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.

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

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 »

Kathleen M. Goodman and John A. Mueller published a great article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Atheist Students on Campus: From Misconceptions to Inclusion.”  The authors discuss the need for colleges to help atheist students break away from misconceptions about atheists and to have access to the same personal resources as religious students.  One of the best points they bring up supporting the need for such resources is that although atheism is not a religion, atheists are concerned with many of the same issues as religious students.

[...] 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.

Read the rest of this entry »

It is almost a given in our society that kids should be raised with religion, because if they aren’t they will grow up to be juvenile delinquents, right? Wrong. Wronger than wrong. Not even wrong. The assumption is so bigoted and breathtakingly inane that it doesn’t deserve a debunking, but it gets one nonetheless in this volume, from nonbelievers of all stripes, who show how and why raising children without religion is not only a loving and ethical approach to parenthood, it is an honorable one.
– Michael Shermer

The preceding quote is from the forward to Dale McGowan’s Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, a collection of essays on raising children with a nonreligious, skeptical worldview.  Reasonable, honest atheists would never claim that raising a child with religious belief would by nature cause the child to grow up as a bad person (although some might argue that such belief can lead toward some unfortunate intellectual consequences), as no honest religious person would likewise claim about us.

The dishonest anti-atheist bigots, though, have no such scruples.  They ignore the fact that morals come from many sources, and that religion in practice has no historically valid claim to moral perfection.  That is, considering that the majority of people on our planet are religious to some degree, crime and acts that would be considered “immoral” by the religion’s own standards are still common by those who follow such faiths.  Clearly, being raised with religious belief does not in any way guarantee that one will be a “good person,” however that is defined.
Read the rest of this entry »

I learned on Pharyngula about a book Phil Zuckerman has written that I think everyone, the nonreligious and especially the religious should read. In Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment [amazon.com], he writes on two countries considered the least religious in the world: Denmark and Sweden.  Although religious bigots claim that atheism or secularism (which can exist in dominantly religious countries too) causes the downfall of societies, these two countries are proof that the dominance of nonreligious ideologies/philosophies does not by nature lead to societal destruction by any means.  Such contentment would not exist if the lack of religion required so.

For full disclosure, I have not read the book myself.  I intend to as soon as I can.  Zuckerman is a respected social scientist, and so far the reviews have been very promising.  I see no reason why this would not be a great addition to the evidence which overwhelming supports that religiousness is not required for a stable, happy society.  This blog is meant to speak about the bigotry the nonreligious face, while also showing that the nonreligious societies are not the evil that the bigots make them out to be.  As such, I don’t usually discuss or degrade religion itself, but in this case the elephant in the room cannot be ignored.  While it is claimed by our detractors that the lack of belief is destructive, it cannot be ignored that the lack of belief is simply a lack of belief, nothing more.  It says nothing about values or morals, the most basic of which social scientists have shown to be universal, having nothing to do with religious belief.
Read the rest of this entry »

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.