Articles appearing in the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs "Freethought Views" column in the Colorado Springs Independent in 2015 and 2016. Most if not all of the articles were written by members of the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs.
In September 2013 and again in May 2014, courts rejected lawsuits brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) to remove the motto “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency. The courts said the phrase does not impose a substantial burden on unbelievers and does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Plaintiffs, represented by lawyer and atheist Michael Newdow, had argued that they were “forced to proselytize -- by an Act of Congress -- for a deity they don’t believe in whenever they handle money.”
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr., wrote in his 2013 ruling that “the Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto’s secular purpose and effect.” Similarly the 3-judge panel in 2014 insisted the motto on U.S. currency does “not have a religious purpose or advance religion.”
But juxtaposed to these legal arguments touting the motto’s secular nature is a much different sentiment voiced by supporters of House Concurrent Resolution 13, the 2011 measure to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the national motto. (Even though a previous act of Congress in 2002 had already done essentially the same thing, as did a Senate measure in 2006.) For example, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) argued in favor of H. Cos. Res. 13 thus: “Is God God? Or is man God? In God do we trust, or in man do we trust?” Clearly endorsing a religious God, Franks concluded it is time “to reaffirm that God is God and in God do we trust.”
Although Resolution 13 passed 396-9 with 2 abstentions, 5 representatives filed dissenting views, saying the motto “injects the hand of government into the private religious lives of Americans” and thus “[transgresses] the clear line between government and religion.” They argued the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from preferring religion over non-religion. They further argued the Resolution fails a court-precedent “coercion test” because it encourages the display of the motto in public schools and other government institutions, thus subjecting all individuals who enter such buildings to religious orthodoxy and more specifically a governmental preference for monotheism over other religions.
There’s also the historical fact the motto “In God We Trust” originated, via placement on coins, as a way to increase specifically religious sentiments during the Civil War, prompted by a clergyman’s claim that the War itself was the result of insufficient religious fervor in the country. It was not actually declared the national motto until 1956, in the same Cold War atmosphere that also led to adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance to distinguish the U.S. from godless communism.
So the motto hardly seems to be innocuously secular as the courts have claimed. FFRF co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor also noted it’s not an accurate motto. “To be accurate,” she said, “it would have to say, ‘In God Some of Us Trust,’ and wouldn’t that be silly?” She pointed out that non-believers are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population by religious affiliation, at nearly 20 percent.“
“It [the motto] creates the dangerous misperception that our republic is based on a god,” she continued, “when in fact it is based on an entirely secular Constitution. These symbolic violations [damage] respect for the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government.”
by Ken Burrows
Published February 18 with the quotation below:
"In God We Trust. I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true." --- Mark Twain
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has uttered some odd, if not downright scary, views on any number of topics, including his firm belief in the devil. He claims a commitment to “originalism” in judicial philosophy, which basically means using historical inquiry to discern the original intent of the Constitution’s framers. This once led him to argue that flogging in the 21st century would be allowable because the framers did not specifically prohibit it.
But these examples aside, it is Scalia’s church-state views that really give one pause. It is here where his originalist prism leads to particularly ominous perceptions. For example, in the Supreme Court’s Greece vs. Galloway decision in 2014 approving of town boards opening meetings with predominantly Christian prayer, he wrote that the Establishment Clause is not violated when nonbelievers experience “subtle pressures” to conform to religious favoritism, because such pressure is not the same as the religious “coercion” the framers were focused on eliminating.
But he didn’t stop there. Saying that the church-state relationship in the 18th century was “far from settled,” Scalia concurred with Justice Clarence Thomas in Greece that this lack of consensus on church and state when the Bill of Rights was ratified means the First Amendment is “agnostic” on the subject of church establishments by individual states; so states are thus, constitutionally, free to establish religions if they so choose.
And there’s more. In a 2005 decision in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky that banished a Ten Commandments display from the McCreary and Pulaski County courthouses, Scalia argued with a plaintiff by insisting, “What the Commandments stand for is the direction of human affairs by God. And to say that’s the basis of our institutions is entirely realistic.” In a similar Ten Commandments case, he dismissed the idea the Decalogue has only a secular role in the development of law, arguing instead that “I think the message it sends is that law and our institutions come from God.”
He went on to say in his McCreary dissent that the Establishment Clause does not protect religious minorities or nonbelievers from majoritarian sentiment, and it is a “demonstrably false principle that the government cannot favor religion over irreligion.” In addressing the conflict between minority religions or nonbelievers and majority religious belief, Scalia astonishingly claimed, “Our national tradition has resolved that conflict in favor of the majority,” so the Establishment Clause “permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.”
Finally, in a 1992 case, Lee v. Weisman, in which two parents successfully challenged the constitutionality of prayers being said at their daughters’ public school graduations, the Court’s majority viewed that situation as making students face real pressures to join in prayer, so they ruled the prayers ought not be allowed. Scalia in dissent noted that President Bush had asked people attending his inauguration to bow their heads in prayer, and he said these students and their family should be willing to do the same.
All this, from someone sitting on the highest court in the land. The Constitution's main architect, James Madison, once observed that "religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." How does Scalia miss the "original intent" in that?
By Ken Burrows
Published May 27, 2015 with quotation below:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.” - - - Thomas Jefferson
Earlier this year the “In Good Faith” column of the Independent newspaper included a rather paradoxical observation by Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, as he answered the question: “Does morality require a religious foundation?” Daly referred to lay theologian and novelist C.S. Lewis who, he said, held the notion that “a sense of right and wrong is innate to human nature.” Daly went on to say this very notion is evidence for God’s existence and said “without Him [God] there would be no such thing as goodness.”
So is goodness “God’s nature” or “human nature”? Daly’s conclusion assumes God is intrinsic to human nature and thus gets credit for the goodness human nature holds. But this is a circular argument that ends up casting a premise as a conclusion in attempting to answer the question of whether or not morality requires a religious foundation.
Suppose instead that human nature has an existence of its own apart from any god. Couldn’t it still possess innate goodness? The Humanist Manifesto, a wholly secular statement of the American Humanist Association, embraces the position that “humanism…without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives.” The Manifesto states that humans are an integral part of nature and ethical values are derived from human interest. In this the Manifesto largely echoes the same C.S. Lewis notion that we as humans have an inherent moral sense, without demanding God as prerequisite.
In fact, belief in God at times can actually diminish “human morality” as it’s commonly understood. In the civil rights struggle of the 50s and 60s, secular and freethinking persons were statistically more likely to denounce injustice than were those holding religious beliefs. Religious beliefs were even used at times to defend discrimination rather than oppose it. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” specifically critiqued white Christian clergymen who urged him to be more restrained in his quest for justice. So “religion” and “morality” can indeed be at odds. A consistently positive nexus between the two is called further into question when one remembers the atrocities, both past and present, committed specifically in the name of various faiths.
Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain who holds post-graduate degrees in theological studies from the University of Michigan and Harvard University, goes so far as to say human nature’s inherent goodness may be a source for religious precepts rather than derived from them. He cites what’s known as “the golden rule,” ubiquitously accepted and observed even in the absence of religion, and notes that diverse theological beliefs have been built upon this common ethical basis.
“You can have a society that doesn’t have Krishna, Jesus, or Buddha and it will be fine,” Epstein writes in his book Good Without God. “But if you have a society that lacks this principle [golden rule] then all hell really will break loose.” Still, he notes, nothing about the golden rule requires a god.
Epstein says goodness is simply a human choice, “the most important choice we can ever make, and we have to make it again and again, throughout our lives.” We have to look inside ourselves, understand what we see there, and use this information when deciding how to treat others. “If we can accept that reality and act with courage,” he says, “we can be very good indeed.”
By Ken Burrows
Published April 22, 2015, with the quotation below:
“The World is my country . . . and to do good is my religion.” - - - Thomas Paine
Like the 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision regarding interracial marriage equality, the June 26, 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex marriage upholds equality under the law with regard to equal access to marriage. Both cases were decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment that was ratified in the wake of the Civil War.
Obergefell v. Hodges addressed the matter of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee having denied the plaintiffs equal access to marriage based upon the religious beliefs of opponents—religious beliefs the plaintiffs obviously did not share. Leading to Loving v. Virginia, frank religious language had appeared in the Loving couple’s felony conviction for miscegenation, creating at least the appearance, and perhaps the legal reality, that Judge Leon Bazile forced the Lovings to comply with religious beliefs that were written into the laws of the State of Virginia.
Similarly, the Catholic hospitals that treat 1 in 6 Americans cite religious mandates to deny patients and their families equal access to (even life-saving) abortion and contraception services, even when the religious beliefs of those patients and families do not prohibit abortion or contraception. The 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision grants imaginary legal constructs (corporations) incapable of holding religious beliefs or participating in religious rituals the “religious freedom” to overrule their employees’ personal religious ideals in favor of the religious directives of the company. Similarly, the 2014 Greece v. Galloway decision grants politicians the power to begin every taxpayer funded public meeting with exclusively Christian prayers. It appears that corporations, hospitals, organizations, and individuals that deny access to abortion or contraception on religious grounds, and government representatives in official settings who participate in official government funded prayer favoring a single religion, violate not only the 14th Amendment, but also the 1st Amendment as well.
Politically powerful advocates of these practices alternately appear unaware, unconcerned, and pleased that their claims of religious freedom force their subordinates to comply with their religious beliefs. If those with power over you can make you comply with religious practices contrary to your own personal beliefs, your free exercise of religion is impinged. In contrast, if your subordinates are allowed to participate in practices your religion forbids, your free exercise of religion is preserved—even if your responsibilities as a citizen indirectly facilitate the free exercise of religion by those over whom you have economic and political power.
American citizens who are patients of hospitals, employees of corporations, and/or participants in public meetings cannot retain their personal and religious freedoms when they are denied equal access to public and or medical services and are forced to comply with or participate in the religious beliefs, practices, or rituals of corporations, elected representatives, employers, or hospital owners. United States law requires that businesses, hospitals, workplaces, and government settings be free of racial discrimination. These settings should be free of religious coercion as well.
Currently, nothing protects Americans from forced compliance with or unwilling participation in the religious practices of the economically and politically powerful. However, both Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges are important steps toward a society in which United States citizens will no longer surrender their own religious beliefs (if any) to the religious ideals of those with economic or political power over them.
By Groff Schroeder
Published August 26, 2015 with quotation below:
"Religion is like a pair of shoes. Find one that fits you, but don't make me wear your shoes."
--- George Carlin
By Groff Schroeder
Most Americans agree that free and fair elections are a crucial foundation of our democratic republic, its Constitution, its People, and our freedoms. Yet few would disagree with this statement from the recent election campaign, “There is something funny about the elections, folks.”
In 1867, President Lincoln signed America's first campaign finance regulation, making it illegal for government officers and employees to solicit donations from Naval Yard workers. In 1905, President Roosevelt sought publicly financed campaigns and to ban corporate donations. In 1924, women won the right to vote. Campaign finance laws were expanded in 1925 – but not enforced.
In 1952, a disgruntled supporter exposed Vice Presidential candidate Senator Richard Nixon's campaign “fund,” replenished by political backers to defray his expenses. The fund was legal, but it damaged Nixon's “public integrity” campaign by creating the appearance of and opportunity for bribery. Instead of proposing landmark public integrity legislation, Nixon responded with the infamous televised “Checkers” speech, saving his career and quashing investigations into his finances. The speech normalized “campaign donations,” and Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address warned Americans to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence” “in the councils of government.”
Between 1956 and 1968, campaign spending doubled, reaching $300 million. Candidates converted unspent funds to personal use. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act protected minorities right to vote for the first time. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 limited contributions, required disclosure, and initiated public financing.
In 1973, President Richard Nixon was caught illegally exchanging millions of dollars of secret cash for political favors - and exploiting his Presidential powers, government assets, and taxpayer funds to wiretap the opposing political party's Watergate Hotel headquarters. Nixon suggested the President of the United States is above the rule of law - before resigning to evade impeachment. In response, Congress created the Federal Election Commission in 1974 to police election law, launching a new era of campaign law non-enforcement, which continues today through under funding, under staffing, and under utilization.
Then elections really got “funny.” The bizarre 1976 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court Decision made campaign donations, (neither free nor speech), Constitutionally protected “free speech.” The 2012 Citizen's United vs FEC Decision overturned minor reforms and rejected any disclosure, limit, or transparency in political spending. Between 1978 and 2016, election campaign spending skyrocketed from $153 million to $1.8 billion dollars. The 2013 Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court Decision effectively repealed the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Many state legislatures promptly passed regulations making minority voting more difficult. Since 2014, “unscrupulous gerrymandering” has guaranteed control of the House of Representatives and many state legislatures to the incumbent party - no matter how We the People vote.
If countless Americans lost their right or ability to vote between February 2013 and November 2016, are America's elections free? If it is impossible for one party to lose a federal or state legislative election, are America's elections fair?
It appears that to fulfill his oft-spoken promise to “drain the swamp” the President-elect will need to restore the American People's right to vote freely, reverse unfair redistricting practices, and eliminate the “campaign donations” that so obviously and so thoroughly taint elections and government in the United States.
Published in the Colorado Springs Independent on December 7, 2016 with the quote below.
“In a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.” Matt Taibbi
When religious operatives attempt to bend law and public policies to coincide with their dogmas, they at times put forth nonreligious “facts” to support their desired goal. This makes their maneuvering look less like religious imposition or outright animus. Problem is, these facts are often fictions.
The religious battle against gay marriage offers one example. When a contingent of supporters of traditional marriage realized their best chance of prevailing would be to establish a “rational basis” for disallowing same-sex nuptials, they opted to present the argument that children were harmed by being in families with gay and lesbian parents, as compared to being raised by a traditional mother and father.
But there were stumbling blocks, such as the American Sociological Association (ASA) asserting that decades of sound research confirmed that whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.
Enter the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank, to commission a study on the subject. One of its founders is Robert George, a former chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. George has authored academic papers against same-sex marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, divorce, and even masturbation. Among his fans are right-wing media star Glenn Beck and the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative Catholic. George also cowrote the Manhattan Declaration, a 2009 religious right manifesto that insisted it was the “duty of the law” to support traditional husband/wife marriage.
The Witherspoon Institute awarded a grant to sociologist Mark Regnerus to study how children fared when raised by LGBT individuals. This study concluded that such children had several negative economic, social and psychological consequences as a result of their nontraditional upbringing. Critics understandably alleged the study was biased from the start, given its sponsorship, and was done to reach pre-determined results. Other experienced researchers pointed to methodological flaws in the study. But Regnerus insisted his study was objective and valid.
Despite the controversy surrounding it, Congressional representatives opposed to same-sex marriage cited the study often to back up their position. Scalia made indirect reference to it when the Court was deliberating California’s Proposition 8 that barred same-sex marriage. Some state representatives and judicial officials also cited it to justify laws discriminating against LGBT persons. By contrast, a federal district court judge in Michigan called Regnerus’ work “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” “The funder clearly wanted a certain result,” the judge said, “and Regnerus obliged.”
Regnerus’ own department at the University of Texas distanced itself from his work by stating “[his] opinions are his own.” They pointed to the ASA’s calling the study’s conclusions “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds” and said his research “improperly diminished” the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families.
The tide steadily turned against Regnerus’ work. Media Matters, a nonprofit dedicated to “correcting conservative misinformation,” said this growing skepticism was most evident in the fact that when the Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage in its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, not a single dissenting justice cited Regnerus’ research as part of his dissent. As Media Matters saw it, this attempt to coat religious bias with a veneer of fabricated facts ultimately did not work because the allegation that LGBT individuals are fundamentally flawed did not withstand objective scrutiny.
By Ken Burrows
Published June 22, 2016 with quotation below:
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
--- Arthur C. Clarke
After NFL running back Arian Foster announced publicly in 2015 that he does not believe in God, one Colorado sportswriter penned a commentary saying that while he admired Foster’s honesty, “cultivating faith demands more labor than discarding faith. Foster walks the easier route.” When I queried him about why he was so sure of this, he said his rationale was that “Believing brings with it serious demands.”
As if atheism does not come with demands of its own.
Consider that many nonbelievers of today were raised as believers, were occasionally terrorized by church-based threats to questioning such belief, and have always faced an overwhelming societal prejudice in favor of believers. Yet through a carefully studied conscience, they come to realize they do not genuinely believe what their religions taught; nor can they assent to the God concepts of the majorities around them. So they ask of themselves, as poet/essayist Robert Louis Stevenson did upon self-discovering his own atheism: “Am I to live my whole life as one falsehood?”
Many atheists lose friends, family, and other support systems simply for being true to their conscience this way. Both professional polling and direct experience consistently tell atheists that they are among the most negatively regarded members of American society. In this context it takes courage, integrity, and work to be true to oneself, swim against the tide, and embrace nonbelief.
Additionally, nonbelievers must make the commitment to form their own codes of right and wrong, to live by their values, and to constantly reassess themselves on the rightness of their course. By contrast, many believers (not all) simply take uncritically what they’ve been given from birth, then follow whatever their church says, and perhaps never stop to ask, in a sincere way, if this in fact reflects who they are. That kind of faith requires no self-study work at all; it simply follows formula.
This is not to say all believers are on such a simple road, though many surely are. Just as surely, there are nonbelievers who take a similarly simple road, forgoing belief solely to evade its demands. But the fact is that for persons who are conscientious about this matter, nonbelief is not the mere absence of what believers “do,” and thus is not automatically easier. At a minimum, the easier vs. harder distinction is highly individualized and depends in part on what process the person goes through on the issue. And with what sincerity. Anyone who engages this belief question honestly and thoughtfully—whether he/she emerges as theistic believer or nonbeliever—should be given equal regard, with no assumption that either one has chosen to walk an easier route.
The sportswriter did give credit to the nonbelieving Foster for being open-minded, and for saying his atheism does not make him superior to believers. “He declines to judge,” he said of Foster. The writer also took time to note that he finds most Christians to be nonjudgmental. But he added: “Notice, I did not say all Christians.” So he was capable of discernment that recognizes variability in people. However, he allowed no such variability for nonbelievers, saying it is a “truth” they all choose what’s easier.
But that's not a truth. It's a generalized, uninformed bias. Arian Foster declined to judge. The sports pundit would have done well to follow his example.
By Ken Burrows
Published March 23, 2016 with quotation below:
"Here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead."
--- Thomas Jefferson
What if some foreign country attacked someone in your neighborhood, city, state, or nation with deadly rockets or bombs? What if they killed acquaintances, family members, or friends, and blew up your house, business, school, or other important local infrastructure? Whether you agreed with that country's motives or ideals or not, would you willingly support that country, help it achieve its goals, or do as its leaders asked? Would you see the foreign country as your friend - - or would you see that country’s citizens as an enemy? Would you defend yourself, seek revenge, or welcome them into your shattered community?
It is difficult to argue that more than a decade of “war” on terrorists in the Middle East has made the world a safer place. In contrast, it appears that using the most high-tech weapons the industrialized world can provide in desperately poor Third World nations not only fails to create international security - - such actions may actually encourage terrorism. In addition to this record, reliance upon such violence as a means to achieve political ends has unfortunate parallels with rather infamous political movements of the not so distant past, especially in the absence of Due Process of Law. A devastated economy fomented fascism in Germany in the 1930s. In the Middle East today, not only have local economies been destroyed, but also water, food, medical, power, and sewer infrastructures - - pretty much every aspect of civilized life imaginable. Despite modern travel technologies, many people seem to think that violence overseas somehow protects them from violence at home.
The people overseas who we are told “hate the United States” (as well as those who see us in a more positive light) often appear to be trying to survive without safe food, water, medicine, sewers, or power - - virtually everything we take for granted - - because they have already been bombed “into the Stone Age.” Although so-called hawk pundits and the military industrial complex support military action, history suggests military action appears likely to create numerous people with dead families: desperate people with nothing left to lose who may want nothing more than to get revenge, no matter what it takes. Therefore, it seems unlikely that yet another application of “boots on the ground” will achieve goals associated with improving international security.
One potentially viable way to end this destructive cycle is to shower the civilian survivors of all these years of war with food, water, and medicine. What if we deployed architects, engineers, doctors, nurses, and rescuers to help those who have experienced - - through no fault of their own - - the brunt of the oxymoronic “war on terror?” What if American international might was renowned for saving lives and helping those in need?
Instead of attempting to create security through violence, perhaps rebuilding communities, infrastructures, economies, and the lives of innocent civilians might be more effective. If we spent as much money rescuing the survivors of war as we spend on apparently counterproductive policies, we could save a lot of lives - - and perhaps stop the seemingly endless feedback loop of escalating violence, hatred, and revenge that has enthralled the world since at least September 11, 2001.
As long as we are willing to unleash violence upon others, it is hard to imagine a response that does not include others’ willingness to unleash violence upon us.
By Groff Schroeder
Published March 25, 2015 with the quotation below:
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
- - - Abraham Lincoln
Over the past dozen years, the term “New Atheism” has come into vogue, often understood as a label for a more assertive brand of nonbelief in God. In some forms it includes attempting to literally disprove God’s existence and/or aggressively criticize nearly all of religion’s influence on individuals and society.
The concept has been excoriated by conservative religious believers, as would be expected. Less expected is seeing it criticized by folks politically more moderate and liberal who see this highly visible atheism as being insufficiently concerned with social justice issues like women’s rights, racial equality, and the environment. So does atheism in general not care about such issues?
To pose the question that broadly is to overlook the diversity that marks nonbelief. Atheism is not a monolithic brand. When people declare themselves to be “atheists,” that alone simply says they don’t believe in any gods; it doesn’t naturally imply a commitment to any particular social contract. By contrast, to declare oneself a “humanist” means not only rejecting supernatural beliefs but also affirming certain things we do believe. The American Humanist Association defines humanism as a philosophy that includes a responsibility to lead ethical lives that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
Like atheists in general, humanists make decisions without gods, relying instead on rationality and scientific research, while adding empathy and social commitment. So for example, we choose science-based sex education as proven to be more effective than abstinence-based sex education. We believe a strong middle class is best for a stable, resilient economy, and healthcare for all extends quality of life and strengthens society. We want the civil rights of all protected rather than constrained by dictates in Bronze Age holy books. As humanists we support such progressive values because we see positive results and understand cause and effect. We believe individuals can lead meaningful, ethical lives without gods while having the power—and duty—to change the world for the better. We believe in every person’s right to self-actualization and dignity.
So atheism and humanism share some traits but are not synonymous or interchangeable terms. This is not to say that declared “humanists” are better people than “atheists” or that atheists in general are not committed to good works. Indeed, at least three distinct atheist groups in the Pikes Peak area engage in activities of community betterment. Untold numbers of atheists are similarly engaged on an individual basis.
It’s worth noting that just as most humanists are atheistic, the majority of atheists hold humanist values even if they don’t use that word to self-identify. But atheism in and of itself is not aligned with a defined ethical system to guide behavior. Some nonbelievers have not moved beyond their simple rejection of gods to actively embrace interpersonal and societal responsibilities, as humanists formally commit to. (It’s equally true, of course, that many theists also eschew such responsibilities; belief in God is no panacea for such indifference.)
Though humanism and the New Atheism are distinct, the latter provides humanism a useful service by calling religious belief into question, criticizing irrational thinking, and debunking outrageous claims. Because such things impair efforts to promote a free, just, and egalitarian society. Which is a goal virtually all humanists and atheists share, whatever other differences we might have.
By Rebecca Hale
Published May 25, 2016 with quotation below:
“Gods can’t create values. Humans can, and so we must do so wisely.”
--- Greg M. Epstein, Humanist Chaplain
Correctly performed and logically interpreted statistics play essential roles in science, engineering, and medicine, providing information about objective (verifiable) aspects of the system under study. Statistical analyses in materials science and design engineering ensure the wheels of your car do not fly off into the distance when you hit a pothole at 15 miles per hour. Logic, the scientific method, and statistics helped scientists to show that smoking causes heart disease. Because most smokers also drink coffee, the same series of scientific studies showed coffee drinking is associated with (only appears to cause) heart disease.
In December of 2014, Chancellor Jack Hawkins sent an email to the faculty, staff, and students of Troy University in Alabama containing a video warning that morality can come only from religion and stating, “If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police.” Dr. Hawkins’ statements led the American Atheists to request an apology on behalf of a student, and his role as an academic implies that statistical or scientific evidence supports his claim of a causal relation between religion and morality - - that religion causes morality - - as well as its inverse, that the lack of religion causes immorality. While his statements do not appear to address the possibility that religion is merely associated with morality, they do appear consistent with the logical Fallacy of Composition: the incorrect idea that if something is true of one part of a whole, then it is true for all parts of the whole.
Unlike other “first world” nations, in the United States secular people in general and atheists in particular are viewed with great distrust. In carefully controlled social science research about Americans’ perceptions of atheists by Will R. Gervais, Ph.D., many respondents to a question about whether a person would leave contact information after an unattended vehicle accident appeared to perceive atheists as less trustworthy than rapists. A Pew Foundation study found that only about 45% of Americans deem atheists trustworthy enough to be elected president. Research by Phil Zuckerman, Ph.D., suggests that American’s distrust of non-religious people stems from the belief that morality depends upon the promise of a reward for good behavior and the threat of punishment for bad behavior after death. No matter what the source of these disturbing perceptions, there is very little scientific evidence useful in determining any potential link between morality and religion.
If we reject the Fallacy of Composition and admit at least some non-religious people are moral, from where could this morality stem if not religion? Zuckerman’s data suggests that atheists adhere to the ethic of reciprocity, what some call “the golden rule,” and also experience the human emotion of empathy. The ethic of reciprocity first appears in written texts some 4,000 years ago, and empathy in living organisms might be as old as life itself.
While science is an iterative, competitive, and self-correcting process that has given us our modern technological world, its reliance upon “methodical doubt” and need for “evidence based” conclusions and solutions means that it could take generations to establish the relationship (if any) between religion and morality. Therefore, it may be useful to determine the trustworthiness of others not through religious means, but by individually assessing not only their empathy, but also behaviors potentially associated with, and perhaps caused by, the ancient ethic of reciprocity.
By Groff Schroeder
Published June 24, 2015 with quotation below:
“It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.”
- - - Henri Poincaré
The man was fast asleep, the clock on the wall gently ticking away the seconds until sunrise. As it chimed three, the witching hour, he awoke with a start. Something was horribly wrong. He tried to sit up, to orient himself, when he realized the problem—every muscle in his body was completely paralyzed. Flooding with terror, the man desperately began to recite a prayer inside his head. But, before he reached “amen," it materialized on top of his chest from the deepest pit of hell: The Demon. The disgusting creature narrowed its flaming red eyes and licked its lips to reveal bloody, razor-sharp teeth. Then, it wrapped its talons around the man’s throat.
For thousands of years, humans have experienced frightening situations like this. Googling “demon on the chest” will produce millions of search results, many of which link to websites where “victims” recount stories of waking up in the middle of the night to discover evil spirits on top of them. These episodes are incredibly disturbing, and many even cite them to be life-changing.
However, advances in medical technology and knowledge about neurology prove that such experiences are nothing more than brain chemistry gone awry. Scientists have found that during the deep REM stage of sleep, the body actually undergoes paralysis to prevent us from acting out our dreams. Furthermore, if awakened during this period, the brain quickly attempts to make sense of its situation by blurring the line between sleep and wakefulness. A few neurochemical exchanges in the temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) result in terrifying hallucinations of demons and other fiends.
Unfortunately, this example is only one of many illogical superstitions that modern people still hold. Another one of these superstitions, and undoubtedly the greatest of all time, is religion. Currently, eighty-seven percent of all Americans subscribe to a religious creed. These individuals will often justify their beliefs with some supernatural testimony, such as seeing or hearing a spiritual entity. However, although these experiences may seem real, they actually have no scientific basis and therefore perpetuate ignorance toward the reality of the universe. But it needn’t be so.
Just as demonstrated with the demon example, the scientific method is constantly discovering that so-called “religious experiences” are actually derived from common neurological processes. Brain-imaging technology such as fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography,) and PET (positron emission tomography) scans have been able to demonstrate a rational basis for even the most mysterious “supernatural” events. Out-of-body experiences can be explained by damage to the TPJ; meditative states are the result of decreased parietal lobe activity. Most astoundingly, scientists have even induced “spiritual episodes” by tampering with electrical impulses in patients’ brains—strongly suggesting that many “religious” experiences are ultimately based in neurochemical impulses.
Today, scientific research has presented us with an incredible gift—the ability to replace unfounded, dangerous superstitions with meaningful neurological discoveries. No longer must we humans fall prey to our irrational convictions about demons and divinity. We can now emerge from the darkness of our ignorance into the brilliant light of scientific understanding. I only hope that we use this gift to create a smarter, healthier, and more logical world.
By Andie Turner
Published September 23, 2015 with quotation below:
“It is the mystery and magic of religion . . . that fan the passions of overbelief, and nourish illusion and unreality.”
--- Paul Kurtz
By their nature, religion and humanism are largely seen as foes. But this is not always true in every respect. In fact, parts of Pope Francis’ recent encyclical on human ecology and the environment, Laudato Si (Praise be to you), share elements of humanist philosophy.
In the encyclical, Francis points to a “solid scientific consensus” documenting global warming and says humanity is called to recognize the need for changes in lifestyle in order to guarantee a planet that can sustain its inhabitants. He said we cannot “legitimize the present model…where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way that can never be universalized.” “We must,” he wrote, “regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world.”
Compare this to the writings of Fred Edwords, longtime humanist activist and former executive director of the American Humanist Association. In an article for The Humanist magazine titled “The Humanist Philosophy in Perspective,” Edwords wrote that humanists base their understanding of the world on what can be perceived by the senses and comprehended with the mind. These are base elements of scientific study, which was also an underpinning for Francis’ encyclical.
Humans can agree on basic values, Edwords said, “because we most often share the same needs, interests, and desires and because we share the same planetary environment.” Because of that, Edwords said, “we support the current trend toward more global consciousness.” Underscoring this humanistic outlook, Edwords also wrote that “We measure the value of a given choice by how it affects human life, and in this we include our individual selves, our families, our society, and the peoples of the earth.”
This is consistent with Francis’ emphases on planetary survival and people’s shared responsibilities.
Francis and Edwords diverge sharply on other topics, notably the role of population control as this affects environmental sustainability. On a planet with finite resources and growing scarcities triggered in part by the climate change he is addressing, Francis oddly argues that demographic growth in general is not the problem; rather it is unequal distribution of resources and “extreme consumerism.” So he decries people seeking to exercise power over their bodies through contraception. By contrast, Edwords says worldwide education on limiting population growth is one way to foster sustainability for everyone. He deems individual autonomy a paramount value.
It’s also true that Francis includes religious faith in his reasoning, insisting we should not risk displacing God by “claiming an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot.” He goes so far as to suggest that snubbing God can provoke “a rebellion on the part of nature,” a clear abandonment of scientific thinking on causes and effects. But Edwords argues human values make sense only in context of human welfare, and our ethical decisions are not grounded in any “alleged concerns of supposed deities.”
While Francis appeals to God as well as our shared humanity to justify Laudato Si’s defense of the environment, Edwords shows one can reach a similar ecological posture with no appeal to supernaturalism. Secular humanism is routinely derided by religious conservatives as an intrinsic evil. But the leader of 1.2 billion Christians has found considerable common ground with humanism in the ethics of caring for people and planet.
By Ken Burrows
Published July 22, 2015
Former Supreme Court justice clerk and noted church-state scholar Marci A. Hamilton is a leading spokesperson on the dangers of overinterpreting the meaning of “religious freedom.”
In the wake of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decisions on contraceptive coverage and same-sex marriage, there has been a proliferation of efforts to invoke “religious freedom” as justification to be exempt from laws citizens must generally follow. Hamilton (along with many others) sees some of these exemptions as extreme, such as allowing discrimination against gays and lesbians, withholding health services, or practicing other faith-based bias, claiming a “religious freedom” right to do so.
These claims are being made largely under federal and/or state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the law on which the Burwell decision was based. RFRA says government may not “substantially burden” a person’s exercise of religion unless it furthers a “compelling governmental interest” and is done with the “least restrictive means” possible. Hamilton contends Burwell’s overly broad interpretation of RFRA has spawned a raft of religious exemption claims that fail to consider the harm these exemptions would bring to others.
Sometimes referred to as “extreme liberty,” such exemptions also breach the wall separating church and state, preventing the state from defending the civil rights of citizens against religious assault. Prior to Burwell, RFRA was not generally seen as allowing discrimination based on religion. The Secular Coalition for America reported earlier this year that legislators at a hearing on RFRA emphasized the law was meant “to protect all, not favor some at others’ expense” and was intended to be a shield, not a sword. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed this in her Burwell dissent by noting: “No prior decision under RFRA allows a religion-based exemption when the accommodation would be harmful to others.”
In an amicus brief submitted for Burwell by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), the organization argued that RFRA acts as a “super-statute” with potential to trump every U.S. law. “RFRA elevates religious beliefs above the rights of citizens,” the Foundation argued. When FFRF criticized the Burwell ruling in a New York Times ad, even the conservative Wall Street Journal gave them credit for noting that Burwell was based not on the Constitution but on RFRA and for drawing a “logical conclusion” that Congress should repeal RFRA.
Marci Hamilton, who authored the 2014 book God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty, agrees. She says we should return to classic pre-RFRA thinking, which is that if a law is neutral and applies to everyone equally, “religious freedom” does not automatically exempt one from it. Then, if and when there is a request for a religious exemption, one of the key questions to ask is who will be harmed by it. It should not just be assumed the exemption is justified or will be benign.
Founder Thomas Jefferson would concur. In his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom he said using religion to withhold another individual’s rights “is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right.” Or consider the caution of James Madison, chief draftsman of the Constitution, who observed: “Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty.”
The extreme interpretations of RFRA are proving him right.
By Ken Burrows
Published November 25, 2015 with quotation below
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
Do perceived levels of personal and societal security affect the importance of religion and religious behavior? Compelling data says “yes,” as revealed in the Existential Security Thesis (EST) of religion.
EST was developed in 2004 by Pippa Norris, lecturer in comparative politics at Harvard University, and Ronald Inglehart, political scientist at the University of Michigan. As a theory of religious change, EST suggests that the erosion of religious values, beliefs, and practices is shaped by long-term changes in existential security (itself linked to human development and socioeconomic equality) and each society’s cultural and religious traditions. These authors define existential security as the extent to which people feel that survival is secure enough that it can be taken for granted.
As the statement above suggests, the theory is based upon two axioms: a cultural traditions axiom that says a country’s religious or cultural heritage influences the ideological views of the citizens; and a security axiom, which says because societies around the world differ greatly in their levels of human development and socioeconomic equality, they subsequently differ in the extent to which they provide their citizens with a sense of existential security.
Because world societies differ in these regards, subsequent exposure to individual and country-level risks varies from person to person and country to country. The differences in perceived levels of existential security result in higher or lower strength of religious values and practices across individuals and nations. In laying out the theory in their 2004 book, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, Norris and Inglehart suggest these patterns can clearly be seen when contrasting three types of societies: agrarian societies, which have a mean per capita income of $1,098, and economies based on agriculture and natural materials; industrial societies, with a mean per capita income of $6,314, and economies based on manufacturing and industry; and postindustrial societies, with a mean per capita income of $29,585, and service-sector economies based on knowledge professions.
Across these three society types, the authors show that conditions of human development and socioeconomic inequality relate in predictable ways to various subjective and objective indicators of religiosity. Specifically, examining these society types over time shows that where levels of human development are relatively high or have been increasing, and where socioeconomic inequality simultaneously decreases, people tend to hold God and religion as less important in their lives, and they also engage less often in religious practices (e.g., religious service attendance, prayer).
The authors also show that the relationship between existential security and religiosity holds at the individual level, and is not based just on objective economic conditions at the societal level. Analyzing data from 55 countries, they demonstrate that as the pursuit of secure surroundings becomes more important to a person, that person is also more likely to say that God is important in their lives. Conversely, as individual risk-taking becomes more acceptable in a person’s life, that person is more likely to say that God is less important in their life.
Many other studies support the notion that religious change is related to security and risk perceptions. Thus, the role of religion in the lives of others is just as much a matter of practical and psychological conditions as it is spirituality, faith, and devotion.
By Joseph Langston
Published April 27, 2016 with quotation below
“I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life.”
--- Albert Einstein
We may differ on many things, but what we respect is open-mindedness, free inquiry, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
Christopher Hitchens.
Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who heads up the Pray in Jesus Name (PIJN) Project, is known for incendiary rhetoric, which he defends on biblical grounds. He suggested divine retribution might explain an infamous crime in Longmont earlier this year in which a pregnant woman’s fetus was cut from her womb (the mother-to-be survived; the fetus did not). Klingenschmitt compared this to a Bible passage about pregnant women of Samaria being ripped open because, he said, “they have rebelled against God.” He wondered if the Longmont crime was an example of God cursing America for what he (Klingenschmitt) terms our own rebellion in not protecting the unborn.
Klingenshmitt is also a Colorado state legislator, and he was widely criticized for insensitivity. He eventually apologized, admitting his words “were not compassionate.” He did not back away from the premise that God visits violence on the innocent to express his wrath over the transgressions of others.
More recently Klingenshmitt sermonized on his PIJN website that when a crane collapsed in September at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, killing 100+ people, this may have been a penalty for Muslims worshipping a false god.
His observations exemplify a preoccupation with divine retribution and violent punishment for sin that is often seen among biblical literalists. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Christian conservatives Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said they saw the tragedy as a sign of God “giving us probably what we deserve” for failing to sufficiently revere him. “God will not be mocked,” Falwell said. “We make God mad.” On another occasion Robertson cautioned gay pride marchers in Orlando, Florida, that God might punish their region with hurricanes. Religious spokespersons uttered similar thoughts about Hurricane Katrina being punishment for the licentious culture of New Orleans.
The implication once again is that it is the nature of divine retribution to be indiscriminate and horrific, to include the innocent in its sweeping infliction of pain and misery.
It’s true the Bible writers did envision a God who ordered senseless slaughter, often just for holding wrong beliefs. One who commanded the near extinction of the human race, save those who could make it onto Noah’s ark, because he was disappointed in how his created world was acting. Instead of rehabilitating humans, this supposedly all-powerful God opted to annihilate just about every one of them.
Why does belief in such a pitiless and petulant God so often go unquestioned? What sort of deity would wreak the kind of horror on innocents as what occurred in Longmont, at the Twin Towers, along the Gulf, and in Mecca? Why do some religionists adhere to one so intimidating and merciless? Is this where the term God-fearing arises from? If so, why is it considered a plus to live under such dark threat?
Lifelong fear of whatever anger and agony God might unleash next is hardly a reasonable basis for belief in him, and not a worthy incentive for our own behavior. We are capable of nobler, more rational, and more positive motivations. We can all lead ethical lives and aspire to the greater good of our world and those with whom we share it. Simply because it’s the humanly right thing to do. We can do this without a god and, therefore, without living ever in fear of one.
By Ken Burrows
Published October 28, 2015 with quotation below:
“Fear was the first thing on Earth to make gods.”
---- Lucretius