I just received the Action Alert below from the Secular Coalition for America.  I doubt they would mind me reproducing it here – it brings this important plea to a wider audience.

Last week, the House of Representatives included $100 million for the Compassion Capital Fund in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the economic stimulus package. The Compassion Capital Fund was a key component of George W. Bush’s controversial faith-based funding program and has been singled out by watchdog groups for its inability to ensure that religious groups receiving tax dollars are not breaching the constitutional separation of church and state.

On Monday, the Senate is expected to begin voting on the passage of the economic stimulus package; their version currently does not contain money for this faith-based initiative and it’s important you make sure it stays that way.

Take action now!

The Religious Right is lobbying hard for this back door funding, and it’s time for us to fight back. It is imperative that you send a strong message to your Senators today asking them to take a stand now and in the future against funding a highly criticized program that violates the separation of church and state.

Take action now!

Best wishes,
Secular Coalition for America

Many atheists are known to be great fans of science.  Since they reject unproven and implausible supernatural “explanations,” they understand that scientific inquiry is the best way to analyze our natural world.  This is why a majority of scientists are atheists; as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says (to paraphrase): many of those scientists who do claim some sort of religiosity mean it in more of a sense of amazement of the natural world than belief in any supernatural deity or story.

As one of these reality-based scientists, famed British naturalist Sir David Attenborough has revealed the constant bigoted hate mail he receives [google.com] from many Christians.  It is not because he flaunts his lack of belief (although there is nothing wrong with that), but simply because he doesn’t give God credit in his famous nature documentaries.  It’s not surprising he doesn’t give God credit, and not because he is atheist, but simply because he is a scientist.  Science and religion are two separate things, and where religious claims can be tested by scientific means it fails, as even most religious scientists agree.  I’m sure Sir Attenborough would be happy to credit God if the science supported such credit.  It simply doesn’t.

Telling the magazine that he was also asked why he did not give “credit” to the Lord, Sir David continued: “They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds.

“I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs.

Clearly, all Christians do not act like this.  As many tolerant Christians have commented on similar stories, hate mail such as this certainly doesn’t jive with what they see as being Christian.  Yet, this sort of bigotry is a problem among all religions and should not be ignored, specifically by the religious who are not bigoted.  I don’t see how any decent person of any or no faith can read this hate mail and not feel disgusted.

Sir Attenborough is one of the greatest popular science educators of all times, and he deserves better – not as an atheist, but as a human being.

Moments of silence have always been bothersome for the nonreligious community.  They are thinly veiled moments of prayer.  When challenged, those supporting them claim that anything can be done during that time, but we all know they are being disingenuous.  Moments of silence are clearly meant for silent prayer, and anyone intellectually honest recognizes that.  What else are we expected to do: think about what to make for dinner, the cute girl you just saw (I do, but as an atheist I’m certainly not going to do something as useless as pray)?  Clearly a moment of silence is meant to do something (as prayer supposedly does, if one believes).  Otherwise, what would be the point?  A moment of simply silent reflection, as is sometimes claimed, is completely useless in a group setting, while many believe group prayer can be very effective, i.e. at church.  I will, therefore, from now on refer to it instead as a “moment of silent prayer.”  That is a much more truthful description.

This does not mean that moments of silent prayer are by any means wrong or unconstitutional by nature, as long as they are done in a non-captive setting one chooses to attend (sports game, for instance in honor of troops who have died), or publicly as long as participation is not enforced by law (still questionable if promoted by public employees).  As we can honestly recognize “moments of silence” as meant primarily to be moments of mass silent prayer, to be legally coerced into it would be unquestionably unconstitutional.

Illinois has such a law.  This law requires public school students to observe a moment of silent prayer, although as I already mentioned they disingenuously claim that it can be a moment of “silent reflection,” whatever that means.  In actuality, it is another attempt to sneak prayer into our taxpayer funded schools and push it onto a young, captive audience.   U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Gettleman saw through the ruse, ordering a permanent injunction banning enforcement of the law [DailyHerald.com].

“The statute is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion,” wrote Gettleman.

There is only one aspect in which I disagree with Judge Gettleman: the statute isn’t quite subtle.  Although it is an attempt to sneak prayer into the schools, I don’t see how a moment that everyone recognizes as a time for prayer can be subtle.  It’s another win for everyone’s First Amendment rights and as a consequence another win in the fight for the rights of the nonreligious.  Hopefully, now that we no longer have a religious ideologue in office, we might have many more.

Addendum (1/26/09)

Eric Zorn, from the Chicago Tribune, has posted a plain text version of the ruling originally published as a .pdf (sans footnotes).  It explains well why the mandatory moment of silent prayer law violates the “Lemon test” of First Amendment constitutionality.

I missed this before the inauguration, but I’ll write about this now because it’s important.   The American Humanist Association, along with eighteen other groups, published an open letter on January 13th to President-Elect (now President) Obama asking him to reject the Boy Scouts of America’s offer of the title of honorary president.  As stated the press release, their reason is simple and important:

BSA policy is to deny the participation of nontheistic members and employees and expel those already involved. Thus the letter asks Obama to break with tradition because taking on the title of honorary president would send a message that discrimination against atheists and agnostics is acceptable.

I must admit that I was, as a young child, a cub scout – the lowest level.  I enjoyed it, but I’m glad that I didn’t stick with it, because there was an aspect never made clear to me: atheists are not welcome.  What a problem this would have caused when I finally lost my faith!  This is a problem that unfortunately many have faced.  I would have had to either hide my atheism and continue through the ranks lying (certainly not acceptable in Boy Scout ethics) or had to leave, knowing all my achievements were invalidated simply due to my lack of belief.

I enjoyed my time as a scout and I still believe scouts can learn a lot and do a lot of good as members.  I completely support the BSA’s right to exist and to set their membership criteria as they wish – no matter how bothered I am by those criteria, and support anyone’s right to be a member.  My problem has always been that in many areas the BSA has been given special access to tax-payer funded facilities, such as those in public schools.  No organization that discriminates religiously may legally take advantage of tax-payer funds or tax-payer provided facilities.  When my money is going towards a group in which I, many of my friends, and many of my fellow Americans are barred from participating in simply due to our religious viewpoints or sexual preferences (let’s not forget they discriminate against gays too), I have a big problem.

For this very reason, our president, especially this one who is supposed to break down walls of prejudice and discrimination, should have no part of such an organization.  The symbolism of the honorary presidency would help erode the claims of change we have heard so much about.  I have confidence that President Obama will do the right thing.  I hope he proves me right.

On this great holiday in which we praise the great works of a great man, Martin Luther King Jr., I found a very interesting article. It shows Dr. King as a supporter of state/church separation and as very much a humanist: “Remembering the humanism of Martin Luther King.”

In a 1965 interview with Playboy, King was asked how he felt about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision ruling school prayer unconstitutional. In response he said:

I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in God. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken, and by whom? Legally, constitutionally, or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right. I am strongly opposed to the efforts that have been made to nullify the decision.

I try not to make purely political statements, which is why I will not list all the problems Bush has given us.  There is one thing, though, that has been damaging to people of all faiths and those who have none.  It is absolutely an issue at the heart of all religious and nonreligious rights (I wish I didn’t have to make it so clear that it include us too, but that’s another post): bringing religion into government, where it doesn’t belong.

Does this mean religious people have no place in government?  Clearly, it does not.  Does it mean religious citizens have no right to petition the government based on their beliefs?  Of course not; the Constitution gives us all the same rights, including those with life philosophies that are not by nature religious.  We all have the right to freedom of conscience, and to lobby the government based on what we find important.

Bush went too far, violating the clear intent of the founding fathers¹.  By creating the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives², an office specifically dedicated to predominantly religious organizations, he smashed Jefferson’s “wall of separation between Church & State.”  The office gave taxpayer money to religious organizations without any real attempt to ensure that this money would be used for charity and community programs only, and not used for religious purposes such as proselytizing.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article on the new pro-atheist bus ad campaign in Britain.  It was an idea of comedy writer Ariane Sherine, after she saw pro-Christian ads.   It is sponsored by the British Humanist Association and backed by donations, having raised about £130,000 from many small, individual donations.

The article includes an interesting interview with high-profile backer, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.  If you have ever heard him speak or read his interviews before there will not be much new.  One question is interesting, though:

Were you surprised that so many individual donors responded to the campaign to mount bus advertisements?

I’m surprised and delighted but also somewhat embarrassed. The original target was 5,500 pounds [about $8,250], which I offered to match and we thought that we’d be lucky to get. . . . It would have been enough for buses for a brief period in London.

What happened was huge numbers of people gave small sums — 10 pounds, 15 pounds. . . . The final figure is something like 130,000. That’s why I said I was embarrassed, because that is too much money to spend on a bus campaign. That much money would have been better spent doing something else. . . .

I was actually in favor of diverting the money to something else, which I thought the donors would approve. But other members of the group felt that [as] the money had been given for the bus campaign they were legally obliged to spend it on that campaign.

I am driven to write these posts by the common criticisms against our movement.  I will focus specifically on two:

1. Atheists do not experience major prejudice and discrimination in the United States.
2. Although atheists may experience some measure of prejudice and discrimination, it is not as extreme or openly codified into our government and culture, as it was against blacks, and therefore we have no right to call their fight a “civil rights movement” (a mostly emotional argument made by many African Americans, especially those who experienced the civil rights movement first hand).

The first argument, which this first of two posts is concerned with, has no truth whatsoever.  It is simply an attempt to whitewash the entire issue.  There have, throughout American history, and are still today many examples of discrimination, and most certainly bigotry against atheists.  Although it is not my purpose in this post to give a ton of examples (that’s this entire blog’s mission, isn’t it?), only one is needed to show that claim is patently false – that there is, in fact discrimination against the nonreligious codified into government.  Many states still technically require a religious test for public office, which is blatantly unconstitutional.  They don’t require any specific religious beliefs, only that one asserts a belief in some supernatural deity.  This clearly singles out only the nonreligious, barring them from state public office¹.  These states are:
Read the rest of this entry »

This may be surprising to many, but I have a B.A. in religious studies.  This shouldn’t be so surprising with the understanding that the field of religious studies is not theology.  It is a completely secular, evidence based academic field that includes many academic facets: textual analysis, historical analysis, anthropology, sociology, and even psychology, to say the least.  On the textual analysis side, all religious stories and dogmatic texts are considered myths.  This is not in a sense of a value judgment, but to allow these things to be studied without bias.   I study religion specifically to understand something that is one of the most important forces in this world, whether good or bad.

What does this have to do with this post’s subject?  I just read an article on the Seventh World Atheism Conference in Vijayawada, India, concluding today.  I became fascinated in college with the study of Asian religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism (although whether this is more a philosophical viewpoint than a religion is debatable), etc.  A topic I did extensive research on was Hindu nationalism in India, a movement which has caused major religion-based violence and destruction¹.  Although India is officially a secular country, Hindu nationalists still remain a force in government².  The linked story switches between discussing promotion of science and the promotion of atheism, but this isn’t surprising considering atheists tend to be on the forefront of the battle between evidence-based science and, on the other side, faith-based supernaturalism.

Don’t get me wrong.  It is true that India has a long history of secularism and science.  From the article:

Levi Fragell, a Norwegian humanist leader pointed out that the philosophical and cultural background of a country like India provided stronger potential for a radical humanism.

“India had an agnostic and atheistic philosophical tradition hundreds and thousands of years before any other part of the world,” he said.

Atheist Centre Chairperson J Murthi said separating religion and state was not enough, religion must also be separated from education and culture also.

For details from last year’s conference, see Report on the Sixth World Atheist Conference.

I will, when I cannot write a detailed post, show some examples of bigotry against the nonreligious on the internet. I am still recovering from a recent medical issue, so this is as good a time as any. Many of these could just be trolls when written anonymously, but many people disgustingly see nothing wrong with expressing such hatred and will do it under their own name! Even when anonymous, many times it allows those who are not simply trolling to express the hate they wouldn’t otherwise.

I ask you, would these sorts of statements, lies, and mean-spirited generalizations be acceptable if they were levied against any religious or minority group other than atheists? Of course not. Yet we, who lack belief in a supernatural deity, are protected by our very first constitutional amendment, just as the religious are. Where is the outrage by those of all faiths and philosophical viewpoints?

I feel the need to say one more important thing before I show some recent examples.  I am bringing this to light simply because everyone should know what kind of bigotry is pervasive in culture, specifically American.  Despite the disgust I feel towards these statements, everyone has the right to freedom of speech and should be able to say whatever they want without censorship.  This doesn’t mean, though, that our culture as a whole should tolerate it, but that we should speak up against these people and fight for our place in the marketplace of ideas.

Read the rest of this entry »