Secular Coalition for Arizona

Invocation for Opening of AZ House of Representatives Session

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Most prayers in this room begin with a request to bow your heads. I would like to ask that you not bow your heads. I would like to ask that you to take a moment to look around the room at all of the men and women here, in this moment, sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of the people in our state.

This is a room in which there are many challenging debates, many moments of tension, of ideological division, of frustration. But this is also a room where, as my Secular Humanist tradition stresses, by the very fact of being human, we have much more in common than we have differences. We share the same spectrum of potential for care, for compassion, for fear, for joy, for love…

Carl Sagan once wrote, “For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love.” There is, in the political process, much to bear. In this room, let us cherish and celebrate our shared humanness, our shared capacity for reason and compassion, our shared love for the people of our state, for our Constitution, for our democracy–and let us root our policymaking process in these values that are relevant to all Arizonans regardless of religious belief or nonbelief. In gratitude and in love, in reason and in compassion, let us work together for a better Arizona.

Juan Mendez, serves in the State House of Representatives and represents District 26 which includes north Tempe, northwest Mesa, and a large portion of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. Yesterday during his inclusive opening “prayer,” he appealed to the legislature to represent ALL the people of Arizona regardless of religious belief and base their decisions on reason and compassion. According to Jonathan Turely, “Arizona had an extraordinary moment.” He’s right of course. The moment was “extraordinary.” It made national news and the dust hasn’t settled yet. The echoes of the last word of this secular invocation hadn’t died out before the story was picked up by USA Today, The Huffington Post, The Raw Story, azcentral.com, and of course Jonathan Turley. There are probably others covering this news item. This should not be news worthy. It should not be an “extraordinary event” when someone comes out and appeals to a legislature to represent ALL of the people it represents. Recent polls show that one in five Americans do not affiliate with a religion. If one looks at only the young people under 30, fully one third of them are unaffiliated—one in 3! Of course, that’s a nationwide survey. NPR did a story back in January about the growth of the nones. In the article they state that religion still rules in America. There is only one openly “none” in the current Congress and that is Kyrsten Sinema who is also from Arizona. Statistics state that the average American is slightly more religious than the average Iranian. Really? Wow!

Evidently, the CAP (Center for Arizona Policy) hasn’t noticed what occurred yesterday. It will and it’ll start lining up candidates to run against Mr. Mendez. However, the CAP could be a little distracted by the fact that a bill it sponsored making abortions illegal after 20 weeks was struck down by Judges in Ninth Circuit Court. CAP may be too busy trying to figure out how to spin the murder conviction of the Pennsylvania abortionist to its advantage or counting the money it made on the $250 per plate CAP Family Dinner with Ben Carson held earlier in the month. Or perhaps CAP is busy playing ghost writer for legislative bills and resolution such as the resolution to maintain the Boy Scout’s “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy.

The Secular Coalition for Arizona is the only group in the state that can seriously impact the CAP and its legislatively imposed policies but we are seriously out gunned. Currently, we only have one professional lobbyist while the CAP maintains a constant presence at the state legislature. Even so, this year we’ve moved from a strictly defensive posture to one that is actively trying to reverse the damage caused by the CAP and 114 bills that have been signed into law since they formed in 1995.

The Secular Coalition for Arizona (www.secularaz.org) is a 501(c)(4) lobbying organization that represents 17 organizations in the Arizona nontheistic community — a vibrant and growing community of Arizonans who self-identify as Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, Freethinkers, and other labels of personal choosing to elected officials in and from Arizona.

Psst…The Secular Coalition for Arizona does accept donations…

Recently, I met a female evangelist who worked closely in the field with her husband.  The two practiced a very “fire and brimstone,” “angry God” version of Christianity”.   They bad mouthed homosexuals, listeners of rock music, liberals, and made heavy use of threats of hell.

I saw the wife in this pair explain their religious beliefs to a sizable audience they had gathered along with some of the details of their personal history.  Looking back, I regret not having asked her how she reconciles her role in the ministry with first Timothy 2:12, which states, “But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over the man, but to be in silence,” Her story led me to pursue a different line of questioning.

She told of a time when she was a young, ambitious college student.  At this time, she met her future husband who was ministering to students at her university.  For some reason she found this man’s teachings about God, Jesus, and hellfire compelling and chose to follow him and renounce many of her past beliefs and ambitions.  She argued that prior to having met her husband she had been mind-raped by the professors at her University with their teachings of secular humanism, atheism, liberalism and socialism.  She did point out that she in fact paid the professors to teach her, so it was not a “legitimate rape” (Yes, she referenced Todd Akin’s controversial and stupid remark when telling this story.)

After she was done speaking I got a chance to speak with her privately.  I suggested that since she considered her professor’s teachings to be mind-rape, that the same could be said of those of her evangelist husband.  After all, rapists use physical violence or threats of physical violence to subdue their victims, while her husband’s teachings similarly use threats of eternal torment to anyone who dares to question them.  Her husband literally taught this woman she must believe everything he says or terrible things will happen to her—forever.  This element of backing one’s teachings with threats of violence is far more insidious than anything from even the most propagandizing college professors.

As far as I know, professors have no way to force their students to believe anything.  Sure, they may be able to command their pupils to memorize or understand their teachings at the risk failing their tests, but I see no way in which they can force anyone to believe anything they teach or retain it after the semester ends.  I never had a professor threaten me with torture if I fail to believe what he or she taught.  This can only happen in this country at explicitly religious schools.

The evangelist refused to acknowledge my point stating that I was off base, because it was not the fear of hell but the desire to be in the presence of a loving all powerful God.  Maybe she was being honest, but I’m skeptical of this claim since threats of hell are such a huge portion of what her ministry does.  They spent a lot of time asserting that people who disagree with them will be punished. Their time would be better spent explaining the evidence they have for this belief. It would be a much more constructive conversation.

The concept of mind rape describes religious indoctrination quite well.  It is usually performed on children who have not had time to develop critical thinking skills and therefore have no defense.  It is frequently backed up with threats of torments as well as the bribe of an eternal reward.  Frightening children with threats of hell is a form of child abuse, and one that many people never get over.  The degrading message is that we are all so sinful, wretched, and worthless that we should be tortured forever.  Anyone who sees a small child as a being worthy of nothing better than eternal torture by virtue of being born human has truly lost any semblance of decency.

Rape is a horrendous crime and the fact it happens or is tolerated at all in our culture is a tragedy. The evangelist’s notion of mind-rape is ironic and a useful, informative way of looking at religious indoctrination especially indoctrination that features the threat of punishment.

Don Lacey

The Tucson Atheists discussed the history of Atheism on April 15^th—tax day—this year at our monthly meeting at Denny’s. The meeting was only two hours long and there was no way to completely cover the topic and while it’s important to get to the facts and figures, the group thrives on discussion and personal feelings. Talking about the facts of history is not difficult. Ideally, the facts and events are simply pinned to a timeline. Sometimes however what those facts and events mean and meant at the time they occurred is unknowable with any certainty and depend on the source of the information and the attitude of the receiver of the information. The sources of the information that was presented to kick off the discussion included Jonathan Miller’s A Brief History of Disbelief and other sources.

The history of Atheism begins thousands of years ago with the Greeks and Romans even though the name wasn’t officially created until the 16^th century in France. The Greek philosopher Aristophanes who lived between 446 and 386 BCE said, “Surely you don’t believe in the gods. What’s your argument? Where’s your proof?” A Greek contemporary, Democritus who was partially responsible for the theory that all matter was composed of atoms said that the greatest good is happiness and contentment. All matter existed forever; therefore, there is no creation. Aristotle born in 348 BCE believed that Tyrants must have gods on their sides. Cicero born in 106 BCE asked, “Do gods exist or do they not?” Seneca born around 4 BCE famously said that “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Finally, Epicurus born in 341 BCE pointed out the illogic of an omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent god when he said:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Lucretius born in 99 BCE wrote an ode to Epicurus and contributed his own skepticism of the existence of supernatural beings when he said, “Fear is the mother of all gods. Nature does all things spontaneously by herself without their meddling.”

Religion comes very natural to us and Atheism requires a level of reason and rationality that allows us to overcome it. Atheism as an idea has had its ups and downs and it is by shear serendipity that our country was formed in the period of time called “The Age of Enlightenment.” It was during this time that the world discovered Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), John Lock (1632-1704), Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), Isaac Newton (1643-1727), and Voltaire (1984-1778). These men laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment and pushed the ideas of rationalism, social liberalism, religious toleration, science, the scientific method, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the separation of church and state. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution particularly the Bill of Rights came out of the Age of Enlightenment and remains the backbone of our Democratic Republic. However, the popularity of reason and intellect has since been challenged by the influences of Romanticism where policy is often dictated by human emotions such as apprehension, horror, terror, and awe along with extreme patriotism. The Zeitgeist or “spirit of the time” which appeals to human emotions has allowed a resurgence of religious fervor. Fear of “godless” Communism has been codified into our lives by well-meaning politicians when they added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, added “In God We Trust” as a national motto to be inscribed on our money.

Slowly our country is moving back to an “Age of Reason.” Religion is losing its hold on the populace as we see the disappearance of “Blue Laws,” the acceptance of alternate lifestyles, and the growth of the number of people identifying as “non-religious.” Not everyone is on board but the trend is undeniable especially considering the polling data that indicates that people under the age of 30 are twice as likely to profess “no religious belief” as those older.

There was also discussion of the “growing pains” in the current movement towards reason. The internet is a two edged sword in that it allows a free exchange of ideas but also anonymous modern day Vandals, trolls, that tend to make small points of contention overblown and damaging. To keep the movement going, we must ignore those that thrive on getting attention at all costs and remember that we’re in agreement 99% of the time. You can catch a very interesting discussion involving Dave Silverman, Hermant Mehta, and Chris Mooney HERE.

So far, Cathi and the marriage equality folks are on the same page—both believe marriage is a fine institution. Cathi wants to limit it to only one man and one woman but doesn’t make a convincing case for that position. There is more in the email.

She quotes statistics from a study performed at Princeton University that says kids raised in an intact house do better in school and generally have better lives. Lest we forget, Cathi likes kids with the possible exception of kids that turn out to be gay. Last year, she killed an anti-bullying bill on the off chance that it would protect gay kids from harassment. Here’s the VIDEO. In the reporting of Cathi’s action on the anti-bullying bill, they call her a “heavy weight lobbyist.”

She’s calling for prayers. She wants her people to join her at the Sandra Day O’Connor Federal District Court Houses to meet for a prayer vigil. Go for it! Because praying works SO well and by all means let’s do it in public in accordance with the Bible (Matthew 6:5) “When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get.”

The freethinking community of Tucson is not a homogeneous organization. It contains at least as many opinions as there are members. Some leaders within the community refer to their job as “herding cats” but others say it’s more like “herding butterflies.” Cats are limited to two dimensions, after all. However, there does appear to be a bias toward one end of the political spectrum.

Jim Wilson ponders the question, “Why do Freethinkers tend to be so liberal?”

Nonbelievers, Skeptics, Atheists and Secular Humanists tend to hang out at the left side of American politics and many unabashedly identify as liberals, progressives, or support the Left. Other political philosophies can be found, however.  There are Free-Marketers, Ayn Rand fans, and Libertarians along with the occasional self-identified conservative. Some gravitate toward philosophies that fall outside the conventional political spectrum which indicates that it is not necessary to be left-leaning to be an Atheist or Skeptic. Apparently, Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics from all over the political spectrum are less visible than their left leaning compatriots. Still, many Atheists are liberals and progressives; why is that?

Perhaps the conservative movement has declared Freethinkers to be an enemy.  The Right Wing conservative media outlets and think tanks have painted Atheists, Secularists, Secular Humanists, Evolutionists, and Intellectuals as the bad guys.  They believe Freethinkers are communists and un-American. Some go as far as blaming Freethinkers for the attacks on September 11^th.  Many conservatives believe Freethinkers are responsible for many of America’s problems and they long for the times when Freethinkers were less visible and less vocal.  They align themselves with ideologues such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rick Santorum. The Right Wing has become the home for those who want: religious monuments in government buildings, teacher led prayers in public schools, and science classes that teach the Biblical creation myth instead of science. They are antagonistic to church and state separation, and favor using government to promote religious values.  Above all, the Right Wing is most likely to affiliate itself with the type of moral guardians who vocally oppose birth control, reproductive choice, and marriage equality.

Maybe it’s within the personality of the Freethinker. We live in a very religious society and people who reject religious views tend to be the sort who question other mainstream values such as those associated with marriage, family life, sexuality, artistic expression, etc.  Reactionary elements within the Right Wing demonize and alienate this personality type while the Left embraces it.   Our politics are dominated by two catch-all political parties and Freethinkers such as Atheist, Agnostics, Skeptics, and Scientists are not welcomed by the Right Wing and by necessity identify with the Left.

While the conservative and liberal political philosophies are not ideal, Freethinkers and non-believers tend to be more sympathetic to the liberal side of the so-called “culture war.” Political issues outside the social arena such as the economy or military intervention are areas where Freethinkers and non-believers often disagree and result in interesting discussions at many of our gatherings.

FreeThought Arizona has members and guest speakers from all over the political spectrum.  Many guest speakers identify themselves as liberal or progressive but some prominent ones do not. All that is necessary is that they support science, reason, and the separation of church and state.

This year FreeThought Arizona will be at the book fair. Thanks to the dedicated work of the members, we’ll have booths 351 and 352 right in front of the library. The bestselling author Chris Mooney will join with our own local celebrities to sign books. We have freebies to hand out and plenty of literature that visitors can take away. Books, magazines, and pamphlets will be at the booth. Members of FreeThought Arizona will be there to answer questions and engage in conversation and there will be information on the FreeThought Arizona, Tucson Atheists, Skeptics of Tucson, The Secular Student Alliance at the U of A, and American Atheists—all part of the Tucson FreeThinking Community.

On Sunday at 7 PM after the book fair, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson along with the Tucson FreeThinking community is sponsoring a concert by Roy Zimmerman. Tickets, which can be purchased at the door, are $15 for general admission and only $10 for students. He’s calling his tour the Wake Up Call and is sure to appeal to progressive thinkers with folk style songs in the same vein as Joni Mitchell and Tom Lehrer. In fact, Joni Mitchel says, “Roy’s lyrics move beyond poetry and achieve perfection” and Tom Lehrer himself says, “I congratulate Roy Zimmerman on reintroducing literacy to comedy songs. And the rhymes actually rhyme; they don’t just ‘rhyne.’” Progressive comedy and satire available here in Tucson without a two drink minimum, how can you miss that?

Finally, on Monday, the Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group returns its meetings to the Denny’s on Speedway just west of Alvernon. This month we’ll have discussion on articles posted on the Doubtful News webpage. The meeting begins at 7 PM and ends at 9 but people show up early for light conversation prior to the meeting.

Here is a summary of the important links contained in this blog entry:

FreeThought Arizona (associated Meetup Group)

Roy Zimmerman

Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group

Here’s Jim Wilson’s article:

Years ago I worked in a call center environment doing some of the most monotonous work the white collar service sector had to offer. I often found that most irritating calls were not those from people who were angry with the company but those of people whose phones caused me to hear an echo of my own voice while working with them.  The echo would quickly derail my train of thought and leave me fumbling for words.   Recently in Japan, scientists have taken experiences such as mine and turned them into a marketable device.  It’s a speech-jamming gun that causes unsuspecting loudmouths to hear an echo of their own words, delayed at .02 seconds.  The echo completely throws their brain for a loop, silencing their speech (More information on this device can be found here:  http://phys.org/news/2012-03-speechjammer-gun-quash-human-utterances.html).

Most of us have had times when we wished we had such a device to point at some obnoxious individual in our vicinity.  Maybe it’s someone who won’t stop chatting in a movie theater or family member who won’t stop going on about the playoffs.  Then again maybe it’s some full-time professional or semi-professional nuisance, like the professional conspiracy theorist, the lying politician, the dishonest salesman, or the racist bigots holding a rally down the street that you would like to point this device at.  Some people are simply jerks and morons who say horrible mean-spirited things.  Some may do it just for the attention, while others may truly be trying to promote their own nasty world view.  The Phelps family, which is famous for protesting the funerals of fallen American soldiers, think that “God hates America” for its tolerance of homosexuality is an excellent example.

The temptation to stifle their speech with a speech-jamming device or even government action, is very strong but it is the wrong approach.  We need to allow people to say whatever hate-filled, bigoted, and crazy moronic things they wish.  Silencing people only legitimizes their cause.  Many of the most hate-filled people out there fancy themselves as victims of persecution.  Doing anything to validate their claims will only make them stronger.  For example, I recently heard it argued that the Bible must be an accurate depiction of reality because it is banned in multiple countries.   This argument makes absolutely no sense but it is a great example of how silencing someone allows them to play the victim card.  In another example, countless people flocked to show support for the bigoted management of Chic-Fil-A after some cities threatened to forbid the restaurant chain from operating within their limits.  In short, silencing people turns them into martyrs to rally around.

It can also lead to the individuals or points of view that one is attempting to silence getting even more attention than they otherwise would.  Attempts to ban the Phelps from protesting in various locations inevitably results in the group getting free publicity and more of the attention they so desperately wanted in the first place.  This greatly parallels the phenomenon known as the “Streisand Effect” in which an individual or group’s attempt to suppress information leads to that information gaining greater circulation and publicity.  The phenomenon is named for Barbara Streisand who tried to prevent pictures of her home from circulating which ultimately led to a greater circulation of the photos.  More information on this can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect.

Silencing ideas also makes these ideas more interesting to those who are unfamiliar with them.  As children many of us were fascinated with R-rated movies or gangster rap music because our parents forbade it.  Some developed an interest in doing illegal drugs largely because they are forbidden.  Removing the mystique that surrounds the forbidden makes it more mundane.  It also opens it up to criticism.  When racists and neo-Nazis are allowed to publicly share what they believe it allows the rest of us to respond by pointing out just how stupid and harmful such ideas really are.

Sometimes the jerks may actually have a point or two or contribute to the conversation.  I know a few people today who years ago would like to have silenced the speech of Atheists and yet they are now Atheists themselves.  Allowing one’s beliefs to be scrutinized by people who disagree makes it possible for one to purge incorrect ideas and to form a more accurate and mature worldview.  Sometimes the most irritating people do have a valid point or two which often makes them even more irritating.  Even the most despicable people may bring some useful insight to the conversation or at the very least they may serve as a useful example of what is wrong with their way of thinking.  Either way, the market place of ideas is enriched when more a diverse array of people participate in it.

Free speech is meaningless when we only apply it to those we agree with. That is why all ideas should be allowed to compete without the threat of being silenced or without government support or favoritism.   I support free speech at all levels of society. That is why I will resist the temptation to buy the Japanese speech jamming device.

Greetings.  It is the return of Brother Jed Smock, the colorful college minister, an inadvertent promoter of Atheism.  Jed is back in town and will be preaching on the University of Arizona campus from February 11^th through the 22^nd .  His over-the-top, cartoonish style will surely capture a sizable crowd.

Jed Smock’s Campus Ministries consist of colorful open air preaching that usually does not change much from year to year. He typically includes tales of his adventures in the American counter-culture of the sixties complete with wild stories of sex and drugs and then his conversion to a self-loathing sexually hung-up Christian.  His style is highly confrontational and he is known to say things like, “I don’t know how the whorehouses in this town stay open — all of you sorority girls are giving it away for free!” or “A masturbator today is a homosexual tomorrow.” He will freely call the people he speaks to “homos,” “fags,” “sodomites,” “drunks,” or “fornicators.”

He spends plenty of time demonizing liberals, homosexuals, fans of rock music, those who engage in premarital sex, feminists, and those who reject traditional gender roles–all of which are apparently destined for hell.  The usually young college students frequently mock him and some of his act is self-parody.  For example, during one Sex Ed with Brother Jed segment he warned the males in his audience that after they get married and finally engage in sex for the first time, to be careful not to mistake their wives anus for her vagina. One student responded with “what if I do and she likes it?”  On another occasion, he stated “you seem to have a fixation with my anus” after being called an “a##hole.”

Brother Jed is the best recruiter for the local freethinking community. If he is the poster child for Christianity the Atheist community looks better in comparison.  His presentation does everything to highlight the ridiculous, superstitious, bigoted, hateful, and reactionary baggage that other Christians sweep under the carpet.  He makes Christianity the object of ridicule it deserves to be and does so in a way that is wonderfully over the top.  He is often accused of being a parody and many of us have to question the intelligence of the church members who finance his travels around the country.

His visits often mark the year’s highest recruitment times for local Atheist and Skeptics groups. Many  milk the opportunity by hosting Brother Jed Bingo.  In these games, listeners are given bingo cards with words on it that regularly appear in his narrative and those who fill their cards out first win a prize.  My copy from last year features such phrases as “Penis,” “Squirt-squirt,” “Whiskey,” “Sexual Frenzy,” “Freaks,” “Get Laid,” and “Oral Sex.”  Ironically, he thinks it’s the young people he talks to who are supposedly obsessed with sex.

There is a dark side in all this.  He drags his teenage daughters around the country with him. They are as brainwashed as he is.  These virginal girls make sex-negative presentations as part of his ministry and open themselves up to rude questioning from the audience that no-one should have to endure.  I remember listeners asking one of his daughters if she had ever masturbated or experienced an orgasm.  As would be expected of someone raised in a sex-negative environment the answer was no.  Needless to say, it saddens me to see people that young subjected to the ridicule their father brings on himself and it saddens me more to see this man instilling these girls with his repulsive beliefs and attitudes.  The idea that young people filled with hormones should be told to feel dirty, sinful, or ashamed every time they experience perfectly normal sexual feelings is repulsive.  Frightening children with threats of hell, damnation and eternal torture is very much a form of psychological abuse.

Brother Jed’s theology is highly idiosyncratic and much of it is rejected by many self-identified Christians.  His God, for example, is not the all-powerful or all-knowing one most Christians worship but one that is largely reacting to human’s free will actions he apparently has little or no control over.  Jed’s idea of a God who is lacking in these areas and presumably not completely competent actually makes much more sense than the God most Christians worship.  He also has stated numerous times that he no longer sins at all, a notion that most Christians consider impossible.

Brother Jed is definitely a trip and it is refreshing if not disturbing to see a Christian so out and open about all the horrible things that many of them actually believe.  He is the author of the book Who Will Rise Up: A Call to Confrontational Evangelism and is the basis for the short film Battle of the Sects.  Here in Arizona he has many unconvinced followers called Jed Heads, and I consider myself one of them.

Click HERE to see him in action at the University in 2008.

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 first part of this blog was published on the 16^th, a couple of days ago. Here is the fourth part of This is a Christian Nation: What That Statement Really Means by Gregory W. Chmara.

 In part I, Gregg listed four statements:

1. “The United States was founded on Christian values and all are troubles are because we have drifted away from those.”
2.  “Christian values are founded on the rock solid principles of the Ten Commandments and they should be on display in public buildings and courts to remind us.”
3.  “All Christians believe the same things – those taught by Jesus Christ.”
4.  “I am a Christian and that settles the argument.” (Whatever the argument is.)

FOURTH STATEMENT:

“I am a Christian and that settles the argument! (Whatever the argument might be.)”

As Dana Carvey’s Church Lady might have said, “Well, isn’t that special?”

Well not really.  There are in excess of 15,000 various Christian sects for the billion professing Christians. I might add that one billion professing is a number greater than actual practicing Christians.  Each sect has its own interpretation of what Christianity is, who gains the rewards of recognizing Jesus Christ as a savior in their own special way, and what range of issues they wish to control.

A person who stops conversations with the phrase, “I’m a Christian, and Christians believe…” is avoiding any real discussion or study of a particular problem. Those problems could range from whether Mary was a virgin (totally unimportant), world hunger (important), the proper role of clergy in politics (very important), and acceptance of science and technology in solving problems of health and well being (exceptionally important). Using “my mind is made up by Christ” statement above indicates blind, willful ignorance.  It exposes the individual’s limited capacity to approach the real world in a thoughtful and understanding way.

The Amish Community openly rejects modern technology beyond that of a horse and buggy. Christians with a similar rejection of the discoveries of science should not be allowed to politically sway the rest of society. It is antithetical to everything I believe.

For example, science found that lives can be saved with blood transfusions.  However, refusal to receive whole blood is a settled issue for Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They are doctrinally enjoined from using whole blood to save their own life.  They cite ecclesiastical and Biblical references to support their views and go as far as to maintain their own health facilities (I refuse to call them hospitals) that do not offer transfusions.  I would hate to be in an accident with blood loss and be transported to a Jehovah’s Witnesses facility emergency room. It is OK for these ultra-religious people to accept that threat into their own life, if it’s a choice freely made but to push this anti-scientific faith-only doctrine as a law on everyone, or to force the belief on any other individual, including minor children or non-believing family members, is a crime against humanity. To deny that transfusions save lives more than prayer is a form of insanity — but it is a socially acceptable insanity under the U. S. Constitution, nonetheless.

This belief is similar to the no medical doctor or medicine beliefs promulgated by Christian Scientists. They, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ was the great scientist healing with prayer, driving out spirits, demons, and defeating attitudes that caused ill health. A number of minor children with common but life threatening conditions have had to be removed from families who believed only prayer would save their disease ridden child. They imposed their irrational belief on the child often letting the child get close to death when a simple anti-biotic could quickly restore them to the state of health. (Prayer is not as effective as anti-biotics against infections.) Others have refused food to children in order to drive out demons. Recent court cases, luckily, have removed minors in danger from these fanatics and mandated life-saving treatment until the child is back to health.  Personal religious belief does not trump an individual’s right to live with the protections of our advanced secular society.

Consider the Terri Shiavo case. It is another example where the Christian dogmatic arguments conflicted with science while determining life and death. Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been expended keeping Terri’s body alive by machine. Her body had shrunk and science showed that recovery was not possible. Her parents went as far as Congress to stop her legal representative (her husband) from pulling the plug. The Christians in congress aligned with the Catholic Church to make “pulling the plug” look like murder instead of recognizing very real and very unpleasant medical facts.  Being Christian, the parents fomented a religious vote seeking congress to vote for the idea you fight for life regardless of truth, pain, medical evaluation, or cost.  They tried to create a law that would make it a Christian’s (with a capitol “C”) duty to protect life at all costs and give prayer the time to work a medical miracle. The courts finally ruled that the husband had the right to withdraw the treatments that were running her vital signs by machine. As expected by Skeptics, no miracle took place and Terri Schiavo died. Prayers of all the Christians and even Congress did not save the life of her brain dead body. Quietly, an autopsy report was issued. It showed there was no possibility for recovery. Her dysfunctional brain had shrunk to a totally non-functioning organ during the months on the machines which kept her body “alive” in its vegetative state.

These are just a couple of extreme cases but they demonstrate that the ignorant, very vocal, dogmatic Christians involved were effective in using their passion and religiosity to sway public opinion and thwart the benefits of scientific advances. They used their beliefs to suggest all good Christians must morally support their radical view or lose heaven, and maybe go to jail. While Terri Schiavo’s body lived under the type of artificial stimulation that makes a dead frog’s leg jump with a shock from a battery, the legislators wearing their Christianity on their sleeves used the moral bludgeon of guilt (we are all sinners, but we can prevent this one murderous death) to force their view into a political precedent, one that could affect everyone under law in the United States, believer or not.

This is the same technique used by the Roman Catholic church in its very political alliance with Evangelicals to outlaw abortion.  Consider this, the term “abortion” (not just for birth control) covers natural functions of a women’s body and now includes psychological guilt cast on women who suffer a natural miscarriage and may seek medical aid. Consider too, that the religious articles of faith advanced by each Christian group as to when a soul enters a human embryo or fetus to make it human are very different. The Catholic Church believes the soul’s potential begins with ejaculation and even condoms are a form of “abortion.” Conjecture, evidence, and evaluation standards other than those found in the 2,000 year old philosophies of the Bible need not apply. Evangelical doctrine agrees that abortion is a sin — but not necessarily with the Catholic prohibitions on condoms.

In Arizona the legislature, controlled by Republican religious conservatives, passed a law that makes abortion illegal past 20 weeks following the last intercourse before a woman misses her period. Where is the evidence that would support this law’s assertion? By what fiat do they make rules for all women based upon little or no medical efficacy?  Now it’s up to the courts to decide if this law is another religious travesty. What happened to the previous tacit and legal agreements that a fetus must be viable before the mother’s choice is limited by state intervention?

Then there is this: In the past few years the infallible Roman Catholic Pope declared that Limbo does not exist — but did not explain what happened to all those souls of fetuses that previously allegedly resided there — or if in-vitro baptism to save them would be restored.

It was not too long ago that the Catholic Church was sure that any aborted (or miscarried) fetus’s soul went to Limbo instead of Hell. Now, everyone (infants too) who is not baptized as a Catholic ( you know those who are supposed to hell anyway) has no way station to get to Heaven except Purgatory, a  place of punishment for sin until released to heaven, after burning to perfection.

This doctrinal change is in no way is a comfort to Catholic women who lose a fetus and have tremendous hormonally caused emotional problems of loss to deal with but most Christian’s believe “God’s ways are not man’s ways” as if that was an explanation or comfort.

Previously, not too long ago in history, the Catholic church in its wisdom required in-vitro (in the womb) baptism to save an unborn child or fetus in danger of dying before emerging from the woman’s body. This applied especially in cases of then inoperable and deadly breach birth and used enema like inserts. This would assure the unborn fetus a place in heaven, even if it risked the life of the mother and/or child.

Now, add to this the consideration that the Catholic Clergy’s mind is made-up in all matters of birth control. The Roman Catholic Church equates all birth control methods, except vaginal intercourse on the rhythm method, with abortion in the weighing sins that will get you to Hell.

If you look closely  you will discover that those particularly Catholic doctrinal views have now slowly been inveigled into state and national  health bills riding alongside arguments and legislation to remove a woman’s right to choose, (abortion) under the broad-brush that Christian views do not permit birth control.  This now influences not just abortion but all pre and post coital birth control measure in use — and if and when legislated, controls everyone of every faith or non-faith.

Many Christians who may feel that abortion is morally reprehensible and distasteful are less than thrilled with this shift in the anti-abortion movement’s goals.   They believe in family planning. These Christians do not want their newly won reproductive and sexual rights to contraception and birth control that is scientifically viable, safe and healthy, should not be broad-brushed into a Christian anti-abortion issue by those Catholics.

The dogma and doctrine of these Christians and the allied Roman Catholics hierarchy openly conflict in the real world when you move beyond the issue of abortion.

Clearly, these are secular issues, at best, based upon the health of a mother and potential child, and her mate. Religious discussion of fantasized and unsubstantiated claims of when a fetus is imbued with a soul belongs in a religious frame of the specific sect’s beliefs and rules do not belong in secular law.  They should not be imposed on those who do not subscribe to them.

And without a clear understanding of responsibilities for raising a child, when a fetus becomes viable, the potential costs to society of hundreds of thousands of dollars in care for the fetus and child, and the mental and physical health of the potential mother, legislation based upon religious dogma or doctrines should not be part of our secular government.

Now turn to this. There are some who believe that the theory of evolution is wrong-headed and un-Christian. It is supposedly capable of morally turning man into no more than an animal.  They would have us use a broad-brush to think this is a widely held Christian belief.

But the Catholic Church accepts evolution and believes the evidence for it is more than substantial, at least until it comes to the infusing of the soul of man into the human body. That infusion is the work of God.  Other sects believe that evolution and godliness ran concurrently, over unknown eons,

The broad-brush of fundamentalist, literalist, and anti-evolutionary theory Christians does not admit to the fact that science is always investigating, researching, and revising, based upon the latest information and advances, even contradictory evidence.

While us  humans do not know every last step of development from single cell creature billions of years ago to humanity, we can see and prove not only the blind alleys and pathways that nature has taken to develop life and human thought and curiosity, but we can use our brains to connect the dots. We can demonstrate a solid convoluted path to thinking humans even those using religious thought and blind belief to explain the creation of the world.

This should be clear to anyone who is rational, and more importantly in the future will be able to understand all the developments in medicine, physics, germ theory, and the sciences and technologies of human life and curiosity.

Let’s turn to global warming.  Note, more than 90 per cent of every living species that has ever been on earth is now extinct.  There is a Christian belief offered and promulgated on a broad-brush basis saying that the end of the world is near.  Broad-brush Christian preachers offer the idea that an apocalypse will occur in our lifetime, so we need not worry about the rapidity with which man (as a species) has changed (some would say spoiled)  the ecology of the planet.

Is it possible they do not understand the belief that Christ predicted that ‘the apocalypse” would happen before all the original apostles left the earth 2,000 years ago?  Then consider the Christian apocalypses of 1,000 CE, and Y2K, etc.

A change must be made in this broad-brush Christian belief.  It is too often applied to keep people in ignorance of our industrial destruction of the planet and changes that must be made, no matter how unpopular and difficult those changes may be. And changes must be made if we are to offer a living planet to future generations. These Christian people have a right to their apocalyptic opinions and speech. However I also have an opinion and a few rights under law and beliefs I feel are moral.  First, remember that law can be amended to account for modernity. I believe ignorance is not a benign state or a state of grace.  I believe that deliberately blind ignorance is at least a misdemeanor if not an intellectual crime against humanity. It is an excuse for not thinking, then not acting unless directed by a “Christian leader.” By the way,  I plead guilty of  inaction for too many years.

I firmly believe those who use the four arguments quoted at the start of this article have no right to avoid evidence, they have no right to promulgate falsehood (remember thou shalt not lie — as in bear false witness, etc.).  They have no right to force their unsubstantiated doctrinal beliefs into law or public policy to govern everyone.

No, we are not a Christian nation.  We are a human nation experimenting in self government. We do not subscribe to religious blind belief and adherence to mindless dogma or doctrine handed down from an unseen, improvable, invisible beings. We realize statements of doctrine come through men, whether they claim to be prophet, priest or king. Men, especially men in ecclesiastical power, have agendas that vary from advancing the full bloom, curiosity and development of mankind. These agendas may be couched in godly phrases, but most often do not bring liberty, thoughtfulness, and progress to all humans. Rather they benefit the select few in power or who subscribe to the dogma and doctrine advanced.

In closing, let me paraphrase the old Negro College Fund public service announcement used to raise funds during and after the Jim Crow era:

“A closed mind is a terrible thing – it is a waste of human potential.”

A nation that lets itself be run by religious totalitarianism, closed minds and willful ignorance, with laws based upon lies and misinformation that has been preached and repeated from pulpits and biased, unknowledgeable, and frightened news sources,  deserves everything it gets.  And that nation will probably, in the end, lose everything it really values as it deserves.   That’s my broad-brush statement.