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.

Religious discrimination in the workplace is wrong and illegal, whether it is due to the employee having a different religion or no religion at all.  Unfortunately, as I have often reported on, many fervently religious people don’t understand that these rights extend to atheists also, and see nothing wrong with discriminating against them in the workplace or elsewhere.

The Good Atheist has more details and commentary on this story.  Austin Cline at About.com does also, and quotes an interview with Ms. Donaldson from the Dallas Atheism Examiner.

Bigots have a problem with reality: they tend to not care so much about facts or even understanding the basics of the terminology they use in their attacks on those they hate.  An example that I see regularly in my surveillance of anti-atheist bigots is that they don’t know or don’t care about the difference between secularism and atheism.  This is not to say that definitions of secularism that include rejection of religious beliefs are wrong, many dictionary examples give such a definition as the first option, but dictionary definitions, although used by people who don’t know how to participate in good debate, are by no means evidence of what a word means in common practice.  In most cases a more correct definition is:

the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.¹

Secularism is religion being kept out of/not being an issue in government and culture where it is not needed.  It is keeping religion out of things it has nothing to do with.  Secularism is an integral part of American culture and government.  People of all faiths and none enjoy the benefits of secular society.  It is not by nature anti-religion (a secular society says nothing about whether religion is “good” or “bad”), and it is definitely not atheist (it does not assert the existence or nonexistence of any deity or supernaturalism of any kind).

Many Americans, including those with religious affiliation, appreciate secularism in this form and understand why it is important.  Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), a group at the forefront of protecting our constitutionally mandated secular government, is led by Barry W. Lynn, an ordained reverent in the United Church of Christ.  Clearly secularism, especially as it pertains to Church/State separation, is not something promoted only by atheists; it is promoted by Americans from all walks of life.

Here’s a hint for the critics, if you are going to criticize or bash something at least do it right.  If you are going to criticize secularism then criticize secularism, don’t say you are talking about secularism and then go into a diatribe bashing atheists. If you want to justify your hate for atheists then that’s fine too, but be honest about it.  Don’t invoke the concept of secularism as if it has anything to do with atheism.  Don’t try to push your religion onto the rest of society by invoking the irrelevant boogieman of atheism. That just makes you sound silly to the religious and nonreligious who enjoy secular society together.

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

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.

These same arguments are what practically all of those who wish to silence us use.  Anyone looking at them critically, religious or not, can see their untruth and contradictory nature.  Such arguments add to the vast collection that expose these bigots for what they are.  The biggest Achilles’ heel of these people is that they are consistently guilty of misrepresentation and projection.  In his attack article, Mr. Russell commits both crimes against truth at once:

The main premise of this group is hopelessly illogical. The group that claims to reject dogma, in fact, has a dogma of its own. The members declare that to be a Freethinker, one must subscribe to the idea that dogmas are merely a “restraint” on coming to “conclusions about morality and the nature of the universe.” What good, then, is the group? It depends on a dogma to restrain members, and then decries the restraint of dogmas.

Mr. Russell either didn’t make the effort to understand what freethinkers are, is lying to support his argument, or both.  He ridiculously claims that the rejection of dogma is in itself dogma.  I shouldn’t have to explain why this is ridiculous, but nevertheless Ms. Ice gives him a lesson on the definition of dogma:

Individuals for Freethought was recently accused of relying on dogma to restrain group members into believing that one should come to conclusions by using logic and reason. This is a fallacy. To say that the rejection of dogma is itself a dogma stretches the word to meaninglessness.

Dogma is an established system of beliefs that are not to be disputed, in which dissent is discouraged. It is an authoritative top-down way of thinking that does not allow for logical revision and rational discussion. In fact, to refute dogmatic beliefs is to take away their power over the individual and come to conclusions about the universe that must necessarily change with new discoveries. At one time, dogma allowed people to actually believe that enslaving fellow humans was acceptable. Thanks to those who questioned this dogmatic belief, our society has abolished slavery. No matter the religion these people had, they rejected dogma and “thought it through,” using reason and logic.

Rejection of dogma is by definition the opposite of dogma.  To claim otherwise is the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Furthermore, he is committing crime against truthful dialogue by projecting his own issues onto those he is criticizing, something all too common among those attacking the nonreligious.  In his own words:

I am a strict Catholic. I believe all dogmas held and taught by the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure which is more amusing, that he projects his own dogmatic beliefs onto those who hold no dogma, or that he is criticizing them for being dogmatic while admitted that he is himself.  The ridiculousness doesn’t end there:

I harbor no hatred toward the members of other religious sects or schools of thought. I might disagree with other people, but I defend their right to disagree

Any question about whether Mr. Russell is a liar goes out the window with that statement.  I see no other option, unless he is simply horribly deluded as to the consequences of the arguments he makes.  It may be true that he doesn’t hate people simply for disagreeing with him on theological or philosophical matters – I can’t see into another person’s mind.  He absolutely does not, though, defend others right to disagree.  Maybe he defends the right of other theists to disagree, but certainly not atheists.  His entire article shows that.  Denying the basic substance of one’s writing at the very end doesn’t cancel out all that came before it.

However, I am no philosophical relativist. I believe that there is an objective Truth.

Here is some common ground, we both believe in objective truth (what’s with the capitalization of “Truth” though?).  The difference is that by asserting complete acceptance of dogma he is claiming to have perfect knowledge of such truth, an arrogance inherent in dogma.  At least freethinkers don’t claim to know perfect objective truth, but only the historically and evidence supported assertion that critical thinking and scientific evidence rather than dogma is the only way to get as close as we can to truth.

I believe Catholic dogmas because they are firmly based on both faith and reason. I do not believe them because I have been told to or because I am incapable of understanding other views.

He may believe in objective truth, but he completely discounts the only effective way humanity has ever found to get close to objective truth, reason.  Sure, he claims that his views are based on reason, but it has already become clear that he doesn’t understand the terms he is using.  His reasoning is based on what he thinks sounds good, not what has or lacks objective evidence.  He is rationalizing, but anything can be rationalized.  Dogma by definition does not allow reason.  To paraphrase Ms. Ice, it is authoritative and discourages dissent.  There is no reasoning when one accepts dogma.  Without the possibility of dissent, reasoning – at least logical reasoning – is impossible.

Mr. Russell is also ignores the very dogma he claims to so vehemently believe.  His own faith tells him that belief is exactly that, faith, not evidence based reasoning.  He admits that faith is one part of why he believes.  The problem is he also claims that he came to accept the dogma based on faith and reason together.  This is impossible.  Faith by definition is belief without evidence, as even theologians will agree.  Logical reasoning, to have any veracity, requires evidence.  To two are mutually exclusive.  While he projects his dogmatism onto freethinkers, Mr. Russell disingenuously and incorrectly attributes reasoning to himself.

If one is going to attack an entire group of people, at least get your facts straight.  As we see consistently, religious bigots have a problem with that.

Ms. Ice’s response also discusses the bigotry the nonreligious face, and many good reasons why nonreligious groups should not be simply dismissed as ridiculous, any more than groups of like-minded believers should be.  I only focused on a small aspect of her response, read the entire article.  It really is a fantastic explanation of the freethought movement and why we should have the same respect and place in the marketplace of ideas as anyone else.

I didn’t intend for this article to turn into a defense of nonreligious viewpoints or a criticism of religious beliefs specifically; that isn’t the purpose of this blog.  It is to report on bigotry such as this against the nonreligious.  Nevertheless, it was needed to show just how ridiculous Mr. Russell’s claims about freethinkers are in light of his own beliefs.

I recently received an email from an atheist writer in Sudan who claims to be in fear of imminent death for being open about his atheism.  He told me that his situation was so dire that to save his life he was looking to get out of the country as soon as possible.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t help in that respect.  I haven’t heard from him since, but I hope everything worked out well.  He did give me permission to publish the email he sent me to get the word out about the dangers to atheists in Sudan.  Due to language issues, it was not clear whether he wanted me to remove identifying details or not (he has been writing on atheism publicly), but to be safe I have edited out specific identifying information.

Dear Sir/Madam

I’m 31 years old Sudanese civil engineer, live in [removed] – Sudan.

My problem start years ago, but now it reached dangerous point, because my life is truly in danger.

I’m atheist, and I have nothing to hide, my family and my closed friends knowing that for years and accept it hardly as a fact. Since 2003 – my last year in collage – I start to write a wall newspaper in university a bout atheism and Islam, the news paper name is “[removed]” in Arabic.

Three years ago I start to write articles in several web sites, like [removed], [removed].

My articles almost are about atheism, Islam, Liberalism, the civil state and all of them in Arabic.

After I start writing in [removed] using my real name on 2007. Threats start by any communication tool you know, email, phone calls, sms and directly face to face.

For the first time I did not take those threats seriously, but now I have to.

On Dec. 2008 someone call me and tell me that I have to stop writing on [removed] or thy have to kill me because God is ordering them to kill any one left Islam. After that I wrote article about Hajj the most Muslim holy activity. The same person call me again and tell me this is my last chance, and give me accurate information about me and my family to impress me. I go to police and gave them the number of the phone, after two days I go back to the police station to know who is trying to terrorize me and thy tell me that my case is refused by the higher officer because it is nonsense, can you believe? Killing threat and nonsense?

On Jan 2009 I fired from my job because some on call the manager and tell him that I’m atheist and I did not pray. The manager ask me to pray with him one day in strange way, I refused then after two days fired me and tell me he is sorry but he have to fired me.

On 8 Mar 2009 the women day, after I comment in seminar talking about women rights and my opinion is the Islam constitution lies to women and the truth is women have no rights in Islam, I give my girl friend a ride to her home far from [removed], when I go back I followed by two cars, thy tried to stop me in empty place near [removed]. But I scabbed by miracle.

I live in terror, and I can’t continue my live here in Sudan, unless I hide my believes and live a life of someone else not me, witch it is not one of my choices even if it leading me to lost my life.

I need help to immigrate to any country in Europe or America or Australia. I wont only to be safe.

Thanks for reading my email

Best Regards

[removed]

[removed]

[...] many students who identify as atheist – or related designations, such as humanist or free thinker – are, in fact, quite thoughtful about their purpose, morals, and values.

In fact, as a marginalized group, atheists need these resources more than those in the religious majority.

Atheist students, however, tend to be cautious about whom they share their perspective with because they do not want to offend others or make them uncomfortable. Nor do they want to be put in the position of having to defend their worldview. To avoid being thought of as people with no morals or life purpose who are destined for hell, they choose to remain invisible.

Along with the general recommendation that colleges “create an environment that encourages atheist students to come forward and share their views,” the authors recommend five main actions:

• “Create a welcoming environment for atheist students.”
• “Include atheism in student programming.”
• “Ensure that atheists can, like other students, explore their inner development.”
• “Create safe spaces that are “atheist only” for student.”
• “Look to other institutions for best practices.”

There is a lot of great discussion about the marginalization of campus atheists, misconceptions about them, as well as more on actions colleges should take.  A lot of what is discussed is just as valid for American culture in general. The misconceptions and bigotry mirrors that in the outside world.  Unfortunately, it is likely that any institutionalized attempts at making atheists feel the least bit welcome on campus will be fought tooth and nail by those with an irrational hatred and fear of those who do not share their beliefs, or any belief – that is, if any colleges take their advice.

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.

Those who make such an argument aren’t basing it on anything legally and constitutionally factual.  They are expressing their absolute hate – not of atheism, but of atheists – by making a claim that they wish were true.  This is the definition of bigotry, disliking people simply for holding a view, not anyone’s actual actions.  Criticizing destructive actions if they are based on a specific viewpoint, and then pointing out the actions were due to the views the actors hold is acceptable.  Hating a whole group of people who have done nothing other than to hold specific views is the clearest expression of bigotry.  Attempting to remove civil rights protections from that group, or claim they never had them in the first place, is a another level of disgusting.

These bigots want it to be true so that they can persecute the nonreligious, or at the least so that we cannot complain when our civil rights are violated – we wouldn’t have them anymore.  Why otherwise would they make such a ridiculous, untrue claim?  They already believe the nonreligious are evil and therefore morally deserve anything we get.  If the nonreligious have no constitutional right to their views of religion, it breaks down the legal barrier to seeing them as American citizens like anyone else.  If we lack a constitutional right granted to others, we are lesser citizens.  Religious bigots love the thought of that.  If we are lesser people, as they believe, then why should we have the same rights as the religious?  Does this sound familiar?  It’s the same justification used when blacks had less rights than whites.

The First and Fourteenth Amendments

When debunking this claim, the scope of the First Amendment must first be established. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This clause has been clearly and repeatedly interpreted by the Supreme Court and constitutional scholars as barring government from establishing or discriminating against religious views.  One can argue that this discusses Congress, not other parts of government or state governments.  The prevailing interpretation is that no part of federal government can discriminate on religious grounds, and as per the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states cannot either:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The fact that the Establishment Clause is meant to keep religion out of government completely (and government out of religion) is reinforced by the fact that the First Amendment’s writer, Thomas Jefferson, described in his own words that it creates “a wall of separation between church and state.”  The Establishment Clause, therefore, must protect all of us, whether religious or nonreligious. As per the Equal Protection Clause, all of the Constitutional rights apply to all citizens of the United States.  The First Amendment does not specify that one must be religious to have religious rights.  There is no freedom to have religious belief if there is no freedom not to have religious belief (in recent popular parlance, “freedom of religion and freedom from religion”).  Otherwise, government would be promoting religion over non-religion, which would surely be no wall of separation.

Hypocrisy

Let’s take those of the nonreligious who are atheist, for instance.  Atheism isn’t a religion and isn’t a religious belief, it’s the very lack of belief.  This doesn’t make atheists any less protected.  Atheism is not a religious belief, but it is certainly an idea about religion.  Freedom of religion has never been defined as protecting only “beliefs.”  One doesn’t need to be religious to have opinions about religion, and it is these opinions that freedom of religion protects.  Nowhere does it say that the nonreligious are exempt from such protection, no matter how badly the bigots would like to believe the contrary.  As an aside, this shows the hypocrisy of and how disingenuous many anti-atheist bigots are: they call atheism a religion that requires faith when it suits them, but then admit it isn’t a religion in order to claim we aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

In Praise of The Establishment Clause: For Us All

Separation of church and state is a great thing for all citizens, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, any other religion, or no religion.  All Americans should use this time to reflect and be thankful for the founding fathers’ gift to us, one important enough to be the first addition to the Bill of Rights along with freedom of speech.  We should be happy to live in a country where the religious can worship as they choose and the nonreligious can choose not to.  Freedom of religion that only protects the religious is not freedom at all.  Luckily, the bigots’ wet dream isn’t reality.