blog comments such as this one on The Friendly Atheist’s post about another atheist billboard that has been censored.

Marlotuck Says:
December 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am

As a believer in and of God, I’d just like to say that I am in full support of these billboards as they a) recognize that a group of people need a cohesive voice b) recognize the need for a particular group of people to know that they are not alone in their beliefs or non-beliefs and c) because it asserts First Amendment Rights that apparently Fundamentalists believe were only granted to them.

Russell Varner, a junior Journalism major at Elon University in North Carolina has written a great article on the difficulties of being openly atheist in the United States, focusing mostly on North Carolina and the culture at his school.  It’s well written, and I don’t think he misses any of the major points that should be touched on.

Excerpts:

“I think atheists, as well as agnostics or folks of other religious convictions other than Christianity for that matter, are disliked because so many ‘Christians’ in the south equate patriotism with belief in God,” said Tripp York, a professor of religious studies at Elon. “There is much confusion in the minds of many North American Christians as to the God they claim to worship and the tribal god established by the civil religion inherent within this nation-state. To deny belief in this god is synonymous, for many, as a form of anti-patriotism.

[sic]

“Not only are atheists the least trusted minority in America, but gays have been trying to be liberated for almost 30 years,” said William. “They have had a long time to acclimate the populace towards homosexuals and the majority of the populace is now willing to treat them as people. The fact that we are talking about true gay marriage in the mainstream rather than how AIDS and vigilantes will kill all of the gays on the news shows this. That’s why I do indeed think that it is harder to come out Atheist rather than gay in the South.”

“Ten or twenty years ago, if you came out gay, your students would see you differently and you’d be afraid the administration would see you differently and there’d be a different acceptance of you on campus, and I’m seeing a real parallel with this,” said an Elon professor who asked to remain anonymous for this article. “Since the topic of my sabbatical research (atheists in the South) became public, people have come to me out of the woodwork saying ‘I’m glad you’re working on that because I’ve always felt uncomfortable here.’”

Click the link.  Read the rest of the article.  This is the kind of insightful writing we need out of our new crop of young journalists.