It has been many months since the last update of Secular Discrimination Report.  I have had to focus on other things in my life and SDR fell by the wayside.  Most recently, I was going through New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) school and riding as a first aider on my local first aid squad.  EMT school is now finished and I am soon taking the test for state certification.  The end of class leaves me more time for other things, such as this.  Bigotry and discrimination against the nonreligious certainly has not gone away, and I have continued to monitor it as best I can.

To tell you the truth, it’s getting harder to deal with the horrible things said about us, though.  This is especially true as the attacks against us have been growing steadily in the past few years.  It’s frankly infuriating, but I will do my best to continue to monitor religious bigotry, especially against the nonreligious, and present it to you.  There is a bright side: the bigots are more vocal against us because we are being more vocal.  That is bound to happen.  Many nonreligious are no longer scared to speak out, nor are we scared to simply acknowledge that we exist.  In that sense, we are continuing to gain ground.

To those of you who have written to me during this absence, I have not ignored you.  Expect responses soon.

Now on to the promised links:

Christian Bus Ads Fire Back (KCCI.com)

Christian ministry “Covenant of Love” is has their own pro-Christian ads on buses on Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority buses this month.  It is reportedly in response to the recent atheist ads that have been on buses throughout the country.  From what I have seen, the article title seems misleading.  The ads don’t appear confrontational in any way; I would hardly say that they “fire back.”  They simply express their own positive view of Christianity, and that’s a great thing.  This is what we need, dialogue, which we have been essentially excluded from for too long.  We get our say and the religious get theirs.  Religious ads have existed since long before the atheist ads, though.  One could argue the religious already more than had their chance, and in fact dominated the discussion.  This is more confirmation that we are making headway.  We are a threat.  Despite the long history of unopposed religiosity, they feel that they need to respond to us.

Atheist group takes message to Lakeland via billboard (Tampa Bay Online – TBO.com)

Talking about ads, another atheist group has put up a billboard, this time by the Atheists of Florida.  As with the rest, there is nothing offensive unless one chooses to be offended.  It’s a message to other like-minded people that they are not alone, just as with other billboards that have gone up: “Don’t Believe in God?  You are not alone.”

Of course, the website’s comments display the same bigotry and irrational thought we have come to expect from bigots whenever atheists dare even display that we exist.  For example:

Posted by ( zgolf1 ) on 11/02/2009 at 01:53 pm.

I think that the people behind this billboard should stand on a street corner in Polk county and spread their word directly to the people. I am fairly certain that before the day was out that their beliefs would change once that were loaded onto bayflight.

Threatening members of the Atheists of Florida with physical violence because they state that atheists exist?  That’s not very Christian.

Jessica Ice, president of “Individuals for Freethought,” responded (”Free thinkers speak out: We need no dogma“) yesterday in the K-State Collegian to Levi Russell’s article (”Freethought group contradicts own principles“).  In his article, Mr. Russell attempts (badly) to contradict the tenants of freethought, including an implied criticism of the right of the group to exist.  Criticizing the freethought movement, even if the criticisms are false, is at least acceptable discourse.  When criticizing the group’s existence in a free marketplace of ideas, that crosses over into bigotry.  Would Mr. Russell write an article criticizing a different religious faith’s student group’s premise as “hopelessly illogical?”  This is doubtful, because unlike the religious in the United States, bigotry against atheists is still tacitly accepted and in some cases openly encouraged.  Rightfully, Ms. Ice doesn’t let him get away with this:

To say the premise of a freethinking group is “hopelessly illogical” is to undermine its importance in a democratic state, especially on a campus that has more than 30 religious groups. Individuals for Freethought is the only organized voice for non-theists on the K-State campus. I think students should value diversity and acceptance of new ideas that question dogma, and do not harm others. We should not have to live in fear of losing our free speech as we saw with the desecration of our chalking.

I’ve been a part of the nonreligious movement for a long time, and I have never seen anyone in our movement criticize a group in which like-minded theists congregate in such a way.  We criticize the beliefs and ideas, as the writer of the attack article can do with our views, but he goes too far, attacking the group for supposedly contradicting its own principals, principals of which Mr. Russell clearly doesn’t even understand.  We would never tell others that they are illogical for forming a group based around shared viewpoints.  That is an important part of an open society.

Ms. Ice’s continued response shows exactly why the article is bunk, and explains why we have every right to be open about our ideas, and will no longer be silence by religious bigots.  As is to be expected in such articles, Mr. Russell’s contains the same tired, flawed, and downright ridiculous arguments that tend to be so logically inconsistent as to need no opposition.

It is true that calling arguments “tired” can be a fallacy.  Theists use that argument against atheist’s arguments all the time.  The difference is that the arguments they target are repeated because they are supported by the facts.  Mr. Russell’s arguments are not just patently false, but ridiculous altogether.  They show themselves to be untrue on their face.  These are the type of arguments that I – even when I was a believer – would have been embarrassed to see another believer use.  Now, as a nonbeliever, I see it as another example of the fact that we are ultimately on our way to winning both the culture war, and winning our right to exist as opposition to the prevalent unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs.
Read the rest of this entry »

I almost forgot about Blog Against Theocracy!  This is the last day of it, so at least I noticed before it was too late.  From my earlier post announcing my participation:

“Blog Against Theocracy” is an event happening on blogs of those who understand the importance of defending our constitutionally required separation of church and state.  From April 10-12, look out for posts all over the blogosphere, including here on SDR, concerning varied issues relating to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  This is not an atheist blogswarm, per se, but is open all who support Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.”

The Establishment Clause: It Applies to the Nonreligious Too!

There is a bigoted and invalid criticism some religious bigots levy against the nonreligious.  It isn’t a criticism of the lack of religion or belief in a god, which is, true or false, a completely valid intellectual argument to make in good faith.  No idea is beyond criticism.   This specific claim is different; it is not in good faith.  Some claim that the nonreligious are not protected under the United States Constitution’s freedom of religion as religious citizens are!  This is so unbelievably disgusting I must repeat it: they claim that atheists and others with no religion do not have one of the most basic rights that our country was founded upon.

Read the rest of this entry »

One again, P.Z. Myers brought to my attention [scienceblogs.com] a recent issue of importance to atheist rights I have somehow overlooked.  Back in November, the United Nations passed a nonbinding resolution [canada.com], pushed by Islamic countries, urging member states to make blasphemy – that is, anything viewed as criticism of religion, especially Islam – illegal.  According to a recent report by CNNs Lou Dobbs, the U.N. general assembly is now considering a new resolution making this binding on member states, which would include us here in the United States.  In the video (also imbedded below), Christopher Hitchens and others are interviewed on the subject, and they unsurprisingly are not for it.

Canada gave a great response to the original nonbinding resolution (emphasis added):

“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings,” said Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.

“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all.”

The recent CNN report quotes the U.S. government’s response to the proposed binding resolution:

While appearing in name to promote tolerance, the implementation of this concept actually fosters intolerance and has served to justify restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Read the rest of this entry »

Back in January I wrote on the first of a two part defense of the nonreligious civil rights movement, responding to the claim that atheists do not experience major prejudice and discrimination in the United States.  This post, part 2, is a response to the second common criticism, that 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 our fight a “civil rights movement.”  I was recently asked by a law student for information as to what form the nonreligious civil rights movement takes.  This post is adapted from my response.

For the record, when I say atheist in this post I am for simplicity’s sake referring to the nonreligious as a whole, not necessarily only those who would self identify as atheists.  I know this isn’t very specific, but the community is not united in the way specific religious groups are because we don’t necessarily share any specific philosophy.  We simply (passive) lack belief in any supernatural deity, or (active) deny the existence of a supernatural deity.  With that said:

Clearly, the atheist civil rights movement is very much different from what is seen as the model of a civil rights movement in our country: the black civil rights movement.  Atheists are not segregated from the religious in public schools; we are not forced to sit at the back of buses; we are not barred from eating in the same restaurants as theists, using the same water fountains, etc.  This issue is used constantly to argue not so much that there is no atheist civil rights movement, but that we have no right to call it such.  This is patently ridiculous considering the plain definition of the words.  With the assumption the movement exists, is it concerned with “civil rights?”  Clearly, it is concerned with the legal and human rights of atheists.  I’m not a lawyer, or even a law student, but by what other reasonable way can we define civil rights?  Now, is it a movement?
Read the rest of this entry »

Who is Really Persecuted

Religious bigots just don’t get it.  They don’t understand that others have the right to express their opinions publicly.  If one were to criticize them for promoting their religion in public they would cry “Religious intolerance!”  When atheists express themselves, though, we are suddenly “militant atheists” hell bent on eroding the religious foundations (that don’t really exist in the way they mean) of our country.  While atheists are persecuted, or at the least subject to constant bigotry for simply expressing ourselves, I continue to hear Christians in the United States claim that they face persecution.  Really, in a country with a vast majority of Christian citizens they are somehow persecuted?  Give me a break.  Even other Christians, such as Indianapolis Star religion blogger Robert King, understand [indystar.com] how ridiculous it is for Christians in the U.S. to claim persecution.

New Bus Ads … Now From the Christians

British Christians, in an attempt to counter the recent atheist bus ads, have raised money [washingtonpost.com] for their own ads in an attempt to counteract the atheist bus ads.  This is their right, but they miss the point.  The ads were not meant to de-convert anyone, although the religious are constantly attempting to convert nonbelievers, or those that believe the “wrong” thing.  Although many atheists do see religion as a dangerous thing and would love to have more people rely on evidence-based reasoning, the ads were not meant to do this.  They were simply to let the nonreligious who feel alone in a religious world know that there are other out there who share their disbelief – that they are not alone.  Christians are already well aware that they are not alone, so what good does this really do them?  It’s a mean-spirited attempt to drown out the atheist voice by those who can’t stand the fact that atheists will no longer be in the closet, we will no longer sit quietly and internalize the opposing view that they shouldn’t express themselves like the religious, lest they be labeled “arrogant.”

British Christian community, you can feel free to buy as many bus ads as you want.  It just shows how frightened you really are that you are losing ground.  Unlike some intolerant religious folk, we are not afraid of open dialogue, we have nothing to fear.  As the Washington Post article says:

More than three of four people in the world consider themselves religious, and those who say they belong to no faith are in the distinct minority.

As a minority, even in a more secular country such as Britain, we have nothing to lose.  Our ranks are growing faster than ever and religious leaders know it.  They are scared, so we can only expect the attacks to get stronger, in both the United States and Britain.  It means we’re doing something right.

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said the new religious ads proclaiming God are “really quite a compliment” and mean “our ads had an impact.”

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 »

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.

Anti-atheist bigots have unfortunately succeeded in forcing the removal of The Freedom from Religion Foundation’s “Imagine No Religion” billboard in Ontario, Canada.  Of course, the FFRF has something to say about it.  Once again we see the mindset of those who believe that atheists do not deserve the same rights as everyone else:

Judy Rooze, administrator of First Baptist Church of Rancho Cucamonga, which is two blocks from the billboard, was relieved it was coming down.

Rooze said it was unsettling.

“I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far,” she said. “It’s very jarring.”

Despite her claim, Rooze clearly does not understand the concept of freedom of speech.  Simply because a religious person is “unsettled” by an opinion on religion in Ontario their rights trump those of atheists?  Does this extend to all of Canada?

From the FFRF’s response:

Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor called such censorship “unprofessional and cavalier.”

“Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate? One small freethought billboard in the immense state of California is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored?”

[sic]

“There is nothing insulting in our message. We simply invite the public to think, to imagine a world free from religion. Think of the history of believers warring over their imaginary gods, the fact that more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason! The human race needs to grow up. We should concentrate on improving this world, and stop worrying about the next,” Gaylor added.

Are you from Ontario or any other part of Canada and have you been discriminated against for your lack of religion?  Comment here or, if you want to share a longer story for me to post, email me sdreport [at] bunda.org.