A message sent to members of the Secular Coalition for America email list:

June 1, 2009

A Message from President Herb Silverman

[...]

Last Thursday, the nontheist movement achieved a new milestone when the Secular Coalition for America had its first individual meeting with White House officials. The Secular Coalition has met with White House officials before, but Thursday’s meeting was unique. It was not a coalition meeting with other organizations, but a special meeting between White House staff and representatives of the Secular Coalition. We had the opportunity to tell the White House who you are, what your policy interests are, and what concerns you.

We have made clear to White House officials that our coalition of nine national nontheistic organizations represents a full spectrum of nontheists. As the broadest, most diverse advocacy group for nontheists in Washington, D.C., we have the credibility to explain our political and cultural interests to our nation’s leaders and provide them with a window into what nontheists across America are thinking and doing in their communities. More importantly we are becoming an influential and increasingly organized constituency, and elected officials want to take our concerns into account.

The goal of the Secular Coalition has always been to increase the visibility of and respect for nontheists in America. Thursday’s meeting was one small step for the Secular Coalition, but an even more significant leap for nontheists everywhere.

My deepest thanks for all you do to support the work of the Secular Coalition for America,

Herb Silverman

President & Founder
Secular Coalition for America

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 »

D.C. Voucher Amendment Defeated

On March 4th, I received an Action Alert email from the Secular Coalition for America.  This prompted me to write on the reasons why school vouchers for religious private schools violate the Establishment Clause, and are therefore a violation of the religious liberties of all, both religious and nonreligious.  I got an email again from the Secular Coalition for America.  This time it wasn’t asking for help, it was congratulating us on our success!

March 10, 2009

Congratulations! Today, the Senate defeated an amendment by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) that would have continued the DC voucher program that enables federally funded religious proselytizing and discrimination.

Because you took a few minutes out of your day to write to your Senators, you helped to stop the continued funding of a program that pays for parents to send their children to private religious schools.

The Secular Coalition for America is proud of you and the fifty-eight U.S. Senators who voted against continuing to fund this program.  To see how your Senators voted, click here.

Please continue to support the work that we do by taking action in the future.

Congratulations again!

The Secular Coalition for America

National Journal Article: “The Godless Rise as a Political Force”

The National Journal has published an article on the growing power of nonreligious political lobbying.  It’s currently only available in the print publication or online to subscribers, so I can’t review it yet.  If you are a subscriber check it out and let me know how it is.  According to the Secular Coalition for America, it will eventually be available on their website.  Until then, they do have a slideshow available, “Faces of the Godless Movement,” with some background audio and images about the movement.

I have seen not only religious bigots, but also other atheists make the ridiculous claim that atheists who speak out against bigotry have a persecution/victim complex.  These “Uncle Tom atheists” (a term I didn’t coin, but love because it describes them perfectly) have internalized the societal view that atheists simply should not speak out, even when they have a legitimate complaint.  One cannot have a victim complex if they are in fact victims of persecution, and atheists clearly are worldwide.

Such persecution may not be as bad as what other groups have gone through physically, as I have discussed in the differences between our movement and the black civil rights movement, but it is horrible culturally.  For social beings, is such social ostracizing not one of the worst forms of persecution possible?  Just being truthful about one’s lack of belief will commonly make others immediately think worse about you, and therefore treat you differently.  Speaking out or “complaining” about such ingrained bigotry is not expressing a persecution complex, but is necessary if this will ever change.  As clearly shown by other movements, such as the gay rights movement, the only path to social change is forcing the issue into the public consciousness.  This is impossible without calling out bigotry, discrimination, ostracizing, and persecutions against atheists wherever we see it.

Read the rest of this entry »

I just received an action alert from the Secular Coalition for America, urging us to stop the continuation of federal funding for religious schools through vouchers.  Vouchers are a major problem for church/state separation.  Although not all private schools are religious, the majority of them are affiliated with religious denominations and, as such, include theological instruction.  Many would be hard pressed to name local secular private schools, and may not even be able to name one.  Meanwhile, considering the prevalence of religious schools, it isn’t nearly as difficult to name at least one local private religious school.

According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (see graph below), as of 2005 44% of private schools were Roman Catholic and 37% had other “religious orientation or purpose,” for a total of 81% of private schools being religious.  Although the amount of schools with certain religious affiliations such as Roman Catholic has dropped since 1989, the vast majority of private schools are still religious.  The 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey asked private and public school principals about their school goals.  While the top two goals of public school principals were basic literacy (80%) and academic excellence (70%), the top two goals of private school principals were academic excellence (66%) and religious/spiritual life (64%).

Read the rest of this entry »

On Saturday, the New York Times published a commentary from Susan Jacoby, program director of the Center for Inquiry-New York City and author of the best-seller The Age of American Unreason.  In “Keeping the Faith, Ignoring the History,” Jacoby discusses and dismantles the assumption that religious groups being provided taxpayer funds for (supposedly) social services is both constitutional and something that has always been, or should be done.  She questions, as I have consistently here on SDR, that the predominant controversy has been how religious groups use the money they receive, rather than whether religious groups should be given tax payer funds at all.

I’m not going to go into all of my arguments against tax payer funding of religious social services organizations again.  I know when to admit I’ve been beaten; Jacoby presents those and further arguments much better than I ever could.  Read her article and you will get more out of it than I can give you.

Excerpt:

It is truly dismaying that amid all the discussion about President Obama’s version of faith-based community initiatives, there has been such a widespread reluctance to question the basic assumption that government can spend money on religiously based enterprises without violating the First Amendment. The debate has instead focused on whether proselytizing or religious hiring discrimination should be permitted when church groups take public money. This shows how easy it is to institutionalize a bad idea based on unexamined assumptions about service to a greater good.

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 »

“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.”

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 »

Last month, I wrote about the six states that disallow atheists from running for public office.  In at least one of these states this might change.  P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula pointed out that Rep. Richard Carroll introduced a bill in the Arkansas State Assembly to allow atheists to run for public office and testify as witnesses in court.  If you live in Arkansas please contact your representatives in the Assembly and let them know you support the bill.