Jim Wilson wonders:

Americans often take for granted the wisdom of the founders of this country. They prefer to overlook the founder’s views on such issues as slavery and women’s rights and celebrate their role in establishing a country with unprecedented freedoms. The latter should be celebrated and admired while the former should always remind us that the country’s founders were in fact mere humans rather than infallible deities.

Many Americans also believe there is wisdom in the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth and that wisdom is above questioning and an important part of our culture. The “love thy neighbor philosophy” he espoused has great appeal but much of his assumed wisdom is questionable. After all, is it wise to kill trees that don’t bear fruit during the wrong time of year or to endorse eternal punishment for temporal crimes?

Since both Jesus and the framers of the U.S. constitution are so often considered unquestioningly wise by so many people I know, to what extent would they have agreed with each other? We know that some of the founders were Deists who did not believe in a personal god. Individuals like Thomas Jefferson regarded Jesus as a good moral teacher but did not accept claims of his divinity. While it is impossible to definitively ascertain what someone would have thought about events over a thousand years after his death, it is an interesting question. Would Jesus and the early Christians have supported the American Revolution?

On the one hand, Jesus certainly has times where he comes off as a revolutionary figure. He makes it clear he does not approve of the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem and is willing to forcefully rebel against its practices as seen in this verse:

“And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.”-Mark 11.15,16

Indeed, despite his more famous “turn-the-other cheek” teachings there are places where he expresses a genuine taste for conflict like in this verse:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. -Matthew 10:34–37.

Not sure that Jesus would have applied this to the American Revolution, but it does at least seem to be an endorsement of violent conflict.

On the other hand, despite having a critical tone towards the Jewish authorities of his day, the Bible seems to make a point of emphasizing that he is a non-threat to the Roman occupiers of his home land. For example in response to an attempt to force Jesus to speak out against paying tribute to the Romans, Jesus seemingly endorses the practice:

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” -Matthew 22:21.

This passage refers to a coin with Caesar’s image on it. I always found this to be a deliberately evasive answer to the question of whether one should pay taxes to an occupying authority but I have difficulty interpreting it as anything else. This hardly strikes me as a passage that could be used to endorse the American Revolution, which was a revolt against unfair taxation.

If we are to assume the Apostle Paul represented Jesus’ views accurately, this interpretation is confirmed. Paul states in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

This is a rather straight forward endorsement of obedience to Earthly powers. Jesus seems to confirm this with his statement to Pontius Pilate:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:37)

This shows Jesus expressing disinterest in pursuing or encouraging the pursuit of political power among his followers. Indeed, after hearing this exchange Pontius Pilate concluded “I find no basis for a charge against him.” That is to say that Pilate saw Jesus and his followers as not representing a threat to the Roman Empire. Jesus seemed to confirm this by passively accepting the Judgments of the local authorities he was tried under, no matter unjust they might be.

It would be hard to argue that the Jews and early Christians had less cause for political revolution than the American colonists did and yet Jesus and his successor Paul said nothing to indicate support for such actions. Paul goes as far as to recommend that the world’s most oppressed individuals not resist when he states:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.- Colossians 3:22

This is consistent with much of the rest of the Bible, which says much about slavery but never condemns it. Much of this “turn the other cheek” business sounds a lot like a passive acceptance of bullying.

There is a strong possibility that Jesus and his immediate followers would not have endorsed the American Revolution based on their passive acceptance of authority displayed in the verses cited above, as well as, the apolitical nature of their movement.

Being an Atheist, I am happy to disagree with the founders of Christianity. I do not think that people who are slaves should passively obey their masters, nor do I think that passive acceptance of political authorities is a good thing. People under the burden of tyrannical political authority or slavery should do all they can to resist. I see little virtue in Jesus’s passive acceptance of his crucifixion. The American Revolution freed people from an outmoded monarchy and created a nation of unprecedented freedoms. It could have gone further by freeing slaves and empowering women as well but alas it was a product of its times.

FreeThought Arizona is a 501c3 charity, as such, we are not allowed to take a position on individual candidates but now the election is over. Mitt Romney is no longer a candidate and Barack Obama has been green lighted for another four years in office. Given the choice between the two from a Secularist’s point of view, neither candidate was ideal. Atheists including Agnostics and other FreeThinking Americans are famously independent and leading them is often compared to herding cats. Some say that it’s more like herding butterflies but one thing that we all agree on is that there should be a separation of the church and the state. We universally agree that laws and public policies should be based on science, empirical evidence, verifiable experiences, independent historical accounts, and sound logic—not religious dogma. Given that one concern, President Obama was clearly the better choice.

Here in Arizona, we need to do a better job of keeping church and state separate. We’ve allowed the Center for Arizona Policy to have way too much power in our legislature. With the election behind us, it is time now to begin to work to roll back the power of Cathi Herrod. Her 501c3 organization is in flagrant violation of IRS rules for non-profit charitable organizations and has been active in partisan politics since 1995. She brags about over 100 laws that she has supported that have been enacted into law. We didn’t vote for her but she in effect tells everyone in the state who they should marry. She has decided that gambling is wrong, not just for herself, but for everyone in the state. She’s been instrumental in siphoning off money from the public education system into private institutions that don’t answer to the citizenry and are able to accept and reject students based on arbitrary criteria. She has supported a law that delays divorces by instilling a waiting period and unfunded mandatory counseling which in some cases extends the time women must endure in abusive situations. One of the laws she pushed through made it more difficult for children to be adopted by those that would remove them from state care. However, her most egregious violation of human dignity was her part in killing the Anti-Bullying law. The bill was killed by her because it protected gay kids from bullying. Never mind that it also protected all other kids as well.

The country has rejected Mitt Romney, the homophobic bully. Perhaps it’s time we started rejecting our own homophobic lobbying organization and Cathi Herrod. The best way to make that happen is to support the Secular Coalition for Arizona. The Secular Coalition for Arizona operates on a total budget that is less than the yearly compensation of Cathi Herrod. It is legally organized as a lobbying organization and represents many liaised non-theistic organizations in Arizona. Go to their website (http://www.secularaz.org/) and sign up for Email notification and find out about some of the liaised organizations make up the coalition.

It’s very difficult during an election season to not delve into politics and our self imposed rule here in the FreeThought Arizona Blog is to try and stay away from pure politics. However, when politicians from one particular party are seemingly duty bound to impose their religious beliefs on others, that position must be discussed here.

Most of the GOP candidates are “pro life” and would criminalize abortions. However, MSNBC reports that there are 12 GOP Senate candidates that hold the position that they would not make an exception even for victims of rape or incest. Twelve! There are only 100 senators so that means if they all win there will be at least 1 in 8 senators holding this extreme position. These people are so convinced that their religious convictions are right that they feel that they can in good conscience dictate to the victims of rape that the government has the right to make them criminals if they choose to end their unwanted pregnancy.

In a way, this discussion represents a “de-facto” win for the Religious Right. They have moved the discussion to their side so much that they are able to concentrate on just the extremes. In their world, Roe V Wade is already gone. Let’s remember that it’s still the law of the land and move the discussion back to where it should be. Women still have a choice in this country and it should remain that way. If your religion forbids that choice, that’s fine for adherents to your religion. Most people regardless of religion believe that abortions should be legal, safe, and rare. In a properly educated society with access to birth control, unwanted pregnancies along with abortions would be rare. In Sweden, they believe that every child should be wanted and have much better statistics than we do.

The GOP Senate candidates that have been reported to hold the position that rape victims must be forced to carry their rapists’ babies to delivery are: Richard Murdock (IN), Rick Berg (ND), Michael Baumgartner (WA), Pete Hoekstra (MI), Tom Smith (PA), Todd Akin (MO), Josh Mandel(OH), Deb Fischer(NE), Ted Cruz (TX), John MacGovern (VT), Wendy Long (NY), and John Raese (WV).

While we’re thinking about a women’s right to choose remember the next president will probably appoint a judge or two on the Supreme Court. Something to consider before pulling the lever…

Freedom depends on FreeThought

This is a slogan printed on the side of stainless thermally insulated coffee mugs offered as a reward for joining or renewing membership in FreeThought Arizona. There are similar slogans but this one is unique to us. The “board” came up with the slogan. Many were suggested and after a couple of rounds of votes we settled on this simple, short slogan.

FreeThought Arizona is a scientific SkeptiAtheistHumanist organization that supports the Tucson community. That’s a lot of ground to cover and it is very difficult to capture all that in one short blurb. The former editor of this blog shares his thoughts:

Does Freedom Depend on Free Thought? That’s the inscription on the mug. Can there be a free society in which its members all think alike and never deviate from the way the group thinks about anything? In theory, it is possible. If knowledge about every subject is so well distributed that everyone reaches the same conclusion on their own you might have that. Our own society nearly approximates this in regard to certain once-disputed facts like the Earth being round. In practice, knowledge about many things is not so evenly distributed. And there is no way to know, a priori, which side of disputed issues is actually correct. People have historically dealt with this either by conforming to what the majority of the group thinks, or by continuing to discuss their differences as long as there is disagreement. The latter approach is consistent with the idea of free thought, since thinking differently is much more useful if the reasons behind different thinking are discussed rather than concealed. The latter approach is also characteristic of free societies. The more conformist a culture, the less freedom that culture tends to allow. In this sense, I agree with the statement, “Freedom Depends on Free Thought”.

On another note:

Roy Zimmerman will make another pass through Tucson soon. He’s bringing his “Starving Ear” virtual nightclub and global meeting place with him. He’s been on the road for months spreading his message. He’s taken his show through 49 states playing songs such as “Vote Republican,” “Hope, Struggle, and Change,” and “Creation Science 101.”  If you like your music slightly folksy and progressive, you shouldn’t miss his live performance:

Friday, Nov. 2   8 pm   TUCSON, AZ

Hope, Struggle and Change
with special guest Ted Warmbrand!

Southside Presbyterian Church
317 West 23rd Street
Tucson, AZ
$15 or pay what you can

Jim Wilson continues his views on Thomas Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson was a complex individual, who held many unconventional viewpoints and was quite radical in his day. This included some radical ideas in both the areas of government and religion. One of the most famous examples of this is the following and often quoted statement from the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The notion of rights from a creator is not “self-evident.” There is no universal belief in “the creator” and the concept of “unalienable rights.” Some Americans like to think the passage is an endorsement of their god despite Jefferson’s criticism of the Christian God (see part 1). Some claim that it is a sign that the founders favored some sort of theocracy which is a proposal that Jefferson fought in his day.

Recognizing that the Declaration of Independence was first and foremost a collection of grievances designed to justify the thirteen colonies’ rejection of British rule the above passage was a philosophical short cut to introduce the type of rights Jefferson favored. After all, it would probably have made for a less powerful and much lengthier piece had the declaration included a more thorough philosophical account of rights. By stating that rights were granted by a creator, Jefferson was able to keep this part of the argument brief and go straight to his grievances with the British Empire.

Most evidence indicates Jefferson did not believe in a god which took an interest in human affairs.  There is no evidence that humans have a creator. There is no evidence that a creator is concerned about human affairs let alone endows rights upon us.

Furthermore, despite Jefferson’s claim to the contrary the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are anything but inalienable. The history of humanity is filled with cases of people being robbed of their lives, liberty, and ability to pursue happiness by individuals and governments. A good case could be made that Jefferson was saying these rights should be inalienable. This seems likely but it would be a huge mistake for him to say that they are inalienable if he meant that they should be. A man of his brilliance should not make such a sloppy mistake of confusing “is” with “ought” especially if he is going to make the claim that such a thing is self-evidently true.

In reality, our rights are anything but God given. For thousands of years the rights we now recognize were violated by murderers, slavery, genocides, tribal warfare, and absolutist states. Often gods were evoked to justify these inhumanities. Knowing this it would be absurd to say that a god gave Americans the rights we have while denying them to countless others in different times and places.

Rights are purely social constructions that cannot exist without some sort of system to enforce them whether that system is a state or a system of social norms and public pressure. In practice, we have rights only because there is a mechanism for enforcing them. In other words, you have rights only because others recognize the existence of such rights. They are not part of one’s nature nor are they handed down by a god or the universe. They are fragile social arrangements that are always under the threat of erosion. They are not natural in any meaningful sense of the word since they are very much a product of humans and constantly need to be enforced. Contrast this with actual natural laws such as gravity which needs no enforcing and exist whether people recognize them or not.

Knowing that our rights are mere fragile social institutions should be reason to value them more and be willing to fight for their protection. The American Revolution was ultimately about rights. Of course, our understanding of the rights we should and should not recognize has evolved since then. We no longer recognize the right to own slaves, for example.

The American Revolution was laudable but failed to abolish slavery. George Carlin presented a more accurate view of the nature of rights when he discussed the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II:

“Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most…their government took them away and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges.”

Jim Wilson shares some thoughts about Thomas Jefferson and his founding principles:

“And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.”-Thomas Jefferson

The Declaration of Independence is largely a rhetorical document. It has no legal standing. It was created to list specific complaints and formally explains why the continental congress chose to declare the American colonies independent from colonial rule. Since the time of the revolution, it has been a document with no legal authority. However, believers still like to use it to argue that this country was somehow founded upon their faith. Specifically they gravitate towards the line:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the Christian God, but rather something closer to a deistic or Unitarian God with only limited intervention in human affairs. Thomas Jefferson was interested in Christianity and identified himself as Christian in the sense that he viewed Jesus of Nazareth as an important moral philosopher but not a son of God or any kind of supernatural being. He believed that Jesus never claimed to be God. Jefferson made this known by creating an alternative version of the Christian Gospels with all references to Jesus’s miracles, divinity, and resurrection removed. In a letter to Joseph Priestly, Jefferson discusses his idea of stripping Jesus’s teachings down to “principles of a pure Deism”. He further elaborates on this concept in a letter to John Adams from 1817 stating:

“The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, Materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.”

Overall he was very critical of established organized religion and the priestly classes arguing: “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government” in a letter to Alexander Von Humboldt in 1813 and that “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

However, he found value in religious teachings. He was known to attend various church services though there is no evidence that he was a confirmed member or communicant of any. He also apparently sponsored the building of some churches and other religious activity though refused to be a Godfather to the children of Anglican friends because of his rejection of their faith.

Political opponents labeled him “infidel” and “howling atheist” because he rejected conventional Christianity. Unsurprisingly being heterodox religionist, Jefferson was a major force for keeping church and state separate, which he believed to be encoded in the First Amendment. He believed that:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”

And that:

If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise as it had happened in a fair or market.

He is of course also, the man who first mentioned the famous wall of separation in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association which stated:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

His dedication to religious freedom and the right to be heterodox did much to make the US as free a country as it is. Jefferson was an incredible person, with whom much can be learned from.  However, he did own slaves but was apparently conflicted on the institution of slavery.  Jefferson’s statement and the concept of natural or God given rights will be discussed further in my follow-up to this piece. (End of Part I)

See the presidential debate a couple of days ago? I missed it…on purpose. I read the reviews. Many debate winners are those with the most effective debating techniques, not necessarily the best person or the one most deserving. They can be entertaining. Beyond the tactics and strategic moves, we should be looking for the truth above all other considerations. Debates should not be another source of entertainment but that’s not us. We’re all about the contests and less about the actual truths involved.

One effective, if not honest debating technique is the “Gish Gallop.” In employing this technique, a “galloper” will list in no particular order of significance a long list of bullet points: some true, some half true, and some completely wrong. The number is usually large, sometimes more than fifty. They will be delivered fast, with confidence. Every point will be delivered with the apparent authority of an expert and debates are fertile ground for successful use of the “Gish Gallop.” In an uninterrupted fifteen or twenty minutes, a “galloper” can lay down so much crap that the opposition couldn’t possibly reply to each point much less refute each one of them. The task is further complicated by the fact that the galloper sprinkles in some true information making it even more difficult the separate the points that need to be addressed without inadvertently arguing against the truthful statements. It’s a very clever technique.

It’s hard to counter the “Gish Gallop” in a debate. That is why it is so effective. In a debate, you can’t stop the “galloper” at each BS claim not like in a normal discussion where you can and should address each point as they are made especially if there are points of disagreement. It does no good to present an argument if the premises are not agreed upon. Bad premises mean a bad argument and bad arguments are a waste of time. In general, debates are a waste of time. With that attitude is it any wonder why I missed the presidential debate?

At a meeting of the Tucson Atheists a couple of days ago, someone new to the group was attempting to make a point about how the Atheist religion is no better than the fundamentalists when it comes to politics. The discussion was about whether or not there should be a political party centered about Atheism. It might have seemed rude to many but I had to interrupt the discussion to argue her first premise that Atheism is a religion. This often comes up in our discussions and it simply isn’t true. The argument from that point forward would be invalid since the starting premise was wrong. We got passed that and she started talking about the Atheist specific laws we might propose if we were in the majority. Once again I had to interrupt and ask her for an example of a law that an Atheist political party might propose. She said, “I’m speaking generally” but I asked her to be specific. I said, “What laws to you anticipate an Atheist to push through the legislature?” I was not making any points with anyone. I was now “the bad guy.” She had plenty of supporters that thought I was being rough on the “new girl.” Someone came to her aid and pitched an example. It was a “straw man” that would never be considered and the situation turned friendly again when the defender stated, “You asked for an example. You didn’t ask for a good one.” It turned out to be a fun exchange and we all left as friends but the point of the discussion is that you can’t allow faulty premises to be accepted just because they’re not challenged. The problem with a debate is that you’re not allowed to address the false premises as they are made.

In doing research for this piece I found it out that the term “Gish Gallop” was coined by Dr. Eugenie Scott the director of the National Center for Science Education. She often argues with Creationists that employ “clever” techniques to score points instead of using logic, reason, or discussions based on brilliant insight. An article about Eugenie Scott’s experience with Duane Gish can be located HERE. It recounts Dr. Scott’s first encounter with Dr. Gish.

A more complete definition for the “Gish Gallop” can be found HERE.

Jim Wilson’s thoughts on uniting with believers for a common cause:

We live in a society with a predominantly Christian population; roughly 80% of the Americans identify themselves as Christians. The Christian faith has undeniably influenced American culture and the way many Americans view the world. Despite this cultural proclivity towards Christianity, our country has a strong tradition of secular national government. The separation of church and state and respect for religious freedom that this codified made the United States very different from Europe which had official state religions.

Atheists think that the separation of church and state is a wonderful thing. We are a persistent but growing minority, with very little political clout. The last thing we want is our tax money being used to promote religious notions we disagree with or impose religious prohibitions we disagree with on society.

We recognize that we are not alone in this desire. There are countless religions practiced by tax-paying Americans and many of these have countless contending sects that disagree on many major points of theology. They all have different rituals, practices, and prohibitions. Many of their practitioners share our desire to not see their taxes go towards promoting ideas they disagree with or imposing the prohibitions of others on them. The only way to do this is by keeping government out of the business of promoting religion or imposing religious prohibitions. Freedom is for everyone!

Many Christians share this desire. They would rather allow their religion to compete on the free market of ideas than have it backed by the government which many view as corrupting everything it touches. They also would just assume not have some differing denomination of Christianity be the one that takes control of the state. After all mixing government with religion is likely to corrupt both.

Despite this, it seems all too often to be non-believers taking the on the issue of separation of church and state. Groups such as the Secular Coalition for America or the Freedom from Religion foundation do a lot of hard work to fight for religious freedom and get the message out but they are all too often seen as organizations that Christians do not want to associate with. In spite of the fact that most Christians do not want to see a return of mandatory school prayers, creation stories taught as biology, government interference in the lives of same-sex couples, expensive religious monuments on public grounds, unconditional support for Israel, or absolutist restrictions on abortion rights.

Unfortunately for us Arizonans, the religious right has completely dominated one of our state’s major parties. Their main lobbying organization CAP (Center for Arizona Policy), has pushed for laws allowing the teaching from the Bible in public schools at the exclusion of other religious text (HB2563), doctors to commit medical fraud for religious reasons (SB1359), licensed medical professionals (a government granted monopoly) to refuse to provide treatment for religious reasons, and many more (http://tucsoncitizen.com/freethought-arizona/2012/04/12/our-arizona-legislature-they-need-to-hear-from-you-today/). This group’s lobbying activities are clearly a violation of their 501(c)(3), meaning the government is giving them an unfair tax advantage.

What good are Christian values or morality if the government has to force it on the population? Barry Lynn is the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and state. He is an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ and believes that the state should not be doing the work of the church. He does not want the government telling his church how to operate or his church telling the government what to do.

Atheists, Agnostics, and religious people of all sorts need to recognize that when ideas are free to compete it is a good thing.  What makes America great is that we are able to freely express our ideas and preferences without the government having a say in the matter.

Last night, a small subset of the Tucson Atheists met in the Fronimos restaurant. Tucson Atheists hosts quite a few meetups. We have a diverse membership and it makes perfect sense to have many different kinds of meetings. Last night’s meeting is called, “Caffeinated Godlessly.” It is held every other Thursday and the current venue is Fronimos, a Greek restaurant, where the food is good, reasonably priced, and they have a nice area for discussion.

The subject of the meeting was, “Should Atheists be organizing politically?” The organizer is Nancy and she kicked off the discussion. Apparently, there is a new political party called the National Atheist Party. Nancy wanted to find out from those attending if it is a good idea to have an Atheist political party. Gregg, an occasional contributor to this blog, has been checking into it and was familiar with the organization. Most of us at the meeting were not very familiar with the specifics which is why the question was posed to be more general than, “What do you think of the National Atheist Party?”

After the requisite discussions about the meaning of Atheism, a frequently debated question in our group, we started kicking around the positive and negatives of organizing Atheists politically. There were some fundamental discussions such as:

• Would you vote for a poorly qualified candidate simply because he or she is an Atheist?
• What would we feel about a “National Christian Party?”
• Are we defined by our Atheism?
• Is there anything wrong with an elected representative taking governing guidance from an invisible entity?

As I mentioned earlier, we are a rather diverse group. We tend to think independently and the discussions were lively. Yet, as heated as the discussions were, everyone left the meeting with the full intention of returning in two weeks. Many of the discussions were continued in the parking lot. No one stomped off and we continued an ad hoc meeting with respect and camaraderie. Amazing!

The closest thing to a result is that most felt that the National Atheist Party may not be the best idea but we would still like to see more Atheists in office. The question of Atheism is very narrow and Atheists are all over the map politically. The difficulty becomes apparent as soon as the political party starts building a platform. Each plank that doesn’t relate specifically to the Atheist question will not be universally accepted and cause minor divisions. In some cases, people will reject the party entirely if it takes a controversial position and all positions other than the “god” question are controversial in the Atheist community.

There are existing “secular” organizations that we should support such as: The Secular Coalition for America, the Secular Coalition for Arizona, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to name a few. There are many more. Most of us are not defined by our Atheism but it is part of who we are. Finally, there were some strong feelings about our elected representatives taking guidance from invisible (or imaginary) entities.

The icing on the layer cake of recent lunacy is the call to investigate treason for the producers of The Innocence of Muslims. The mental midget making the call has also started a petition through change.org. So far there are 15 supporters. He recognizes freedom of speech but is trying to make the case that the movie is the equivalent of shouting “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater. He makes a similar charge against the Reverend Terry Jones for his threat and ultimate act of burning the Koran. Let’s apply the “slippery slope” argument shall we? If we are to charge Rev. Jones and the producers of the controversial movie with treason, what should we do with Salman Rusdie? How should we remember Theo Van Gogh who was murdered for his movie Submission which was critical to Islam? How should we treat Ayaan Hirsi Ali? She is currently living in the U.S. in fear for her life because she is outspoken about Muslim abuses including her own personal experiences. In 2006 the United States welcomed her. If the fact that the United States is protecting her causes some Muslims to riot, is the State Department committing treason?

Freedom of expression is paramount in this country and according to Alan Dershowitz, “The best answer to bad speech is good speech.” Why should we give away the freedom of speech of our citizens because it offends Muslims to the point of rioting? This is the last option to consider and those that suggest such a thing should be shunned.

Beyond that, there is a very practical lesson about submitting to the unreasonable demands. In 1795 the United States paid close to a million dollars, ship store, and a frigate to the Dey of Algiers as ransom for 115 sailors taken by pirates. That stopped in 1801 when Thomas Jefferson refused to pay tribute to the Barbary Coast states. Our aggressive stance immediately broke the back of the Barbary Coast alliances. The demands for tribute almost stopped completely when we stopped acceding to their demands.

Before we can completely capture the high ground in this situation, however, we must step back and look at our own ability to get annoyed and derive irrational anger over what others are doing. While we’re not rioting, there are those that are outraged at the Mormon Church for virtually baptizing dead people. These baptisms are done by proxy. They’re done in private and even Atheists get incensed at the idea. Why? If the Mormons want to baptize every dead person on the planet, does it matter? If they want to go to their favorite grotto and dunk themselves in a ritual that has significance only to them, why should we care? Let’s break it down: Do the dead people care? No! They’re dead. If you didn’t know about it would you care? Of course not! If you didn’t know about it you couldn’t care. So offense only happens when one finds out that someone is doing a dumb ritual that doesn’t mean anything to you and mentioning a dead person you might know. Perhaps we should save our ire for those that leak the information. Baptizing dead people is a foolish endeavor that actually does nothing. There is another way to look at it. One more Mormon dunking themselves in the name of a dead person is one less knocking on my door.

We can stop most of these irrational responses if we stop trying to ascribe negative motivations of others. Follow the advice of the British playwright James M. Barrie, “Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own.” I’m sure that the producers of the Innocence of Muslims did not intend on creating riots just as the Mormons baptizing dead people are not trying to purposely upset the living relatives.