File this story from Florida under “you can’t make this stuff up.” Except, apparently in this case, they could (h/t to Friendly Atheist):

A Hillsborough public policy group whose Christian platform included a push for a state ban on gay marriage has embraced a new attack on an old target: the separation of church and state.

Ten billboard advertisements against what activist Terry Kemple called the separation “lie” are being put up across Pinellas and Hillsborough counties. Seven or eight of the billboard messages already are in place, and the rest will be by the end of this week, Kemple said.

What do the billboards say? They have quotes from our founding fathers, of course, each explaining why we shouldn’t separate religion from government. For example, the photo included with the article shows a billboard, black with white text, that says, ‘”Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” – George Washington.’

Apparently, though, there is a dearth of anti-separation quotes by the founding fathers — the billboard sponsors admit that some of the quotes that they use are completely fabricated!

Others carry the same message but with fictional attribution, as with one billboard citing George Washington for the quote, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

“I don’t believe there’s a document in Washington’s handwriting that has those words in that specific form,” Kemple said. “However, if you look at Washington’s quotes, including his farewell address, about the place of religion in the political sphere, there’s no question he could have said those exact words.”

Pardon me? Fictional attribution is a rather diplomatic way of saying that the quote is a lie. Making up a quote out of whole cloth, no matter if it’s plausible or not, and then attributing it to George Washington is a complete lie.

Certainly doesn’t put Christianity’s best foot forward, does it?

They may feel justified by some sense that their anti-separation cause is best served by lying. But I think it’s safe to say that most of us, whether we follow the Ten Commandments or secular morals, believe that lying is wrong, even for marketing purposes.

Their willingness to put lies on their billboards is ultimately a matter for their own consciences (some might say that it is between them and their respective god, which is another way of saying the same thing). Remember this, though, the next time a humanist billboard campaign is denounced for being somehow immoral — I promise you that it won’t feature fabricated quotes!

I can always tell that we’ve been mentioned on Fox when we start getting a particular style of email.  This one was too good not to share:

Message: The AHA is ‘Stalinistic’ in it’s hatred and almost genocidal tactics against the Boy Scouts of America.

The Boy Scouts have been around for 100 years, and now, these lovers [AHA] of filthy homosexuals, reprehensible atheists and other dregs to society, want to ‘rip it to shreds’ simply because the Boy Scouts of America excludes such undesireables. “HOORAY” for the Boy Scouts for doing the right thing – GOD bless them! “BOO-HOO” for AHA and the ‘dregs’ it panders to! Get over it! You lose!

RS

My goodness!  Do you want to know what “almost genocidal tactics” we employed?  We wrote a letter to then President-Elect Obama.

The letter, which we sent with 18 other nontheistic organizations, asked Obama not to accept the title of honorary president of the Boy Scouts.  As a private organization, they have every right to reject gay or nontheistic members.  They have every right to teach that a belief in God is necessary to become a good citizen.  But Obama doesn’t have to signify that he supports their discriminatory views.

At the moment, it looks like he’ll accept the position.  Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist wrote: “I’m waiting for Obama to be the president I voted for when it comes to social issues. He hasn’t been that person yet.”

I sympathize, but I’m slightly more optimistic (I’ve had my coffee this morning).  I didn’t really expect Obama to refuse, but our letter got media coverage and made sure our point of view was heard.

How ‘Stalinistic’ of us.

Yesterday the Colorado state legislature voted on a bill that would require the health care providers of pregnant women to give them HIV tests (although the women may opt out). The reasons are pretty clear–if the mother is HIV-positive, it helps to know so that the baby can be protected and treated. The measure passed 32-1. The lone dissenter was Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis. Why did he vote against the bill? According to the Colorado Independent, he claims that HIV “stems from sexual promiscuity” and didn’t want to “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.”

My first reaction was that it’s not the mother being punished for promiscuity; it’s the child who doesn’t get treated for HIV. I was sure that Schultheis had just failed to think it through because he couldn’t really mean THAT, could he? Apparently he could:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

I was horrified when I read that. There are many ways to contract HIV besides careless and promiscuous sex–blood transfusions come to mind. But even for someone who believes promiscuity is a sin, it is despicable to advocate that the child suffer for it. It is contrary to our conception of justice. Luckily the thirty-two other legislators agreed.

As a continuation of our unofficial John Stuart Mill appreciation week here on Rant and Reason, I thought I would reflect for a moment on a quote from On Liberty that I read this morning in the most recent edition of International Humanist News:

Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.

Ibn Warraq was quoting Mill to illustrate a point on free expression in his talk entitled Democracy vs. Theocracy, addressing the recent effort by many nations (most of them with predominantly Islamic governments) to curtail any criticism of religion by the newly formed UN Human Rights Council. I recommend following the link above and reading the entirety of his talk; the IHEU has been closely following this issue and speaking out in favor of freedom of speech and preserving human rights, including the right to speak out against abuses by religious and governmental authorities and the religious context within which those abuses take place.

But I am going to address the Mill quote in a different context, one that the American Humanist Association has been experiencing first hand recently here in the United States. As readers of this blog know, the AHA embarked on an advertising campaign in our nation’s capital, which is also where our offices are located. The advertisements, stating “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake” (see it here) appear on the exteriors and interiors of buses around Washington D.C. The ad campaign has received a lot of media coverage, and, predictably, a wide range of reactions. I wouldn’t expect anything less.

One consistent theme among many critics of the ad, though, has been that it is simply inappropriate or wrong to have it at all. For example, Deborah Simmons of the Washington Times wrote:

To even allow the specter of belief to be questioned on a public bus system that is heavily subsidized with public dollars is blasphemy.

That’s a really interesting connection she makes there. Apparently, in her view, public buses have an obligation to maintain religious correctness at all times. Indeed, allowing an expression of dissent to what she regards as the prevailing majority view is “blasphemy.”

Another comment, addressed to Metro and quoted by Human Events, illustrates my point even more directly:

Your city represents the United States, and to turn your system into a billboard for this organization is offensive to me and most American People. There is free speech but there is also responsibility to not offend a group of people in this country. Your acceptance of this advertisement is offensive to me as a Christian and I strong urge you to take them down.

That is exactly the attitude that Mill was addressing in his quote. To that commenter, free speech is all well and good, as long as it does not offend him or her. Again, he or she demands religious correctness and deference to the majority religion, simply because it is the majority and will not brook any dissent. This is a very flaccid definition of freedom of expression, essentially, “You are free to say anything you like, as long as you don’t offend me.” But it seems rather obvious that this is not the freedom of expression that Mill visualized. For what does free speech mean if it is to be regulated constantly by the will of the majority?

Of course, as I said, there has been a wide range of reactions, including the following:

A stay-at-home mother of four is poised to start a Metrobus ad campaign to counter ads from the American Humanist Association that question a belief in God.

JoEllen Murphy, a 39-year-old Catholic who lives in McLean, started a grassroots Internet campaign after hearing about the humanist ads that started appearing last month on Metrobuses.

Murphy’s ad shows an image from Michelangelo’s “The Creation of Adam” on the Sistine Chapel ceiling with the slogan: “Why believe? I created you and I love you, for goodness’ sake. – God.”

She says that she was offended by the AHA ad campaign, and decided to counter it by organizing an ad campaign of her own. In other words, in response to speech that she disagreed with, she decided that the answer was more speech and more debate in the public forum. That is freedom of expression at work.

When you see or read something that you strongly disagree with, then your best redress is to respond. Demands to censor the cause of offense are misguided and ignore Mill’s admonition that free speech must stand even in extreme cases if it is to mean anything at all. Certainly, debate can get messy at times. And I feel that there is a legitimate concern about access, because not everyone would be able to start a bus ad campaign in order to make their thoughts or concerns public. But free and open public debate beats the alternative, which is to bow to the majority or some kind of governmental standard to ensure that no offense is caused. That would render the First Amendment meaningless.

Today the American Humanist Association was at the National Press Club in Washington DC to launch our latest campaign: godless advertisements on local Metro buses that state, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

The advertisement directs people to the website www.whybelieveinagod.com. Our press release was issued this morning:

Already appearing today in the New York Times and Washington Post, the message will soon be blazoned on the sides, taillights, and interiors of over 200 Washington DC Metro buses.

It’s the first ad campaign of its kind in the United States, and the American Humanist Association predicts it will raise public awareness of humanism as well as controversy over humanist ideas.

“Humanists have always understood that you don’t need a god to be good,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “So that’s the point we’re making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn’t come from religion. It’s a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience.”

At a press conference today launching the campaign, large displays were featured showing the ads in today’s New York Times and Washington Post, the bus posters, and how the posters will look mounted on the side of a bus and inside, behind the driver’s seat. The exterior posters will appear on buses in Northwest Washington starting Tuesday, November 18. The interior posters will begin December 1 in Northwest and Southeast.

“We expect these bus signs to generate a lot of public interest,” said Fred Edwords, director of communications for the American Humanist Association. “Some folks may be offended but that isn’t our purpose. We just want to reach those open to this message but unaware how widespread their views are.

The “goodness’ sake” ads and posters direct people to a special Web site at www.whybelieveinagod.org that helps people find others of like mind in the Washington, D.C., metro area and nationally. The site also informs the public about humanism and answers common objections to the slogan as well as to the appropriateness of running the campaign during the holidays.

Such high-profile promotion isn’t new to the American Humanist Association. Throughout 2008, humanist advertising has become more visible across the nation. In particular, highway billboards have been erected just outside of New York City, Philadelphia, and other major cities. They read: “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”

“Those billboards,” Fred Edwords added, “started raising the profile of our movement and generated an avalanche of responses, both from people who realized that they, too, were humanists as well as from those who disagreed with us. But everyone heard our message loud and clear. And this is what it takes for us to reach our audience.”

What do you think of the ad? Let us know in the comments section!

After far too much kvelling, I’ve been asked by my colleagues in the Secular Coalition for America office to take a moratorium on mentioning the name Stephen Colbert. But He who shall not be mentioned was so much fun! A few weeks back, I taped a two hour interview for the Colbert Report that was cut to a five minute segment. (We were aware in advance that this is how it is done.) While I am sworn to secrecy on some of the more detailed descriptions of the process, I can generally attest that the Colbert folks, including Stephen himself, were very gracious and put this guest quite at ease.

Many individuals have asked which parts of the long interview I would have liked to have seen in the final cut (as opposed to on the cutting room floor). There was a very funny pledge of allegiance, much information about military proselytizing, and my insistence that Stephen and I don’t have to agree on theology to agree to live in a civil society – not a theocratic one. Of course I covered lots of issue oriented things that didn’t make the final cut, but the goal was to let the Colbert Nation viewers know that the Secular Coalition for America exists and then have them go to our website to get more extensive information. Mission Accomplished.

I received numerous e-mails after the show expressing excitement about the interview and those who “get” Colbert’s format understood how it works. But I also got one very funny e-mail, though the sender didn’t realize it was funny. The gentleman wrote about the issues I should have covered during the five minute interview (I guess he thought it was a live-to-tape five minute stint). He seemed to think it was supposed to be a serious debate with a serious opponent – and missed the satire completely.

After the taping, I asked Stephen to autograph my copy of his book, I Am America and So Can You. For anyone who hasn’t read it, he has a terrific section on the “Big Secularist Agenda” and how the secular “caucus” of Representative Pete Stark (the only out nontheist in Congress) – he, himself and him – is taking over. Mr. Colbert inscribed the following in the front of my book: “Better watch your back. GOD [underlined three times] bless you. Stephen Colbert.” Ya gotta love this guy!

Guest post from Intern Jesse:

While browsing in Kramerbooks, I decided to glance at Francis Collins’ The Language of God. I had heard that it was an interesting book trying to show how science and religion could coexist – Collins is a well-respected geneticist as well as a religious man. However, when I opened up to a random page, the first thing that I saw was this:

“Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview provides another way of finding truth. Scientists who deny this would be well advised to consider the limits of their own tools…”

Collins’ point simply doesn’t follow. To say that there are limitations to science lends no credibility to spirituality’s ability to find truth. It would be like saying, “Space shuttles are not the only way to get into orbit around the Earth. Pogo sticks are another way. Engineers who deny this would be well advised to consider the limits of their shuttles.” Sure, shuttles have things they can’t do, but that does not mean pogo sticks can go into orbit.

But let’s not just make fun of the statement, let’s go deeper and examine the idea behind the claims. Sure, there limits to what science can tell us. It addresses the “hows” of the world, the physical laws and the positive truths. It can’t answer what our purpose is, how to treat each other, or what to eat for breakfast (I’m partial to Special K). But just because science can’t answer those questions doesn’t mean that spirituality can. It means that we don’t know the answers. Collins needs to present evidence to support his claim that spirituality is “another way of finding truth,” not just point to science’s limits.

And spirituality has not shown that it is another way of finding truth. Different people pray and ask God whether gays should be allowed to marry – and they get wildly different answers, although they profess to be absolutely certain to have learned the truth. The problem is that the word ‘truth’ implies a universal, objective fact that is independent of the observer. Religions try to provide those answers by appealing to divine authority – telling us that a particular way of life is best because God says so. But it is our perspective that gives things value. A painting is beautiful if we find beauty in it, not because there is something inherently beautiful about it. And a life is meaningful if we find meaning in it. We must recognize that there is not an overarching ‘truth’ to be discovered, and that it is up to us as a society and as individuals to decide how to treat each other, how to live our lives, and what to do for breakfast.

George Carlin’s death raises the question, was he a humanist? He was an atheist who certainly “told it like it is” regarding religion, and he advocated progressive values, civil liberties, and the First Amendment. But Carlin’s regular lamenting of “humanity’s bullshit” and a statement like, “I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it’s natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse,” doesn’t exactly scream humanism to me.

Or does it? You could say Carlin was a humanist in the way Kurt Vonnegut was a humanist (except that I don’t think Carlin ever called himself one). That is, they worshiped at the altar of absurdity. But wait, absurdity is defined as, “The condition or state in which humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe wherein people’s lives have no purpose or meaning.” Again, not very humanistic! But remember—these guys were artists and entertainers. Exposing the absurd was both Carlin’s and Vonnegut’s bread and butter, their shtick, their—quite literally for Carlin—act. How we respond to it is what matters. George Carlin’s talent rested in his ability to lay open what’s absurd about life and the human species, and in doing so to make us mad. And to make us think.

And so I would propose that illuminating the absurd is an act of rebellion that adds meaning to a seemingly meaningless world. Sisyphus with a smile. (Or is it a wink?) Now, what do you think—is this a humanist’s take?

Today, I circulated a press release with information about the Star Hill controversy. This concerns the Village of Holmen, Wisconsin, which decided to sell to the local Lion’s Club a small patch of public land on which a cross and a star are erected. The Lion’s Club will pay $600–despite the fact that the American Humanist Association offered $1,000 and the Freedom From Religion Foundation offered $1,200 for the land. This is because the Lion’s Club will keep the cross and star in the midst of government-owned property while the AHA and FFRF won’t. (Those of you who have followed the San Diego Mt. Soledad case should be pretty familiar with this new tactic.)

As an AHA staff member who deals with public policy, I’ve sent out quite a number of press releases during my tenure here. I’ve rarely ever received editorializing e-mails back from media people. However, today I received two of particular note:

From Daniel S. Brandenburg, Publisher/Editor of the Marion Advertiser

“Three Cheers for the Village of Holmen. I think I’ll use this as an editorial to give these leaders the credit they deserve.”

From Ingrid Schlueter, co-host of VCY America Radio Network

“Ha Ha Ha. This is great. Long live the Lions Club and kudos to the village board of Holmen, Wisconsin. God bless America.”

Clearly, we have a lot of church-state educating yet to do.

Stephen Colbert hasn’t called me! Ever since he started his 35,000 part series way back in early 2008, “Better Know a Lobbyist,” he has featured the gay lobby and the marijuana lobby, but there is a deadly silence in terms of the nontheist lobby. What’s up with that?

It’s time for the Secular Coalition Nation to rise up and ask Mr. Colbert why he hasn’t introduced the Colbert Nation to the nontheist lobby. I’ve appeared on Papa Bear’s (Bill O’Reilly’s) show four times now, but have yet to have the pleasure of taking on his better half and mirror image, Stephen Colbert himself.

So, all you friends (and foes) of Colbert, lets start a campaign to get the Colbert Report to cover this important lobby representing humanists, atheists, and other Americans who don’t hold a belief in deities. If we let our voices be heard by Comedy Central, we can convince Colbert to have the Secular Coalition for America on his “Better Know a Lobbyist” segment.

Here’s the place to write: http://www.colbertnation.com/cn/contact.php

In the March issue of the Atlantic, Walter Russell Mead suggests that evangelicals in the U.S. are becoming more moderate as they mature into the mainstream, shedding their more strident tone as their influence grows in politics and society. One example of this, of course, is the move beyond the longstanding focus on gays and abortion, toward “creation care.” This past weekend, writing in the Washington Post (registration required), E.J. Dionne Jr. proclaims the death of the culture wars, not because one side or the other has finally emerged victorious. Instead, as we head to presidential elections this fall, voters simply have too much on their minds — for example, the liberation of Iraq, the state of the economy, the place America stands in the world—and don’t have the time to be worried about “values,” like they could in the past.

It’s too early to tell if this really is the trend both authors see it to be (just between reading this blog and the Humanist, it seems a case can be made that the religious right is not mellowing out that much). But if we grant the authors their assumptions, what does it mean for the humanist movement? Of course, on a philosophical level, humanism is so much more than just a reaction to religion. But when it comes to day-to-day activism in the public square, not only are we out there pushing our worldview forward, we’re doing all we can to push back against most everything the religious right is spewing out. What would happen if evangelicals continue proselytizing on an individual level, but no longer tried to impose their views on the rest of society through legislation? Or, what if they started promoting viewpoints that our movement could support?

Something the humanist movement has never openly and honestly articulated is the ideal role we envision religion playing in society. Do humanists only seek to reduce the influence of the religious right in the public square, ensuring a secular society where religion holds no particular sway? Or do we intend to continue to push, to try and root out religious thinking in society as a whole, and create a world full of humanists? Is the latter even possible? Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be? Does making common cause with religious believers on shared issues of concern mean an end to the critique of the irrationality of a belief in a god?

This is an issue that we already face as we work with religious liberals on those issues of common concern. But our agreement on various issues are arrived at by very different means, and very different routes. If we truly are facing a trend of a religious right that is more moderate, or of a religious right that is simply less relevant, the question then becomes where does that leave us, and where do we go from there?

As I left the Fox Studio in DC after taping last Friday’s O’Reilly Factor (see here), I felt pretty good about the appearance, but as always, I thought of a couple of additional things I should have said. Then I thought, “Hey, I can continue my answer on the Humanist blog.” During a four minute segment, it’s important to streamline answers and get the message across quickly. Four minutes is also not sufficient to send lots of different messages or to go in-depth on anything complex. Better venues for more in-depth information include half hour radio appearances and podcasts.

So here’s the main piece that really could have used one more line: When Bill O’Reilly asked me if it would have been alright had Mitt Romney, instead of claiming that Americans believe our liberty is a gift from God, had said “most Americans” believe that. I answered that it would have made the statement more accurate. What I should have added was, “…but it would have been just as irrelevant. He didn’t single out any other majority. A candidate doesn’t need to say, ‘most Americans are white.’ A candidate for president ought to agree to represent all Americans, including minorities.” OK, there may not have been enough time to get all of that in, and quite frankly I’m surprised that O’Reilly let me get in as many comments as I did.

Of my four appearances on his show, this was my favorite. And Fox’s hair and makeup people even perked me up after a very bad hair day. And at the end of the day, isn’t that the most important thing?

Oh Bill, why haven’t you called? Last year at this time – and two years ago as well – you welcomed me onto the O’Reilly Factor to discuss your all-important Earth-shattering “war.” That’s right, I used to be your worthy opponent as you fought a culture war over whether store clerks should enforce a “Merry Christmas!” message on customers, and whether evergreen trees should be called Christmas trees (as opposed to holiday trees, Hanukkah bushes, or in the style of Monty Python – shrubbery.)

But alas, November has come and gone with nary a call from you, Bill. For a while I suspected that you had decided to call a ceasefire in your war. After all, it had given an immense amount of fodder to comics throughout the land, and made you look even more foolish than you generally seem. Then, a couple of weeks ago, I read that you had taken up verbal arms again in the Christmas war … only this time your focus was on what color lights would be used in decorating government buildings. I had no idea, but you informed the public that white lights were SEC – YOU – LER (with an emphasis on the “sec”). And the true symbol of Christmas is colored lights.

Well, OK. I’ll assume that the reason I missed the part of the Christmas story in which the three wise men bring the gifts of red and green electric lights to the baby Jesus, is because I’m Jewish. I’m certain that my Christian friends and family members learned about the sacred colored lights. But I’m offended that you denigrated decorations consisting of snowflakes and penguins. I love snow. And I especially love penguins. In fact, this year, I’m hoping for a “white Christmas.” Bill, if you’d take a walk with me through freshly fallen snow under the evening street lamps in our nation’s capitol, you might notice how beautiful and perhaps dare I say it – sacred – the quiet of a snowy celebration of this beautiful solstice season can be.

Happy Humanlight to all.

It just wouldn’t be the holiday season without Bill O’Reilly and his contrived ‘War on Christmas,’ would it?

The Fox News pundit is back again to yabber on and on about our attempts to “diminish Christmas for secular progressive reasons.” Apparently, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado, and their decision to choose white lights over the “more Christmas-y” colored lights has really gotten Bill all riled up (a video of the segment posted on the blog Think Progress can be seen here).

Despite what O’Reilly would have you believe, we Humanists do respect Christmas, as we respect Hanukkah, Kwaanza, Eid, and other December holidays (we even have our own in HumanLight). Every religious and nonreligious holiday in the month of December celebrate similar themes: happiness, peace, love, joy. However you want to celebrate is up to you.

O’Reilly is the only one fighting in this so-called ‘war.’ For someone who cherishes this time of year so much, his hate-filled mongering is about as un-Christmas as you can get.

There’s been much talk in the blogosphere about the upcoming release of The Golden Compass, a new film based on the children’s trilogy His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman–a known atheist. A chain email is rumored to have been passed around to thousands of parents encouraging them to not let their children see the movie’s supposed anti-religious themes. And the Catholic League will be conducting a two-month protest of the movie, claiming the book is “overt in its hatred of Catholicism.”

So what does Pullman have to say about his attempt to indoctrinate little children to the evilness that is atheism? Quite the opposite, actually. When asked if there was an underlying message promoting atheism in his books, Pullman stated:

As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded inquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.

Sure, Pullman has also stated in a 2003 interview with the Sydney Morning Herald that, “My books are about killing God.” While not the most ideal choice of words, there’s nothing wrong with what Pullman is doing. C.S. Lewis did the exact same thing in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe on behalf of Christianity (and you didn’t see atheists collectively protesting that movie when it came out two years ago).

What the Catholic League is attempting to do through its protest is equate atheism with immorality. (I find that funny, in light of the hundreds of Catholic clergy abuse cases going on in the world.) But I’m more offended that the Catholic League implies that atheism is dangerous to children. Pullman’s books, as the author has stated himself, promote intellectual curiosity. Let the kids decide for themselves.

Sam Harris and Ellen Johnson are at the center of the latest sparring match between rationalist thinkers. Sam Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation) gave a speech at the Atheist Alliance International conference this past weekend and made a rather astounding claim:

We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

. . . [R]ather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general.

As a Humanist I’m all for being decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them, but I think now is the worst possible time to go under the radar. With the religious right trying to make even greater inroads into our political and legal system we have to stand up and be counted, now more than ever. We also can’t go underground at a time when we are the most untrusted group in the country. Only visibily can change those statistics.
Read the rest of this entry &raquo

This past weekend, the Boston Globe Magazine featured an excellent article on the rise of non-theists in America. What’s even more refreshing is that the article took the time to point out the distinction between atheism and humanism.

Particularly encouraging was the article’s focus on the increasing attraction of young nontheists to organized secularism. For example, the article points out the following statistics:

The number of campus groups affiliated with the Secular Student Alliance, for example, has increased by more than 50 percent in the past two years, to more than 80 groups, says August E. Brunsman IV, executive director of the Albany, New York-based alliance.

I can certainly attest to this trend just by looking around the AHA’s offices. More than half of our staff is under the age of 30. It is certainly interesting to wonder why this might be the case. Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that this generation—the children of the Baby Boomers —have grown up seeing the perverse side of religion. This includes most notoriously the attacks on 9/11 and the rise of the Christian Right here in the U.S.

But, as the article also goes on to state, the rising tide of nontheists (or “nonbelievers” as the article uses, a term that I, personally, dislike) has drawn criticism for what others see as a bombastic and anti-religious nature. Personally, I don’t see a problem in pointing out the failures of religion, but if others feel threatened by nontheists/Humanists, then perhaps they need to look deeper into their own belief system and question it themselves.

What do you think? Should Humanists tread carefully when pointing out the flaws of the religiously-inclined or should we go full force ahead?

The National Secular Society of Great Britain reported that Prince Harry “declined the opportunity to give a religious reading” at the 10th anniversary memorial service for the late Princess Diana, opting instead to give a personal eulogy. The text of his speech contains no overtly religious themes—or even a reference to God.

But does that mean Prince Harry—third in line to the British throne who would also hold the title of “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” if he were to become King—is an atheist?

Well, let’s not be too quick to claim Harry as “one of us.” His elder brother, Prince William, electing to read Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians in the Bible. Perhaps there was no need to give another, and Harry instead opted to give a special, more personalized tribute to his mother, making the NSS’s wording of Harry “declining the opportunity to give a religious reading” questionable.

Maybe it’s just better that we only call someone an atheist if they’ve stated—loud and clear—that they don’t believe in a god.

A recent Henry Payne cartoon depicts a news editor shouting to his troops “I want that family-values hypocrite senator’s head on a platter…unless he’s a democrat in which case stay out of his private life!” I bet Bill Clinton and Gary Hart wish that were true.

Outing Republicans as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users has become modern sport for hypocrisy hounds and general muckrakers. It’s almost replaced outing celebrities as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users. Unfortunately, it very definitely has pushed aside some other real news and seriously altered the public discourse.

I mean, why are so few people asking, Why are undercover cops hanging out in restrooms instead of looking for terrorists? Did word come down that we are done looking for terrorists and I missed it? How about solving real crimes like burglaries and murders? And while everyone is busy being disgusted and disappointed with Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), why don’t we issue the same level of vitriol at the war in Iraq, or Alberto Gonzales’s failure to seemingly endorse rather than expose the criminal behavior emanating from the White House. Are we not disgusted by that?

Humanists would do well to focus their energy on trying to change the discourse of media spin and restore some reason to the general debate. Is the issue that Senator Craig is a possibly a homosexual or that when he was caught breaking the law, he tried to hide it from his constituency and even his family? Are police officers in public restrooms engaging in a form of entrapment or is it a necessary and legal means of protecting the community? These are the real questions of the Larry Craig scandal and the ones that should be getting the most air time.

As titillating as it is for progressives to watch Republicans implode, is there a way to find something there that brings people into reasonable and rational discussion about Humanist issues such as justice, quality of life, and bringing our abilities to the greater good of humanity? If there is, how do we influence the discussion? If not, how do we move the discussion in new directions?

I wasn’t going to comment on Tom Krattenmaker’s August 20 USA Today column, “Secularists, what happened to the open mind?” but I keep getting directed back to it. Then I discovered his big question is really Jacques Berlinerblau’s question. So I’m still not going to comment on Krattenmaker, but on atheist writer and religion scholar Berlinerblau’s July 16 WashingtonPost.com question:

Can an atheist or agnostic commentator discuss any aspect of religion for more than 30 seconds without referring to religious people as imbeciles, extremists, mental deficients, fascists, enemies of the common good, crypto-Nazis, conjure men, irrationalists, pedophiles, bearers of false consciousness, authoritarian despots, and so forth? Is that possible?

As a matter of fact Berlinerblau wrote an entire book, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously, which according to the reviews takes on the bible itself without calling religious people any names. So I guess his question really should be, Can an atheist or agnostic commentator besides Jacques Berlinerblau discuss any aspect of religion for more than 30 seconds without referring to religious people as… (et cetera, and so on).

Still, it’s an interesting question. But it begs another question: How long can a theist or evangelical commentator discuss any aspect of atheism or secular humanism without referring to atheist or humanist as something inflammatory or derogatory? Moreover, would anyone bother reading what was written and quote it if it wasn’t?

Look how well Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris have sold. I hadn’t heard of Berlinerblau’s work until he wrote something inflammatory about atheist and agnostic commentatators so that Krattenmaker picked it up. Perhaps I should be more up on atheist author’s like Berlinerblau, but I think you see my point: conflict gets reported by the media.

I’m also not sure about Berlinerblau’s original ideas. On page 131 of the aforementioned book he says, “If secularism is to be perserved as the minority position that it has always been (and should always be), it will need to rethink itself.” Now I don’t know if he just thinks it could never be more than a minority position or if he has an internalized athiest-phobia, but I don’t know why secularism should be a minority position and not a majority position.

I’ll just have to get his book I guess and find out where his opinion is coming from. Maybe I can comment on it without criticizing it. Will anyone read it?

Last month after a weekend-long board meeting of the Secular Student Alliance, I sat at the Albany airport for five hours thanks to heavy thunderstorms across the East delaying hundreds of flights. But no complaints, since I was able to finish my newly signed copy of I Sold My Soul on eBay by Hemant Mehta (aka the Friendly Atheist and a fellow SSA board member).

I feel that Hemant’s book is great for Christians looking to understand atheists better. He expresses his honest opinions with an open mind about his visits to several different churches across the country. And even though he could have used the book to convert readers to atheism or badmouth each church he visited, Hemant takes the high road and remains true to his “friendly” form.

So my question to our Christian readers is this: What book would you recommend that could help atheists understand Christians better, without trying to convert the reader? Is there a “Friendly Christian” out there willing to sit with atheists and Humanists and write about his/her experiences?

I tried to blog about a Congressional issue, but it’s too hot, Congress is in recess, and I’m thinking more about my upcoming vacation cruise to Canada with the New York City Atheists, than about how to wrap 200 words around the unwieldy issues surrounding the Christocatic forces pervading the U.S. military (from Christian Embassy video to harassment of nontheistic soldiers to the Pat Tillman investigation, to Defense Department approved “care” packages from religious groups which include evangelical literature translated into Arabic and the Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game, this issue is getting more extensive every day), or the need to hold someone’s feet to the fire regarding the President’s explicitly stated objective of shifting government dollars away from secular social service providers in favor of (and privileging in the process) religious institutions.

No, instead of addressing an issue topic this week, I’m going to brag about what I get to do between now and the end of the month. Before I spend the last week of August on my first real vacation since starting as director of the Secular Coalition for America (in September, 2005), I’ll be heading for New York City later this week, and in addition to a workshop I’m giving and some other meetings this weekend, I’ll have the opportunity to sit down with author Nica Lalli (“Nothing, Something to Believe In”). Nica and I appeared together on a radio show about a month ago, but we didn’t get to chat before or after. Since she lives in New York, we’ll be meeting while I’m there. As I read Nica’s book, I was surprised by all the similarities in our lives – from deciding how not to be a “bad Jew” when you’re also an atheist, to our both having a fundamentalist Christian sibling-in-law. And now, it’s back to work on all those unwieldy, but important, issues.

The Humanist movement lost a visionary this weekend. Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine, the creator of Humanistic Judaism and the 2003 Humanist of the Year, was killed Saturday, July 21, in a car crash while vacationing in Morocco. He was 79.

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association said:

“[Rabbi Wine] taught that values such as reason and compassion were humanity’s saving grace, not adherence to religious dogma. He knew that we must live our one and only lives to the fullest, and do as much good as possible in the limited time we have on this earth.”

Rabbi Wine founded several humanist organizations, such as the Center for New Thinking, the Society for Humanistic Judaism, the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, and the Humanist Institute. In addition, he lectured and debated frequently, taking on such fundies as Jerry Falwell and Meir Kahane. He will be deeply missed, but his legacy will live on.

The June 18 issue of Newsweek features a short article on the controversy between the so-called “atheist fundamentalists”–authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who recently published books presenting a more aggressive stance against religion–versus the “feel-good” humanists, namely Greg Epstein of the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy, criticizing those who focus on the negative rather than the positive side of our movement.

I’m not going to jump on either side in this debate, since I believe that both the Dawkins Atheists and the Epstein Humanists, in their own ways, do a great job in getting the general public to pay attention to us. Don’t forget: just a few years ago, the media wouldn’t give us the time of day. But now, articles on atheism make it into the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, humanist rallies are featured on national television, books on atheism reach the top of the bestseller lists, and countless blogs are spreading the word to thousands of online readers. And look: the Humanist magazine was featured in the Newsweek article mentioned above!

If you failed to catch Wednesday night’s episode of Nightline, which pitted actor Kirk Cameron of Growing Pains fame and evangelical minister Ray Comfort against Brian Sapient (and someone known as “Kelly”) of the Rational Response Squad on the topic, “Does God Exist?” then you’re in luck: the segment appears online at ABC News.

What’s your opinion? Who presented the best arguments? Who was just downright awful? Let us know!