March 22, 2012 - 1:37 pm

Here was an interesting distinction between Christians and secularists: Christians had the same unifying word, but fought over theology; secularists had the same unifying theology, but fought over words. At least our wars were only verbal.

I give credit to the Christian Coalition. Though I disagreed with everything they stood for, they had a terrific model: put aside minor theological differences, work together on important political issues, and grab media attention. That was their plan to change the culture and make politicians take notice. Their strategy of demonizing atheists and secular humanists, while moving this country closer to a theocracy, worked all too well. I’m willing to learn from anyone who has something to teach us.

I joined a number of secular organizations in the 1990s because each was working on causes I supported. But these organizations saw themselves as competing with one another for funds from what they viewed to be a fixed pie of donors. The organizations were spending too much time arguing about labels (atheist, agnostic, humanistic, freethinker, etc.) and too little time showing strength in numbers and cooperating on issues that affect all secular Americans. I knew we needed to grow the pie to benefit all these groups and the secular movement as a whole.

There were lessons to be learned from the Christian Coalition and its religious right successors, who now argue less about dogma and cooperate more on political goals: preventing women from having access to all reproductive health care, promoting that evolution is just a myth and contending that our country was founded as a Christian nation that allows freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.

The Secular Coalition for America was formed in 2002 to help break down walls and build bridges among atheist and humanist organizations. As a result, we now cooperate on the 95 percent we have in common, rather than argue about the 5 percent that distinguishes us from one another. The Secular Coalition has grown to eleven national member organizations, and covers the full spectrum of nontheists. Since each member organization has strict limits on lobbying, the Secular Coalition incorporated as a political advocacy group to allow unlimited lobbying on behalf of secular Americans. For too long, our nontheistic community has been considered politically inconsequential. There are over 50 million such Americans, and the Secular Coalition advocates for those millions without god beliefs.

 

Read more at the Washington Post's On Faith.

March 15, 2012 - 12:34 pm

It seems a bit odd that a Mormon and two Catholics are the leading presidential candidates in a Republican party dominated by Protestant evangelicals. Unfortunately, this is not a sign of the religious diversity espoused by presidential candidate John F. Kennedy in 1960, when he assured Protestant ministers in Houston that he believed in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. President Kennedy gave good secular arguments based on available evidence for decisions he made on behalf of the country. Since then, Catholic candidates have rarely been questioned about whether they would take orders from the Pope if elected.

When Rick Santorum contemplated the kind of separation of church and state espoused by Kennedy, Santorum said he "almost threw up."

Judging by Santorum's continued support among Protestant evangelicals, apparently many of them would be happy if candidates took some of their orders from the pope.

Lauren County, in my home state of South Carolina, now has a purity pledge for the county's aspiring Republican candidates, showing in some ways the county to be more Catholic than the pope. The pontiff would agree with the pledge's opposition to civil unions for gay couples, opposition to abortion under any circumstances, opposition to pornography, and abstention from sex before marriage. But at least the pope would allow members of his flock to confess the "sin" of premarital intercourse, and be accepted. Not so with pledge proponents. Welcome to Laurens Country, South Carolina.

Since no Mormon has yet been president, Mitt Romney's religion will undoubtedly undergo close scrutiny, and its beliefs will seem strange to many. According to the Book of Mormon, after Jesus died, but before he went to heaven, he stopped in the United States. This story was chiseled in Egyptian hieroglyphics on gold plates and buried in Palmyra, New York. In 1827, the angel Moroni led Joseph Smith to the gold plates and a magic stone. When Smith put the magic stone into his hat and buried his face in it, he was able to translate the gold plates into English.

This story sounds silly to me, but no sillier than the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, or that one can drink his blood and eat his body every Sunday, or that a talking snake tricked Adam and Eve into eating a piece of fruit.

I can enjoy a good chuckle over many such religious beliefs, as long as they don't intrude on my daily life. Perhaps I long more for that "old-time religion" when practitioners were mostly interested in saving souls. The new-time religion seems more concerned with providing rules and restrictions about sex for politicians and everyone else.

Read the remainder of the article at Huffington Post.

January 23, 2012 - 1:50 pm

For me the highlight of the South Carolina primary campaign was hearing Stephen Colbert speak to an overflow crowd on my College of Charleston campus. I think he is the most honest "politician" of the primary season, and he spoke both eloquently and humorously about what should be a critical campaign issue--the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that paved the way for Super PACs as long as there is no coordination between the PAC and the candidate.

Colbert's coordination with Jon Stewart on the "Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC" shows how coordinated such uncoordinated Super PACs can legally be.

Sometimes the most effective way to change a corrupted system is to make fun of it. I heard more student (and faculty) laughs than during any other political visit. I also think people learned more about an issue than at most campaign events.

I almost always vote against rather than for a candidate. My vote on Saturday morning, the day after Stephen Colbert spoke, was an exception. I voted FOR Herman Cain, because Colbert endorsed and introduced Cain at the rally. I'm not sure if Cain understood that Colbert's endorsement of Cain was really an endorsement for Colbert, but that doesn't matter. Despite what I heard from the viable candidates in South Carolina, I walked out of my polling place with a smile on my face.

There is good and bad news about advancements in religious diversity. Before we ever had a Catholic president, many Protestants feared that Jack Kennedy would govern by his church's doctrine. He eased some concerns at a September 12, 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association when he said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." 

Read remainder of article at Huffington Post.

January 19, 2012 - 12:47 pm

If I believed in a god, and one with a sense of humor, I would think she had a big chuckle over timing the South Carolina Republican primary for the same week the nation celebrates Martin Luther King Day.

On May 2, 2000, South Carolina became the last state to make King's birthday an official state holiday. But South Carolina also then created another official state holiday on May 10 -- Confederate Memorial Day. Prior to this legislation, state employees had the choice of celebrating the birthday of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, or Martin Luther King.

Some of our South Carolina politicians think nothing of rewriting history, even when they can easily be caught. For instance, Congressman Joe Wilson claimed that he spearheaded the effort to have King's birthday recognized. A friend of Wilson's from his state legislature days said Wilson must have been confused about which holiday he supported, which was really Confederate Memorial Day. When confronted with circumstantial evidence, Wilson said his memory must have failed him. (This is the same Joe Wilson who famously yelled "You lie!" at the country's first African-American president during a speech to a joint session of Congress.)

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul voted against Martin Luther King Day both in 1979 and 1983, when the bill passed. In one of his newsletters, Paul referred to the holiday as "Hate Whitey Day." Paul, who is viewed as the presidential candidate least likely to lie, claimed that he neither wrote nor read the newsletters that bore his name.

Read remainder of article on The Huffington Post.

January 17, 2012 - 3:28 pm

Christianity and many other religions are sometimes described by category, rather than by denomination, as conservative, liberal or cultural. To that, I would add a fourth category: political Christian, i.e. a candidate for public office who feels the need to profess deeply held Christian beliefs.

In my home state of South Carolina, Governor Nikki Haley was raised as a Sikh, and became a Christian prior to running for public office. When she first became a gubernatorial candidate, her website said, "I believe in the power and grace of Almighty God." She later felt the need to change it to "My faith in Christ has a profound impact on my daily life. Being a Christian is not about words, but about living for Christ every day."

A cynic might say, "Maybe it's also about winning elections."

Her predecessor, former governor Mark Sanford, had sex with his "soul mate" in Argentina, which he mistook for the Appalachian Trail. After being caught, he held a press conference in which he apologized to his spiritual advisor and to people of faith across South Carolina. Implicit in his apology is that people of faith are expected to be more moral than people without faith. What seems clear to me is that politicians who continually proclaim their faith are likely to be more hypocritical than those who don't.

I watched with some sympathy when Mitt Romney, a Mormon, ran unsuccessfully for president in 2008. My sympathy was not for his political positions, but because surveys showed the main thing atheists like me and Mormons have in common is that a significant number of Americans wouldn't vote for either of us, no matter how qualified the candidate.

In trying to explain how reasonable Mormonism is, Romney said on the June 5, 2006 Charlie Rose show, "The most unusual thing in my church is that we believe there was once a flood upon the earth, and that a man took a boat and put two of each animal inside the boat, and saved humanity by doing that." Romney essentially said that his holy book is no more preposterous than the holy books of other candidates. I think he has a point.

Here is a brief history of non-religious freedom in South Carolina. The 1778 State Constitution stated, "That the Christian religion is the true religion" and "The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State." That was updated in 1868 to its present form, "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being."

 

Read the remainder of the article on the Huffington Post here.

December 22, 2011 - 6:05 pm

I once believed in miracles because my parents told me they were true, but even then I recognized that all miracles were not created equal. The Hanukkah miracle of a light burning for eight days instead of just one paled in comparison to the Pesach miracle, when a God decided to “pass-over” the houses of Jews and kill the firstborn Egyptian male in each home along with the firstborn cattle (Exodus 12:12). Hanukkah, of course, while a major holiday in this country, did not become one for theological reasons. It is celebrated so Jews don’t feel left out when others get Christmas presents. Jewish children traditionally receive a present every day for eight consecutive days. So take that, Christians, I used to say to myself.

Though Hanukkah trumped Christmas at home, not so in my public elementary school. My grandmother would usually begin a conversation with me by asking what I had learned in school, and she seemed delighted by whatever I reported. One exception occurred before Christmas, when I answered her question by singing “Silent Night.” I didn’t know what a “virgin” or a “holy infant” was, but I noticed an unexpected frown on my grandmother’s face. Since my family didn’t want to appear “un-American,” they wouldn’t have thought of complaining about Christianity being promoted in school. But they were especially upset when I learned “Silent Night” in German. After the Holocaust, all things German instilled fear in our family.

Most Christians who are willing to accept the evidence for the Earth revolving around a stationary sun are also willing to acknowledge that a savior born on December 25 is a made-up story. Christmas has its origins in the winter solstice festivals that most ancient civilizations observed. Mithras, a Persian savior-god, had a sizable following in the Roman world and his birth was celebrated on December 25. By appropriating this day for the alleged birth of Jesus, Christians could more easily convert pagans. Because of this pagan origin, some early American colonies prohibited the celebration of Christmas. That might have been the original war on Christmas.

Continue story at On Faith.

November 29, 2011 - 10:56 am

Many religious believers and atheists alike express regret at the crass materialism shown this time of year, when Thanksgiving now represents the prelude to a shopping spree for Christmas presents on “Black Friday.” I gained an appalling insight watching television on the Saturday after “Black Friday.” First I saw frenzied crowds of Egyptian protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, risking their lives to demand freedom. Then I saw frenzied crowds of American shoppers, trying to push others aside to save a few dollars on sale merchandise. Though their causes were significantly different, the crowds looked the same. This is not a form of American “exceptionalism” to be proud of.

In recent years we were subjected to a media-manufactured “War on Christmas,” when pundits decry those who say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” This year breaks new ground, because we just had a manufactured “War on Thanksgiving,” allegedly started by our commander-in-chief. President Obama gave a three-minute Thanksgiving Day speech without the word “God” in it. Here is a portion of what he said:

“We’re especially grateful for the men and women who defend our country overseas. To all the service members eating Thanksgiving dinner far from your families: the American people are thinking of you today. And when you come home, we intend to make sure that we serve you as well as you’re serving America. We’re also grateful for the Americans who are taking time out of their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters, making sure their neighbors have a hot meal and a place to stay. This sense of mutual responsibility - the idea that I am my brother’s keeper; that I am my sister’s keeper - has always been a part of what makes our country special. And it’s one of the reasons the Thanksgiving tradition has endured.”

Imagine that. President Obama gave an inclusive speech showing support for the men and women who serve overseas, and also praised those who help the less fortunate at this time of year. He even provided a biblical reference that this atheist likes, the one about being our brother’s keeper (and the updated sister’s keeper). However, many Christians would have preferred he thank an imagined God rather than the real people he did thank.

Read More (via On Faith)

November 2, 2011 - 4:41 pm

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted in favor of a Congressional resolution reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto and supporting its placement on public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions. This House Concurrent Resolution 13, which passed by a vote of 396 to 9, with 2 voting present, was sponsored by Representative Randy Forbes (R-Va.). He added, "As our nation faces challenging times, it is appropriate for Members of Congress and our nation - like our predecessors - to firmly declare our trust in God, believing that it will sustain us for generations to come."

What Forbes and many other Americans fail to recognize or acknowledge is that "In God We Trust" only became our official motto in 1956, at the height of the Cold War and the McCarthy witch-hunt for communists, as a means to separate us from godless communism. The de facto motto established by our founders had been E Pluribus Unum, which is Latin for "out of many, one." We are a diverse population, and this phrase confirms American diversity as our source of strength. We are one nation made up of people from many lands, and people of many faiths and none. Similarly, during the McCarthy era, the words "under God" were added to our inclusive "one nation, indivisible" Pledge of Allegiance.

Such sectarian religious propaganda fails to unite us. The phrase "In God We Trust" does not apply to more than 16 percent of Americans who identify as atheist, agnostic, humanist, nonreligious, or unaffiliated. There are millions of good Americans who simply do not believe in a deity, let alone trust one. Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state. Our secular government should neither impose a religious motto on its citizens nor give an official stamp of approval to a particular religious worldview.

 

Read more (via On Faith)

October 6, 2011 - 4:48 pm

Proposed regulations in the Affordable Care Act would provide preventive services for women that Catholic doctrine considers sinful. I am not surprised that John Garvey, President of Catholic University, doesn’t approve. But I thought I was reading George Orwell’s novel 1984 when he said: “In objecting to these regulations, our university does not seek to impose its moral views on others. All we ask is respect for the religious beliefs we try to impart to our students.”

Huh? Has the Catholic Church not spent over 30 years trying to impose on everyone in the world its moral views on contraceptives and abortion? It is not the place for government to either respect or disrespect the religious beliefs that Catholic University tries to impart on its students. It is up to informed students to decide whether they respect such beliefs. And they don’t. Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church.

Perhaps Garvey should focus more on the Catholic doctrine of Free Will. Like it or not, female students have a choice to use or ignore services offered in their health care plan.

The law doesn’t require Catholics or anyone else to exercise all available options. No one is forced to commit the “sin” of taking a contraceptive. It is up to the church to persuade their faithful that Church doctrine is correct. Since public money is being used by Catholic University, they must either live with the regulations or set up another system without any public funding.

Read More (via On Faith)

September 29, 2011 - 9:29 am

I’ve studied economics and taught mathematics to students who became economists, but I’m not an economist. Still, I know enough to recognize that economists sometimes selectively focus on data that fit their liberal or conservative ideologies. At least both sides work with data and try to make convincing arguments for their models. Economists of all stripes recognize that their own models are by no means perfect.

I should have known it would be only a matter of time before biblical economics turned the “dismal science” into something even more dismal. Some conservative Christians are now educating themselves and others with quotes about economics that come from that same infallible “science” book describing a flat earth with four corners resting on pillars at the center of a ten thousand year old universe. It’s also the same book of biblical morals that once justified slavery, anti-Semitism, treating women as property, executing blasphemers and homosexuals, and burning witches and heretics.

Of course our government’s huge national debt is a looming threat to long-term prosperity. Good secular and moral arguments can be made on how best to solve the problem. We should analyze arguments over tax policy and deficit spending. We can have reasoned disagreements about what type of tax is fairest, and whether we should spend more on guns or butter.

Read More (via On Faith)