Secular Coalition for America | National advocacy for atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other secular Americans

From gay members to atheist scouts: The Boy Scouts America deserves

January 30, 2013 - 1:46 pm

Here's a better-late-than-never cheer to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for reconsidering its ban on gay scouts and leaders.

That's one small step for tolerance, but one giant leap for states' rights. The modified policy would, in effect, kick the can down the road to local sponsors, who could continue the abominable policy of deeming gay teenagers too "immoral" to participate in Boy Scout activities.

There is no similar step forward for atheists. This modified policy would still require local groups to discriminate against atheists, apparently because the Boy Scout Oath implies that an atheist can't be "morally straight" unless he can do his "duty to God."

Using this twisted logic, a number of courageous and honest atheists have been kicked out of the Scouts for rejecting all supernatural beliefs. Among them was my friend Darrell Lambert, an Eagle Scout, who had been supported by his entire troop.

Cut to the military, which now allows gays and has always allowed atheists to serve openly and honorably. See, for instance, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. However, even atheists with an honorable discharge are not deemed fit to serve as Boy Scout leaders. This brings to mind Pat Tillman, who left an outstanding professional football career after the 9/11 attacks to volunteer as an Army Ranger. Had Pat survived, even he would have been excluded from Boy Scout leadership.

After several combat tours, Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan, becoming a poster boy for the heroic activities of the military. Tillman's family was as honest as he, and worked diligently to uncover the Army's lies surrounding his death. Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich, under whom Tillman was serving at the time of his death, said about the Tillman family. "These people have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of their religious beliefs." He added, "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing and now he is no more... I do not know how an atheist thinks, I can only imagine that would be pretty tough."

Continue reading at Washington Post.

A United States for nonbelievers?

January 23, 2013 - 4:25 pm

At Monday’s moving inauguration ceremony, President Barack Obama repeated the constitutionally prescribed oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Like most but not all presidents before him, he also placed his hand on a Bible and recited the words “So help me God,” which is not constitutionally required. This atheist was, of course, disappointed but not surprised at the addition.

To understand how many atheists feel about this, consider substituting “Zeus” or “Shiva” or “Allah” for “God.” Like the other approximately twenty million non-religious Americans, I wish President Obama had taken his oath on the Constitution under which our nation is governed, rather than on a divisive sectarian book under which we are not governed-thanks be to Thor.

Inauguration festivities often send symbolic messages to the country, and I give two cheers to President Obama because he talked about treating people equally regardless of race, creed, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation. I liked his message, but not the justification for it-which was God. What would we think if our president had said “Freedom is a gift from Odin” or we must preserve our planet because it is “commanded by Gaia, the goddess of the Earth?”

And despite the relative inclusiveness of this inaugural, Obama took a step back from his first inaugural address, during which he gave a token nod to atheists: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus-and non-believers.” At Monday’s inaugural, atheists and their millions of non-religious friends were as invisible as deities.

Continue reading at Washington Post's On Faith >>

Herb Silverman concedes U.S. Senate race

December 19, 2012 - 11:55 am

It is with a heavy (10.5-ounce) heart that I tell my millions of supporters I am ending my campaign to become the first acknowledged atheist to serve as a U.S. senator from South Carolina. While I didn’t hear from each of the 60 million people in this country without any god beliefs, I’ve heard from enough of them (and even some religious believers) to know how proud and surprised they would have been to see South Carolina take a leadership role in such political diversity. Their support helps justify my eight-year legal challenge that ended with a 1997 South Carolina Supreme Court victory nullifying the anti-atheist clause in our Constitution. This battle forms the centerpiece of my recent book, “Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt.”

U.S. Rep. Tim Scott, left, speaks during a news conference as South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Jim DeMint look on at the Statehouse on Dec. 17, 2012. (AP) Special thanks go to the over 3,700 people who voted for me in the straw poll conducted by the Charleston City Paper. That’s a whopping 85 percent of the votes cast, which shows an increasing awareness and political engagement by secular Americans. Charleston native Stephen Colbert, who announced his candidacy on national television, finished second in this poll. As a huge fan of Colbert, I took great pleasure in highlighting his appearance at the College of Charleston and by voting for Herman Cain in the Republican primary because Colbert had endorsed him.

Before Gov. Nikki Haley made her disappointing choice, there was a plan for the top two vote getters in the Charleston City Paper straw poll (Colbert and me) to engage in a senatorial debate on Colbert’s TV show. Regrettably, I was the only one with such a plan. Colbert didn’t come right out and admit it, but he apparently chose to duck the debate because he knew he would have had little chance of winning. Here is how I would have framed my senatorial case on his show:

Al Franken and Stephen Colbert are among my favorite comedians. Franken, however, mysteriously lost his sense of humor after becoming a U.S. Senator, and he hasn’t been heard from since. Our country cannot afford to take such a risk with a national treasure like Stephen Colbert, so he needs to stay where he is. As Senator, I promise not to fall off the humor cliff—as most politicians do. I will report to my constituents every week on C-SPAN television about the many weird things I see and hear from members of Congress. I might not be as funny as Stephen Colbert, but the C-SPAN humor bar is set so low that even a mathematician like me can clear it with ease. Finally, I hope to start a much-needed trend toward shorter political speeches by dropping the standard cliché ending, “God bless you and God bless the United States of America.”

During my campaign, I was thrilled to receive the endorsement of Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist and author of “The God Delusion.” Haley, however, was more impressed by an endorsement from Jim DeMint, so she appointed Tim Scott to the position. DeMint, as senator, wanted public school students to be taught that God created this earth and that He put Christians in charge of America.

Read remainder of article at the Washington Post.

The ‘War on Christmas’: A holiday tradition for all

December 12, 2012 - 5:35 pm

The much-ballyhooed "War on Christmas" has become a predictable holiday tradition, with Fox News as both director and producer of this manufactured war, presumably for better ratings. Comedians also love the war material they have to play with, so both Fox and comedians have become war profiteers

Atheists, who are usually marginalized or ignored by media, use this seasonal opportunity to join the war by supporting diversity. Christmas for some atheists is a time to promote freedom of expression on billboards and buses. Atheists put up signs that say "Be good for goodness' sake" or "This season, celebrate reason," and Christians protest.

Christians have been engaged in several Christmas wars: Christmas has its origins in the winter solstice festivals that most ancient civilizations observed, and Mithras, who was a Persian savior-god with a sizeable Roman following, was born on Dec. 25. By appropriating this day for the birth of Jesus, Christians felt they could more easily convert those wayward pagans. Centuries later, some early American Puritans even prohibited Christmas celebrations because of its pagan origins. So a good case can be made that Christians initiated the first war on Christmas.

Nowadays, verbal wars occasionally erupt over nativity scenes on government property. Nobody complains about nativity scenes on private property, but the government should not be promoting one religion over another or religion over non-religion. That's why atheists and others who care about church-state separation oppose these displays on government property. Government neutrality toward religion is not the same as hostility toward religion. What divides us on this point is not so much our theological differences, but the degree of commitment we have to equal freedom of conscience for everyone.

Read remainder of article at the Washington Post's On Faith.

Perpetuating ignorance

November 29, 2012 - 2:22 pm

I recently wrote that potential presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, touted as not stupid, nevertheless appears to be anti-science.

Now it’s Marco Rubio’s turn. The Florida senator said he couldn’t tell how old the Earth is, whether created in seven days, or seven actual eras, or whatever science claims. He added, dismissively, “I’m not a scientist, man.”

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.

You don’t have to be a scientist to accept the non-controversial findings among scientists that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus 50 million years. Given such ignorance, one wonders why Rubio serves on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

These personal (or pandering?) views are bad enough, but for Rubio the “crux” of the disagreement is “whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level.” He added, “I don’t want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong.”

Because some parents teach their children that blacks are inferior to whites and women should be subservient to men, does Rubio also think that schools should shrink from offering more modern points of view? If so, why not just keep children away from schools so they won’t be exposed to scientific and social views that conflict with what their parents believe? Oh, wait! We do allow home schooling.

And what about the widespread ignorance of politicians throughout the country on both the constitutional and practical need to separate church and state? Here’s an example in my hometown of Charleston, S.C.

In 1997, Charleston County’s then-Councilman Tim Scott insisted on posting a Ten Commandments plaque on the wall of council chambers despite being told that he would lose any legal challenge. Scott argued that the display was needed to remind residents of moral absolutes. The Charleston Post and Courier then asked Scott if he could name all the Commandments. Guess what? He couldn’t. Nor could any of the other council members who voted for the plaque. Perhaps they just wanted to multitask—learn Commandments while working on Council business.

When Scott posted a King James version of the Ten Commandments on the wall, the court, as expected, declared the display unconstitutional and handed taxpayers a substantial bill for legal costs. Scott, normally a fiscal conservative, said, “Whatever it costs in the pursuit of this goal (of displaying the Commandments) is worth it.”

Scott was subsequently elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives, and in 2010 became the first African-American Republican in South Carolina to serve in the United States House of Representatives—and is now the only African American Republican in Congress. He is my Congressional representative, though I can’t say he represents my views.

Read remainder of article at the Washington Post's On Faith.

The ‘stupid party’

November 19, 2012 - 1:32 pm

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal recently urged his Republican Party to "stop being the stupid party." In order to win elections, he also advised Republicans to reject anti-intellectualism. While this sounds like an excellent step forward, it will depend on their interpretation of "stupid" and "anti-intellectualism."

This is the same Jindal who, in 2008, signed the Louisiana Science Education Act, which also sounds good on the surface. The act allows local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming.

Though marketed as support for critical thinking in classrooms, the law was actually designed to open the door to teach creationism and scientifically unwarranted critiques of evolution in Louisiana public school science classes.

Although the bill had been opposed by every scientific society that voiced a position, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jindal ignored the plea of his former genetics professor Arthur Landy, who wrote, "Without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn't make sense." Instead Jindal gave credibility to Seattle's Discovery Institute, the home base of "intelligent design," which helped write the bill.

The Louisiana governor apparently doesn't understand that neither he nor the Republican Party can avoid being stupid and anti-intellectual when they oppose scientific discoveries established for more than a century. It's demonstrably unintelligent to weaken scientific standards for public schools just because those standards conflict with a literal interpretation of a "holy" book written in a pre-scientific era.

I'd like to hear Jindal criticize incumbent Republican Georgia Congressman Paul Broun, who ran unopposed and easily maintained his House seat, even though he denounced evolutionary theory, embryology, and the big bang theory as "lies straight from the pit of hell."

Worse yet, Broun sits on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Read remainder of article on the Washington Post's On Faith.

Remembering Paul Kurtz

October 24, 2012 - 3:01 pm

Paul Kurtz was a founder and a leader, more so than anyone else I have ever known. Before there were the new atheists and their best-selling books, there was Paul Kurtz promoting humanism and skepticism through his many publications and institutions.

When I first met Paul Kurtz in the early 1990s at a meeting of the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH), I was enthralled by his presentation in support of living a good and reasoned life without religion. Paul presented thoughtful arguments that described why such a philosophy would benefit humankind. As a skeptic, I pride myself in finding reasons to disagree at least on minor points with any speaker, so I was a little scared that I found none. I had thought that only religious people accepted 100 percent of what they hear from a leader. As a consequence, I became a strong supporter of Kurtz—and a regional director of the Council for Secular Humanism.

CSH was the only nontheistic organization I had known about, and its fine magazine Free Inquiry was the only such publication I had encountered. Prometheus Books, another creation of Paul Kurtz, was the only publisher I knew that was devoted to books about Freethought.

As I became more engaged in the secular movement, I began to agree with Paul Kurtz less than 100 percent of the time (a sign that I’m not religious, perhaps), and Kurtz became upset with me when I joined the board of the American Humanist Association (AHA). Both CSH and AHA seemed to be fine organizations worthy of my support, but I soon learned about their divisive history. Kurtz had been on the board of AHA and was the editor of the Humanist magazine, which was published by AHA. After Kurtz and the AHA parted ways in 1978 on less than friendly terms, Kurtz founded the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Center for Inquiry.

Unfortunately, relations got worse before they got better. Kurtz had been a major contributor to Humanist Manifesto II in 1973, a better and more secular document than the Humanist Manifesto of 1933. Around 2000, both Kurtz and the AHA thought it was about time for Humanist Manifesto III, but who had the right to write it? Both sides threatened lawsuits, and I urged both Kurtz and the AHA to consider how damaging such a lawsuit would be to our movement—regardless of who was in the right.

Read remainder of article at the Washington Post's OnFaith.

Atheist sexual harassment: The god is in the details

August 10, 2012 - 12:54 pm

I’ve attended countless atheist and humanist conferences and never heard anyone justify sexual harassment. But I’ve heard heated discussions about what sexual harassment is. Alas, the god is in the details.

In a previous century, when I first became active in the secular movement, participants were mostly old white men who sat around talking about the need for diversity. At an American Humanist Association board meeting in 1998, a fellow board member suggested that a “young” person of 53 would be a good candidate for the board. I said I hoped for the day when some current board members would be too young for AARP eligibility.

That day has arrived. Almost all AHA board members are younger than I, a nice change from when I was the youngest, and many are years away from AARP. Five of the 12 board members and two of the four officers are women. Similar demographic changes have taken place within other national nontheistic organizations, reflected in part by the appearance of relatively new organizations like the children’s Camp Quest, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, and the Secular Student Alliance. And with diversity in people comes diversity in attitudes and behavior.

I think most atheists view themselves as feminists. There was a mild controversy when the Secular Coalition for America recently hired Edwina Rogers as our new executive director. The controversy was not because she is a woman (we and other nontheistic organizations have had a number of women in leadership positions), but because she is a Republican, a rarity in our movement. But that’s a diversity story for another time. Suffice it to say that most atheists were willing to grant Rogers the time and opportunity to show that she is an effective advocate for our mission, because we believe in evidence.

Nontheistic organizations have long had sexual harassment policies that covered their employees and workplaces, but not conference attendees. This oversight is being corrected because of complaints from a number of attendees at such events, still often dominated by men. I don’t think women are saying that sexual harassment is more prevalent among atheists than in the general population, but our conventions need to be safe and welcoming places for women.

Here are a couple of reasons I think we might have had problems or misunderstandings. Many unattached men and women complain about how difficult it is to find non-religious partners in our religion-saturated culture. So an atheist gathering could be a wonderful meeting place. Sexual attention is not inherently inappropriate in such settings, but “no” still means “no.” Also, many open and active atheists have developed thick skins because of insults they have endured from theocrats. So they might falsely assume they are communicating with someone whose skin is equally thick. Inexcusable behavior is inexcusable, which is why some sensitivity information for meeting participants might be in order.

Continue reading at On Faith in the Washington Post.

Does this candidate have a prayer?

May 31, 2012 - 4:38 pm

“South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum,” observed Congressman James L. Petigru, shortly after South Carolina seceded from the Union in 1860 and declared itself a republic. I’ve lived in South Carolina since 1976, and stories about our politicians no longer surprise me. The comedy group Capitol Steps takes its name from the escapade involving our former congressman John Jenrette, who had sex with his wife on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in the late 1970s. More recently, our former governor Mark Sanford was intimate with his “soul mate” in Argentina, which he mistook for the Appalachian Trail. Perhaps South Carolina is not too large for an insane asylum.

Some might argue that I’m also a candidate for this asylum. After all, why would a liberal, Yankee, Jewish atheist like me run for governor of South Carolina? Well, it wasn’t through blind ambition or unrealistic expectations, and certainly the devil didn’t make me do it. In 1990 a colleague at the College of Charleston, where I was a math professor, pointed out that the South Carolina Constitution prohibited atheists from becoming governor.

Since the U.S. Constitution bars religious tests for public office, I asked a local ACLU lawyer how this obviously unconstitutional provision could be removed. He said that to mount a legal challenge, an open atheist would have to become a candidate. And he added with a smile, “The very best candidate would be you-in a race for governor of South Carolina.”

After giving this surprising suggestion much thought, I agreed to run as a write-in candidate. I assumed, in my political naïveté, that state officials would consent to bring South Carolina into compliance with federal law. They didn’t. Governor Carroll Campbell said, “The South Carolina Constitution was fine as it was because this country was founded on Godly principles.”

Read more at On Faith, in the Washington Post.

A National Day of Reason?

May 3, 2012 - 9:17 am

I strongly support the National Day of Reason, although I wish it weren’t needed. There would be no National Day of Reason if there were not a government-endorsed National Day of Prayer.

Though held annually on the same day, the first Thursday in May, there is a major difference—and not just in terms of reason vs. faith. Some government officials claim that the National Day of Prayer represents a broad interfaith coalition, which it does not. Shirley Dobson, wife of James Dobson, heads the event. Together they promote conservative Christian causes. However, even if the event were religiously inclusive, it would still exclude millions of Americans who do not pray, and it marginalizes them as second-class citizens.

As a secular country with a secular Constitution, our government should not favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. But for those who truly want to be inclusive of all Americans, I have a solution: Have the government sponsor two separate days—a National Day of Prayer and a National Day of Non-Prayer, a day on which Christians might then appreciate how atheists and humanists feel about a government pushing prayer.

That said, I don’t need a president or anyone else telling me to set aside a special day to not pray, because I happily do not pray every day. On the other hand, those who wish to pray every day are free to do so without government urging. Our government should never tell its citizens when, how, or whether to pray.