Atheist Revolution

Atheist Movement: We Are More Than Our Headliners

2012-05-25T07:14:00.001-05:00

Twitter is one of those rare things where I feel rewarded almost every time I use it. One of the things I like best about Twitter is how easy it is to find inspiration from my fellow atheists. Sometimes it is a great quote I haven't thought about in years. Other times, it is a news story I missed. And still other times, it is the sort of thought-provoking question I can never see too often. For example, Emily Dietle (@emilyhasbooks) recently asked a great question about the future of the atheist movement:

I'm a "worrier" & can't help but be concerned that our secular mvmt will fall flat when some of headliners die. Set me straight, folks...

I thought this was an interesting question. I've heard many variations of it before, but I'd never seen it phrased so succinctly (another advantage of Twitter). My response was:

That's a valid concern, but I think our strength is our grassroots and not the professional atheists.

In this post, I'd like to unpack what I meant a bit.

Emily's concern makes sense to me even though I do not happen to share it. It is easy to imagine the atheist movement trucking along after the loss of a single headliner like Hitchens. But what about when Dawkins and the others quit or die? Will younger headliners rise to replace them, or will we be left with a void we cannot fill?

When I responded to Emily, I did not use the term "headliner" like she did. I knew exactly what she meant. I just have my own hang-ups with the term in this context. I'm reasonably confident this has to do with my puzzlement over much of the hero "worship" I've seen in the atheist movement.

I referred instead to "professional atheists," as if that was any better. I'm not really sure why I used that term. Maybe I remembered I had used it before and was trying to be consistent or something. I'm not even sure what it means, although it certainly has a negative feel to it. I wouldn't want to be called a professional atheist, whatever it means. I suppose I'm naturally suspicious of anyone who seeks celebrity in this or any other movement. But I recognize that I'm extremely odd in this regard, and this is a tangent to explore later. Time to get back on track.

What I was trying to say in my tweet was this: the real strength of the atheist movement is not our headliners, celebrities, or professional atheists; it is our grassroots. It is you and me and our willingness to give a damn. The cool thing about atheism is that you do not have to be a genius, a great writer, a strong public speaker, or particularly good at marketing yourself to make a difference. All you have to do is have the courage to be yourself and speak your mind.

The professional atheists can be helpful. There is no doubt that some of them gave the modern atheist movement a real boost. But they are not necessary. The atheist movement does not depend on rallies, national conferences, or anything of the sort. Atheism was here long before any of the current headliners and will be here long after. The atheist movement will continue based on the work of the ordinary. It has always been up to us.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Religious Extremists Who Want to Ban the Internet

2012-05-24T06:27:00.001-05:00

If you are a religious extremist and someone is doing something of which you do not approve, what do you do about it? You seek to ban whatever they are doing, of course. Don't approve of people buying alcohol on Sundays? Enact "blue laws" to prohibit anyone from doing so. Convinced that letting two loving adults of the same sex marry would somehow affect your own marriage? Pour money into state after state to support bans on same sex marriage.

Gizmodo reports that 40,000 Ultra-Orthodox Jews recently gathered at Citi Field in New York to protest against the Internet for over seven hours. Protest against the Internet? Yes, you read that correctly.

Under broiling sun, tens upon tens of thousands were bused in from across state lines, rallying to denounce an existential threat to both their community and the swell name of God himself: the internet.

Religious believers have are increasingly recognizing that the Internet poses a real threat to their ability to brainwash and control younger generations. Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen more efforts by religious extremists along these lines.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Kind of Atheist I Want to Be

2012-05-23T05:53:00.001-05:00

I want to be the kind of atheist who does not pick fights with the religious but does not run from conflict when it is encountered either. I want to be the kind of atheist who defends secularism whenever necessary and recognizes that strengthening the wall of separation between church and state is of vital importance. I want to be the kind of atheist who models reason, critical thinking, and basing beliefs on evidence. I want to be the kind of atheist who can utilize anger effectively without getting carried away with it.

These attributes are aspirational. I'm not there yet. I do sometimes pick fights and resort to childish mockery when it may not be the best strategy for the situation in which I find myself. I do avoid conflict, especially when I'm feeling burned out by the constant struggle to stand up to the religious majority. I regularly lose sight of the central goal of church-state separation and get distracted by lesser concerns. I have periods where I am anything but rational and during which the only thing I model is avoidance and apathy. And yes, making sure that my anger works for me rather than the other way around is something I do not do nearly as well as I'd like.

I recognize that my flaws are part of what makes me who I am. I gave up on perfection long ago, realizing that flexibility is more important. I will continue to screw up and be a different sort of atheist than the one I want to be. But as long as I don't lose sight of my goals or give up pursuing them, I think I'll be okay. I may never truly be the kind of atheist I want to me, but I'll also never give up trying.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Voters Tiring of Hearing Religion From Politicians

2012-05-22T05:10:00.001-05:00

As our politicians desperately try to show how pious they are, it seems that growing numbers of Americans are growing tired of religious pandering.

This article at CNN by Lisa Desjardis suggests that some evangelical Christians are beginning to tire of hearing religious talk from politicians. Tim King (Sojourners) is quoted as saying:

You don't get to win the argument because you have more Bible verses. You need to make the case about why your policies are good for everyone.

That makes sense, but Sojourners represents progressive Christians (i.e., the evangelical left). It is hard to imagine those on the political right feeling similarly. After all, many of them seem genuinely interested in theocracy.

And yet, Desjardins points to the results of a poll from the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life showing something they have never seen before: 38% of voters indicated that politicians are talking about religion "too much," an all-time high in the last 10 years. Although this trend is more pronounced on the left, it was observed even among Republicans. That is encouraging.

For now, it seems that the more politicians talk about religion, the more voters want them to stop such talk.

Sounds good to me!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Faculty Leave Georgia Baptist School Over Lifestyle Statement

2012-05-21T05:51:00.001-05:00

Drawing on my experience in academia, I can safely say that a mass exodus of faculty from an institution is a clear sign of serious trouble. Faculty leave one institution for another regularly, but when they do so en masse, it signals real trouble to anyone paying attention.

The Religion News Service is reporting that over 24 faculty have resigned from Shorter University in Georgia, a Baptist school, after it informed them that they would be required to sign a statement condemning public drinking, premarital sex, and homosexuality.

Shorter is a Baptist university, so the fact that they would have some sort of lifestyle statement like this is not terribly unusual. Many religious colleges and universities have similar statements, but they usually require them as a condition of one's initial hiring. I discovered for myself that many institutions include statements like this in the application materials for persons applying for jobs. Not surprisingly, I decided not to apply to work at any school with such a requirement.

What is unusual about this case is that Shorter is so small that the number of faculty leaving translates into something like 25% of their full-time faculty. That is astounding and cannot be good for the students.

Evidently, the Board of Trustees, all appointed by the Georgia Baptist Convention, realized that this might happen and decided that it was still worth doing.

In a Wednesday statement, Dowless said he and the university board recognized there are “strong feelings on both sides” about the new employment rules but the board decided to “reclaim our Christian roots” even if the consequence was a loss of faculty and staff.

Destroying the core of your institution must seem like a small price to pay in order to appease Jesus.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Why Do We Still Have an Office of Faith-Based Initiatives?

2012-05-20T09:11:00.001-05:00

Do you ever have one of those moments of clarity where you look at something almost everyone else seems to accept without thinking about it and ask yourself, "What the hell?" I just had one. Although I am sure the content will not surprise you at all, I'd like to share it anyway.

Here in the United States, a nation founded as a secular democracy (or at least a republic), we have an office of faith-based initiatives right in the White House. What the hell?

Former President George W. Bush created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) in 2001 via two executive orders which bypassed Congress. In 2005, U.S. taxpayers contributed $47 million to the Salvation Army through the OFBCI (AlterNet). The Salvation Army then fired 18 employees for refusing to identify gay co-workers, report which church they attend, and/or participate in a sectarian pledge "proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord." This happened right here in the U.S., where we supposedly have separation of church and state. In fact, a federal judge ruled "that a religious group can hire and fire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, even if their salaries come from taxpayer funds."

Let that sink in for a moment. How is it possible that we have allowed this? And more to the point, how is it that we continue to allow it?

In the run up to the 2008 presidential election, Obama promised to reform the OFBCI, fixing the part about how religious organizations receiving taxpayer money could hire and fire based on religion and bigotry. It did not take him long to break this promise. Despite being asked about it as recently as 2011, little progress toward reform has been evident.

Susan Jacoby wrote the following in a 2009 op-ed for The New York Times:

Nearly everyone now takes for granted the wisdom, constitutionality and inevitability of some form of federal financing for community social services run by religious groups. Who anymore can imagine that the United States managed to exist for over 200 years without the government providing any direct aid to faith and its works?

That remains a damn good question and one we should still be asking each and every day as long as this office exists. The OFBCI, since renamed the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is right there in the White House of the United States for all to see. How is this possible?

As Jacoby noted,

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.

It is time to rekindle this debate. It is time for us all to wake up and ask "What the hell?"

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Florida Baptist Convention Liable for Pastor Abuse

2012-05-19T12:42:00.001-05:00

Big news out of Florida this week. According to the Orlando Sentinel, a jury in Lake County ruled yesterday that the Florida Baptist Convention was liable for a former pastor who sexually abused a 13 year-old boy. This is big news for those of us opposed to child rape.

In this case, the jury determined that the Baptist leadership failed in their duty to adequately investigate the background of the perpetrator, 63 year-old Douglas W. Myers.

Myers, already in prison after pleading guilty to molesting the boy, had received funds and training from the convention before starting two churches. The jury rejected the convention's argument that it is merely a support organization and has no real authority over its pastors.

During the trial, the victim testified the abuse occurred while he was in eighth grade after Myers earned the trust of his grandmother, a devout Baptist.

"He told me it was a normal part of growing up," the young man testified. "He told me he had done it with plenty of other kids at other churches."

Prior to supporting Myers, the convention did run a background check but did not bother to check references or contact the prior churches with which he had been affiliated. Had the done so, they may have learned of his propensities before he had the opportunity to prey on yet another victim.

Hopefully, cases like this will receive the publicity they deserve and lead religious organizations to review their practices.

H/T to Stop Baptist Predators

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Blogging Tip #23: Optimizing Your Topic List

2012-05-19T05:44:00.001-05:00

If you look at that tag cloud in the far right sidebar labeled "topics," you'll get a quick idea about the sort of thing I write about here at Atheist Revolution. The tags that are fairly small (e.g., foxhole atheists) represent topics I have written fairly little about, while the big ones (e.g., Christian extremism) are those that have been especially frequent topics. But there are a couple problems with this tag cloud that I need to fix, so you may see some changes soon. Since I haven't written a new blogging tip in almost a year, I thought I'd explain what I plan to do and why.

Whether you use a tag cloud or a simple list of tags (see Mississippi Atheists for an example), this is an important way to help readers find posts about topics that may interest them. Accurately tagging your posts and providing this sort of information in your sidebar not only helps readers access more of your content; it makes it easier for them to find relevant content.

Organization

How many tags should you use? That will vary based on the nature of your blog and the content of your posts, and you may want to experiment a bit. Having too many tags takes up too much space on your sidebar and means that you'll probably have tags with very few posts in them. Having too few tags is unlikely to be helpful to readers.

I've long made the mistake of tagging countless posts with "Christianity." Not only is this not particularly descriptive, but the label has become so large that it is unlikely to be very helpful to readers. This label could be (and has been) applied to a great many posts. Recognizing this led me to recently create a new tag (i.e., Catholic) and use it to re-classify many of the posts I had been labeling "Christianity." It is still a common subject, it is more descriptive and takes a bite out of the more broader label.

What I am learning is that many of the tags I started with have outlived their usefulness and need to be rethought. My guess is that the longer your blog has been around the more likely you are to find yourself in a similar situation.

Optimizing Tags

If you are thinking of creating new tags, deleting old ones, and doing some reclassification, you can use some basic keyword research to guide your efforts. I went with "Catholic" because it performed better than "Catholicism" or "Catholic church." How did I know? Keyword research.

I've also discovered that I have some real duds in my current labels that do not perform well at all (e.g., foxhole atheists, atheist-theist dialogue). Almost nobody is searching for these terms. I just need to be careful that whatever alternatives I use are still meaningful to readers. It is also important to realize that there probably isn't much (if any) search engine benefit to doing this now that Google is penalizing duplicate content.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

We Need More Christian Characters on Television

2012-05-17T05:21:00.001-05:00

I have always found it odd how some conservative White men seem so determined to feel oppressed. They accuse immigrants of taking jobs they would never do themselves, rail against feminists for expecting them to refrain from overt sexism, and share suspicions about how their ethnically diverse co-workers must be affirmative action hires. They refuse to acknowledge their privilege, status, and the fact that most of those with real power resemble them.

My reaction to Christians in the U.S. complaining of persecution is similar, although I have to admit finding their complaints of oppression even more bizarre. I wonder if they even know what "persecution" means. To be clear, I would never claim that a Christian could not be persecuted for being Christian; however, I am reasonably certain that it doesn't happen nearly as much as many Christians want us to believe.

Stephen Prothero, a regular contributor to CNN's Belief Blog, recently wrote a post in which he compared the increase in GLBT characters on television with…you guessed it…Christians.

“Glee” may feature a gay couple (Kurt and Blaine), a lesbian couple (Santana and Brittany), and a transgender character (Unique), but it also includes the God Squad, a group of Christians that meet in school and struggle with the demands of their faith.

I've never seen Glee, but I can't help thinking that this is a case of false equivalence. Many GBLT students face severe bullying (and not just from Mitt Romney), and this is part of why their suicide rate is much higher than that of their heterosexual peers. Many of these kids are bullied precisely because they are gay. How many Christians in American schools are bullied because they are Christian?

And "struggling with the demands of their faith" sounds an awful lot like the cognitive dissonance one would expect to see from someone who adopted irrational beliefs about the world, many of which are demonstrably false. Perhaps these kids should struggle a bit with this - not because they deserve to be bullied but because they should be in school to learn about reality.

Prothero writes, "I think it’s about time that Christian characters are showing up on television shows." Right. It is about time these poor, persecuted Christians get some air time. I guess Prothero must have missed that Touched by an Angel drivel or forgotten somehow that there are multiple cable networks that are nothing but Christian programming.

But you know what? I'm going to agree with Prothero. We do need more overtly Christian characters on TV. Showing them struggling with - and then ultimately rejecting their faith - could be a positive influence on millions of people who find themselves in a similar position.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

U.S. Loses Over $71 Billion in Religious Tax Exemptions

2012-05-16T07:08:00.001-05:00

The following is from a press release distributed by the Center for Inquiry:

AMHERST, NY: In times of crippling cutbacks to badly needed government services, a new article published by Free Inquiry magazine details how the tax exemptions enjoyed by religious institutions cost the U.S. a staggering $71 billion per year, at the least. Meanwhile, this religious privilege helps to subsidize the lavish homes and lifestyles of numerous clergy on the taxpayers’ dime.

In their new report, “How Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the U.S.,” researchers Ryan T. Cragun, Stephanie Yeager, and Desmond Vega reject the common assumption of churches as “charitable organizations” and instead classify them as primarily the purveyors of a kind of spiritual entertainment. “What we found,” they write, “suggests that religions, if they were required to pay taxes as for-profit corporations do, would not have nearly as much money or influence as they enjoy in America today.”

The authors calculate the loss of tax revenue to exceed $71 billion—with “parsonage” subsidies alone amounting to over $1.2 billion—and even these estimates, they say, are extremely conservative given the cloudiness and obfuscation that is endemic in religious finances. Write the authors, “We realized that religions would be the ideal way to launder money if you were engaged in an illegal enterprise.”

# # # Free Inquiry is a bimonthly magazine featuring thoughtful and provocative commentary from such leading political and social commentators as Richard Dawkins, Arthur Caplan, Wendy Kaminer, and Nat Hentoff. Launched in 1980, Free Inquiry has a paid circulation of approximately 34,000 worldwide. The Free Inquiry website is at www.secularhumanism.org/fi/.

The Council for Secular Humanism—housed at the Center for Inquiry—is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization promoting rational inquiry, secular values, and positive human development through the advancement of secular humanism. The Council, publisher of the bimonthly journal Free Inquiry, has a website at www.secularhumanism.org.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization based in Amherst, New York; it is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI‘s web address is www.centerforinquiry.net.

A Flawed Defense of the Catholic Church

2012-05-15T08:21:00.001-05:00

E. J. Dionne, Jr. is a well-respected columnist for the Washington Post and someone with whom fans of the MSNBC political shows may recognize. He's been a guest on Maddow countless times, and he usually sounds rational.

Dionne recently wrote a post for TruthDig about the full-page ad the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) ran in the Washington Post calling on Catholics to leave the church. Dionne sought to explain why he is not leaving the church. Unfortunately, his flippant tone and many misconceptions about the issues suggest that he made little effort to take it seriously.

Putting aside the group’s love for unnecessary quotation marks, it was shocking to learn that I’m an “enabler” doing “bad” to women’s rights. But Catholic liberals get used to these kinds of things.

So the fact that you can get used to it is supposed to make it okay? Doesn't a co-dependent get used to enabling the alcoholic partner? Since when is getting used to something an indicator of it's moral implications?

I’m sorry to inform the FFRF that I am declining its invitation to quit. They may not see the Gospel as a liberating document, but I do, and I can’t ignore the good done in the name of Christ by the sisters, priests, brothers and lay people who have devoted their lives to the poor and the marginalized.

The issue is not whether the FFRF or anyone else perceives the Christian bible as "liberating" in some way. Most would agree that the church has indeed done some good. The issue is that the good they have done does not begin to excuse their treatment of women, child rape, or the systemic efforts by church leadership to conceal child rape and demonize the victims.

Raising the issue of this sort of moral calculus is dangerous because it suggests that Dionne is willing to tolerate some amount of child rape in service to the greater good. But how much child rape should be tolerated? How many of those who insist that the good outweighs the bad would maintain this position if it was their own child being raped by a priest?

Dionne holds up Pope John XXIII as a model for women's rights. Shall we examine his position on contraception, abortion, and other relevant issues? It probably isn't necessary because we can see what the current church is doing.

Dionne goes on to echo a few of the recent criticisms that have been leveled against the church, including the Vatican's condemnation of American nuns and one bishop's comparison of Obama to Hitler. He clearly wishes that his church would be more optimistic and less obsessed with fear and hate. Not once does he mention child rape.

It is time for those who value equal rights for women and GLBT individuals to leave the Catholic Church. It is time for those who oppose child rape and organized efforts to conceal it so the perpetrators can continue to offend to leave the Catholic Church. It is time to leave the Catholic Church. In the face of such evil, I have to wonder what Catholics are waiting for?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Demanding Respect for Ridiculous Opinions

2012-05-14T06:32:00.001-05:00

Scott over at Atheism - That's for ME! captured my attention with a recent post about one of my pet peeves: the expression "Everyone has a right to their opinion." When I hear someone say this, I nearly always drop what I'm doing and get myself in an argument. I know that is silly of me, but it is like nails on a chalkboard.

I usually point out that people may have a right to their own opinions but not their own facts and that it is a mistake to expect unsupported opinions to be given equal weight to facts. This nearly always seems to be what motivated the speaker to say this in the first place - they were confronted with facts that contradict their opinion and are trying to get away with maintaining their opinion anyway. It is as if they really think their opinion is every bit as valid as the facts contradicting it.

Scott nails exactly why I find this expression so aversive in the first place.

Now it seems like if you have an opinion, no matter how crazy or lacking in factual support it is, you get to demand respect, time on TV and equal standing with those who actually know what they are talking about.

As Scott correctly points out, much of this ends up being about religion. In many domains, our progress continues to be retarded by ancient superstitions. When science conflicts with religious dogma, as it so often does, many people cling to their dogma and insist that it be exempt from criticism. Just take a look at how evangelical fundamentalists are howling about how they are being marginalized because most of us have become tired of their treatment of the LGBT community.

I'm not saying religious belief is responsible for all irrationality; the human mind is subject to all manner of irrationality and would continue to be so without religion. But again and again we see religion provide a shield from critical inquiry. It is not about truth; it is about tradition and the maintenance of power.

And the political windbags featured on cable news are not much better. They capitalize on our irrationality by playing on our emotions and feeding us heavily edited sound bytes, sometimes taken completely out of context, to inflame us. They know full well that it is difficult to be reasonable when one is extremely angry, and they use this to their advantage.

So yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how inaccurate it may be. But reality is not a democracy. Nobody is exempt from criticism, and the louder one is, the more likely it is that criticism is warranted.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

A Bible Without Christ

2012-05-13T08:48:00.001-05:00

According to Professor David Capes of Houston Baptist University, the Christian bible "is probably the most owned and least read book out there. That's because, for many, it's too difficult to understand."

You know, I think Professor Capes may have a point. I have encountered many Christians who have not read their own bibles. The early Christians who wrote the various books of what would later become their bible weren't writing for an audience in the remote future; they were addressing their contemporaries. And the early church that decided which books made it into the bible and which were considered heretical were not basing their decisions on any appreciation of what would be relevant in the distant future. Is it any wonder that this ancient book offers so little to those of us living in modern times?

Professor Capes isn't quite ready to admit that his bible is irrelevant and instead decided to spend seven years developing a new, dumbed-down version of his bible. The new translation, called "The Voice," seeks to emphasize what Capes considers the meaning behind the words. How interesting! And I suppose Capes and his team at Houston Baptist gets to tell us all what the words really mean.

The new translation is almost certain to be controversial, especially when one considers that words like "angel," "apostle," and even "Christ" are absent from the text.

For those who assume that the Christian bible is "holy" in some way, watering it down and providing anything other than the most accurate translation of the original words seems like it would be unacceptable. But then again, I guess selling new versions is more important than adhering to the original text.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Colorado Court of Appeals Rules Against State Day of Prayer

2012-05-11T12:02:00.001-05:00

There was some big news out of Colorado yesterday that was somewhat overshadowed by President Obama's announcement. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation's 2008 lawsuit against the state governor's proclamations for a Colorado Day of Prayer.

From Judge Steve Bernard's opinion:

A reasonable observer would conclude that these proclamations send the message that those who pray are favored members of Colorado’s political community, and that those who do not pray do not enjoy that favored status.

Absolutely! The court clearly gets it and found Colorado's prayer proclamations unconstitutional.

The ruling was also clear that the court has no interest in ruling on the right of private citizens to pray, even in public. The key is that the state may not sponsor religion by promoting prayer in this way.

I applaud the decision and believe that it helps strengthen the argument for similar lawsuits against the National Day of Prayer.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Obama Evolves to Support Same-Sex Marriage

2012-05-11T07:29:00.001-05:00

I have made it no secret that I am quite disappointed with many of the policies President Obama's administration has supported. I have written about this quite a bit over at Red State Progressive, including how I'm not at all sure I could vote for him a second time. But setting that aside - or perhaps because of it - I feel that it is important to note that I applaud his recent statement of support for same-sex marriage. His administration's policies have been fairly good with regard to LGBT rights, and it is nice to see that he's finally willing to express support for equal rights.

Of all the reactions I've read to Obama's announcement, the one I felt best captured by feelings was from Glenn Greenwald (Salon):

When it comes to assessing a politician, what matters, at least to me, are actions, not motives. If they do the wrong thing, they should be criticized regardless of motive; conversely, if they do the right thing, they should be credited. I’ve had zero tolerance over the last three years for people who pop up to justify all the horrible things Obama has done by claiming that he is forced to do them out of political necessity or in cowardly deference to public opinion; that’s because horrible acts don’t become less horrible because they’re prompted by some rational, self-interested political motive rather than conviction. That’s equally true of positive acts: they don’t become less commendable because they were the by-product of political pressure or self-preservation; when a politician takes the right course of action, as Obama did today, credit is merited, regardless of motive.

Like Greenwald, I have been frustrated with those who seem to support Obama no matter what policies he implements, defending even the most egregious assaults on civil liberties by arguing that it isn't as bad as what someone else would do. I find this almost delusional. However, I think that this statement of support for same-sex marriage is an example of something positive that should be acknowledged as such.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Religious Freedom and the Right to Annoy Others

2012-05-10T05:16:00.001-05:00

The United States was founded, in part, on the idea that citizens should be free to practice their religions without government interference. We hear a lot about religious freedom these days, but it is difficult to imagine that the founders were talking about anything other than one's freedom to practice one's religion in the privacy of one's own home or place of worship. They probably weren't thinking about religious freedom as involving the right to bully gay children, pass so-called "blue laws," or restrict the ability of women to make their own healthcare decisions.

The question I'd like to explore in this post concerns the limits of religious freedom. In particular, I'm interested in whether religious freedom gives the religious practitioner the right to annoy others.

Screams in the Night

Let's imagine that you and I live next door to each other in a typical American subdivision, meaning that there is relatively little separation between my yard and the wall of your bedroom. I belong to a very small religious sect with many beliefs that sound good (e.g., the importance of caring for the poor and striving for equality) and one extremely strange ritual that makes your life very difficult. You see, my religion teaches that all members of the faith are to stand in the side yard of their property and scream at the top of their lungs four times each night at precisely 11:00pm, 1:30am, 3:00am, and 4:15am. As a devout practitioner of my faith, I obey this teaching. Each and every night, I stand in my side yard (which places me approximately 20 feet from your bedroom wall) and scream at the prescribed intervals. We're not talking about quiet little yelps here, but truly blood-curdling screams, the likes of which you've only heard in horror movies.

The first time you encounter my odd ritual, you call the police because you think someone is being murdered. They investigate but tell you there isn't anything they can do about it. The screaming continues night after night. You pay me a visit and explain that I'm disrupting your sleep, scaring your family, etc. My response is to point out the central role of what I am doing in my religion. I remind you that our Constitution protects my freedom to practice my religion and insist that this is what I am doing. I tell you that I am sorry if my ritual annoys you but make it clear that I do not intend to stop.

When Religious Practices Annoy

In this hypothetical situation, what exactly is the problem? You are not really being harmed by what I am doing, but my behavior is clearly annoying. I am being a nuisance. Moreover, your annoyance is not about your oversensitivity or any particular problem you have with my beliefs; virtually anyone in your place is going to be annoyed with what I am doing. The only exception would be other practitioners of my religion because they'll be out in their own yards screaming at the same time I am.

Now here's the question: is what I have described here really about religious freedom at all? Does religious freedom mean that I am free to practice my religion as I see fit in the privacy of my own home or at my church, or does it mean that I also have the freedom to annoy? Does my religious freedom give me the right to interfere with your life by disrupting your sleep like this?

Now ask yourself how door-to-door proselytizing relates to these questions? I have heard from many Christians, including some who have commented right here on this blog, that they are extremely annoyed when persons from different religions knock on their door to proselytize (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses). In fact, more than a few Southern Baptists have told me that they hate it when Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses come to their door even though they themselves engage in door-to-door proselytizing! So, most people are annoyed by door-to-door proselytizing, including many who do it themselves.

Can door-to-door proselytizing really be viewed as an exercise of religious freedom? Again, does your religious freedom include the freedom to annoy me and most others?

It is not my intent to equate someone screaming repeatedly in the middle of the night with your repeated attempts to share your "good news" with me by interrupting whatever I'm doing with your knocks on my door. These are not the same thing, although I think we can agree that they are both annoying. The question is whether religious freedom entitles one to annoy others, and in the case of door-to-door proselytizing, whether it entitles the religious practitioner to come on my property uninvited, disrupt my activities, and spew nonsense on my porch.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Edwina Rogers: The Secular Coalition's New Republican Lobbyist

2012-05-09T06:43:00.001-05:00

I hadn't planned on writing about Edwina Rogers. Others in the atheist community seem far more concerned with her hiring and far better positioned to put the tough questions to her than I am. But I've been asked about how I, a politically progressive atheist, feel about Rogers' hiring, and so I thought I'd share a few thoughts.

In case you are not familiar with the controversy over Rogers, here is how Adam Lee (Daylight Atheism) summarized the issue in a recent post:

The Secular Coalition for America has hired a new executive director, and their choice is going to raise some eyebrows: Edwina Rogers, a Republican lobbyist and attorney with a long history of supporting conservative causes. Among other things, she's worked as an advisor to George W. Bush's National Economic Council, served as a general counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and donated to Rick Perry's presidential campaign.

As you can imagine, this quickly became controversial because the Republican Party has been extremely hostile to secularism since the rise of the Christian right in the late 1970s. But as Adam noted and many others echo, this is not even the primary source of the controversy around Rogers.

What has many people in the atheist movement upset is how Rogers has responded to some of the questions she has been asked in interviews with atheist bloggers. Her responses have led to concerns about her qualifications and her appraisal of the Republican Party and how it conflicts with the goals of the secular movement.

Although I believe that bipartisanship is highly overrated in American politics today, there are some potential advantages of having a Republican lobbyist in the Secular Coalition. Perhaps Rogers can find an audience that others have not been able to access. But I agree completely with Adam Lee when he says of Rogers:

All she had to do was say, "I realize that there are a lot of people within the Republican party who are hostile to gay rights, to science, to choice, to the separation of church and state, but I believe we can change their minds, and I'm here to try." That's all! I would have been satisfied with that answer. But if she's seriously claiming that the Republican party as it's currently constituted isn't hostile to secular issues, she's either lying to us or deeply enmeshed in self-delusion.

Adam has captured the core of the controversy perfectly here. Rogers can ally our concerns quite easily, but she has yet to do so.

From the posts I have read about Rogers, I get the sense that many in the atheist movement are waiting for her to issue an intelligent response to our concerns. Some have even suggested what it should look like, and I believe they are on the right track. If Rogers cannot be accurate in her appraisal of her own political party and is unwilling to come to terms with the record this party has had on secularism, I do not think she can hope to represent secular Americans effectively. I am willing to give her a chance, and I believe others are too. It is up to her now.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What Would Have Helped You Leave Faith Earlier?

2012-05-08T05:11:00.001-05:00

I have a question for the readers who, like me, were raised in a particular religion: What might have helped you abandon religious belief earlier than you did? You were raised religious, and you are now atheists. So my question is what might have helped you make the transition earlier than you did.

I've been thinking about this for myself recently, and I have decided that the most important thing that would have helped me would have been the availability of at least one atheist role model. Just knowing one person who identified as an atheist would have made a big difference. I spent at least a year or two struggling with doubts about my religious beliefs and not knowing that atheism was even an option.

Other things that would have helped me include the availability of atheist-oriented reading material and parental support for questioning my faith. But since I wasn't even aware that there was such a thing as atheism during this time, I think that the availability of an atheist model would have been even more helpful. With that as a starting point, I would have had a better idea of what to explore and what sort of information to seek.

How about you? What would have helped you leave religious belief earlier than you did?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Respect People, Not Beliefs

2012-05-07T05:11:00.001-05:00

Far too many religious believers are either unable or unwilling to understand the simple truth that follows:

People deserve respect. It could even be argued that a person's basic right to his or her beliefs deserves some measure of respect. But the beliefs themselves? No. They deserve nothing. We are under no obligation whatsoever to respect anyone's beliefs.

I will continue to respect religious people and their right to their beliefs; I will not respect their beliefs. I will not respect their efforts to prevent criticism of their beliefs, nor will I pretend that their "sacred" or "holy" objects are anything other than what they are. I will not ignore irrational beliefs or shirk my obligation to challenge false claims. I will remain intolerant of intolerance, regardless of whether religion is used to excuse or justify it. I will not participate in religious privilege, even if that means some will take offense at my words.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheists to Protest North Carolina Church

2012-05-05T18:57:00.001-05:00

I used to wonder whether atheists would ever organize protests of churches. Not churches in general, mind you, but certain Christian extremist churches that had been preaching a destructive message of hate. I reasoned that something like a well-organized picket of such a church might do much to call attention to our efforts and show that we would remain silent no more. I agreed with readers who suggested that picketing might be especially effective if it was aimed at specific issues (e.g., picketing the Mormon church for funding Proposition 8 in California). The subject turned out to be surprisingly provocative for atheists and required me to write more than I ever thought I'd need to on the subject.

Evidently, there is going to be a protest of such a church in Fayetteville, NC, tomorrow. I trust that you've heard about the pastor there who advocated the physical abuse of gay children. Pastor Sean Harris (Berean Baptist Church) has retracted his vile comments, or at least some of them. However, it makes since to question his sincerity when the following was part of his statement:

Those weren't planned words, but what I do stand by is that the word of God makes it clear that effeminate behavior is ungodly. I'm not going to compromise on that.

You can find details about tomorrow's protest here. I will be interested to hear how it goes, and I applaud the group's effort for calling attention to Pastor Harris and his hateful message.

H/T to Atheist Oasis

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Making Atheist Material More Accessible

2012-05-05T07:27:00.001-05:00

When I was a kid, there was no Internet. Getting to a bookstore wasn't always easy, and even when I could do so, I rarely had money. What I did have was a public library, and I relied on it quite heavily for reading material. Unfortunately, they didn't have much of anything on atheism.

This is why Austin Cline's post about the importance of getting atheist books in our local public libraries struck me as a good idea. I realize that kids today have a much easier time finding information on atheism than I did. But still, there must be some for whom finding atheist books in the public library would be valuable.

I need to see what my local library has, but I am guessing that they don't have much. If I'm right, I think I'll donate a few of my atheist books. Now that I've been reading primarily on a Kindle, I have far fewer books than I would have otherwise. But since I am trying to reduce clutter, getting rid of some of my collection seems like a good idea.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Petition President Obama to End National Day of Prayer

2012-05-04T07:54:00.001-05:00

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has set up an online petition on the White House website, urging President Obama to end the National Day of Prayer. In order to get the petition to Obama, 25,000 electronic signatures are needed by May 31. At the time I am posting this, they only have 2,151. Let's get the word out about this and help them meet their goal.

I know some of you are skeptical that this effort will amount to anything, and I share your skepticism. This White House petition site has been used to get a number of sensible proposals before the Obama administration, only to have them reject them outright. It is easy to imagine that happening yet again. But I don't think that should be an excuse for inaction. We need to keep trying until we succeed. We need to let this and each subsequent administration hear from us until this unconstitutional practice is finally stopped.

For more about what you can do to help, see this post at Secular News Daily.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Separation of Church and State: an Atheist Value

2012-05-03T05:43:00.001-05:00

It is often said that atheists have nothing in common besides our lack of god belief. I disagree. I think that the overwhelming majority of us have many things in common.

Besides our lack of god belief, I suspect that the primary one is that we are proponents of church-state separation. In fact, many of us recognize the value of strengthening the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state. Happy National Day of Reason!

H/T to jobsanger

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

How to Complain About a Church-State Violation

2012-05-02T05:28:00.001-05:00

As more people become dissatisfied with efforts by religious extremists to inject their beliefs into our secular government, efforts to protect separation of church and state may become more common. And as more of us embrace reality over faith, we may gradually become more willing to speak out against church-state violations.

Suppose you run into a violation of church-state separation in your local community, are upset by the violation, and decide to make a complaint. Here are some thoughts on how to go about it. Think of these as lessons I've learned from mistakes I have made.

If possible, give yourself time to calm down and think before complaining. I know this isn't always possible, but you will usually be more effective if you approach the situation from a calm place rather than complaining in a moment of intense anger.
Identify the appropriate person to hear the complaint. That is, figure out who has the decision-making authority and complain to them. Subordinates may agree with you but probably have little control over the situation.
Adopt a helpful mindset before complaining. I find that I am far more likely to be successful and not make an ass of myself if I enter the situation assuming that the violation is unintentional and comes from a place of ignorance. This is also helpful in making sure I escalate the complaint appropriately (see section on escalation below).
Showing that you know the relevant law may strengthen your complaint.
Do not yell. You may be angry, but yelling at a government official can end badly for you and will do little to advance your argument.

Don't get too bogged down by any of these. Any complaint at all is usually better than remaining silent. Virtually every time I have complained, the initial response has included a statement about how surprised they were because "no one has ever complained before." Even if my complaint fails, at least they will not be able to say this next time.

Escalation

When your complaint fails, there are two different types of escalation you may want to consider. One sort of escalation involves moving your complaint up the agency's hierarchy. Since not every complaint needs to go right to the top, you usually don't need to start there. But there may come a time when your complaint has been rejected at one level and you want to go to the next. It may be as simple as requesting a meeting with someone's supervisor or writing to a person with greater authority. If you do this, you'll want to be clear that you started the process with someone at a lower level, were unhappy with the result, and are requesting the assistance of the person at the higher level.

The other sort of escalation involves raising the stakes through means like informing the media, initiating a petition, seeking help from organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or the ACLU, organizing protests, considering legal action, and the like. Many times, a letter from an outside organization agreeing with you and providing relevant legal citations is sufficient. It shows that you have support and that the government agency is in the wrong.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Michigan Country Club Does Not Want to Associate With Atheists

2012-05-01T15:07:00.001-05:00

The following is a press release from the Center for Inquiry:Secular Group Charges Michigan Country Club with Religious Discrimination

Country Club Owner Did Not “Wish to Associate” with Atheists

A national secular advocacy group is bringing legal action against a Michigan country club for religious discrimination and breach of contract after it cancelled an event because of the attendees’ lack of religious beliefs.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI), a national organization advocating on behalf of science and secular values, is suing the Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Mich., and its owner, for violation of the Civil Rights Act and for breaking its contract with CFI’s Michigan branch. The Wyndgate, denying use of its public accommodations entirely on the basis of religion, cancelled a scheduled CFI-Michigan event to be held October 12, 2011 that would have included an address from British scientist and noted atheist, Prof. Richard Dawkins.

In breaking its contract, the Wyndgate justified its actions by stating that “the owner does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies,” referring to the “philosophies” of Prof. Dawkins and other nonbelievers. The cancellation notice specifically referenced Prof. Dawkins‘ October 5, 2011 appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, during which Prof. Dawkins’ atheism was central to the conversation.

“This was to be an opportunity for friends to gather, enjoy each other’s company, and hear from one of their favorite authors, an internationally renowned professor; but the Wyndgate opted to breach its contract simply because atheists would be taking part,” said Steven Fox, Legal Director for CFI. “If this kind of discrimination had been directed at any religious group there would rightfully be no end to the outrage. The fact that the victims are nonbelievers makes it just as wrong, just as unacceptable, and just as unconstitutional—and we will not let it stand.”

* * *

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization based in Amherst, New York; it is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI‘s web address is www.centerforinquiry.net.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution