Every once in a while someone relatively new to the “Atheist movement” will bump up against Sam Harris and his negative feeling toward the word “Atheist”. At the AAI 2007 Convention in Washington D.C., he presented his case against using Atheist and any other label. Sam Harris is well known and important to Atheism. He wrote The End of Faith and his Letters to a Christian Nation is an excellent read—short and to the point. However, he has the idea that we should “go under the radar” and simply think about things rationally as a winning strategy. He starts his talk by saying how strange it is that a meeting of Atheists is even necessary. Then he argues that the use of the word Atheism is a mistake and we shouldn’t be using it. In his talk, he states that the label prevents us from being effective in our criticism of religion. He believes while under the radar, we should be destroying bad ideas where we see them. He says that there are so many bad ideas that we’ll be spending a great deal of time discussing religion. He is wrong.

Not using an identifying label—Atheist, Secular Humanist, Freethinker, Secularist, etc.—might work if winning an intellectual argument is all that is considered but people need more than that. They need community. How do people of a community find each other if not through labels? Look at the Meetup.com site. There you’ll find Tucson Atheists and Skeptics of Tucson. You’ll also find many other groups. A similar search through FaceBook will also result in pages dedicated the Secular Students, Atheists, and Recovering from Religion groups, national and locally.

Dr. Harris spends a great deal of time criticizing religion and he’s good at it. However, we are not all like him. And while we do criticize religion on occasion, any group that spends all of its time criticizing other groups is not mature and supportive of its own membership. Religions often criticize Atheists but it is not all that they do. They provide complete community service. They don’t meet once a week just to compare clothes. They have youth programs, and social events, and often pitch in together to help a member that has fallen on to hard times. Religions also have power through their large numbers and organizations such as the Center for Arizona Policy that act on their behalf and push Christian values on to the society in general. We need to do that and more.

In fact, we are starting to build and Tucson’s Atheist community is doing well. In the Barna Group’s rating of The Most Post-Christian Cities in America we rank #12. Here in Tucson we have multiple groups carrying the labels of “Atheists,” “Skeptics,” and “FreeThought.” We have our own increasingly effective legislature lobbying group The Secular Coalition for Arizona. This would not be possible without the use of identifying labels. In the past several years while the community was expanding, I often heard, “I’m glad I’ve found you. I thought I was the only one!”

The word Atheist has had negative connotations and many would rather not use it but any other term we use to describe ourselves would soon be saddled with the same baggage once it is clear that the term refers to those that don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Have you ever heard someone say “Secular Humanist” in such a way as to be dripping with venom and dismissal? The better strategy is to come out as an Atheist, if you can, and take back the word. Erase the evil, negative connotations through positive example in all that you do.

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.

Jim Wilson has some thoughts on calling others Fascists…

Fascism is defined as: a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. And b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

The collusion, between government, military and business interest that we often have in this country is of great concern as well as the associated waste and corruption. For example, the $39.5 Billion Dick Cheney’s company Halliburton made from government contracts in Iraq. However, the casual use of the “fascist” label is not particularly helpful or conducive to constructive discourse.

Aside from government and business collusion, “fascism” usually means much more, including an absolutist dictatorship, dissent being outlawed, a system where all but one political party is outlawed, no independence between branches and levels of government, a lack of elections or any form of government account ability, an official state sponsored personality cult around the dictator, etc. If there are self-identified fascists out there, they wouldn’t point to our current system as an example of what they advocate or consider any of our major political leaders part of their movement. In short, the mere presence of collusion or corruption hardly makes the fascist label justified and such use is not consistent with what the term means to most people.

Of course, one could argue that our two party system often acts like a one party system. Supporters of some of our presidents/candidates have created huge personality cults around them and the people within the different branches and levels of government have so much shared ideology that choices between any two of them often may not be particularly meaningful.  Concede all these things and it is still difficult to equate our current political environment with Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. Attempting to do so is not constructive and a bit dismissive of those who survived such regimes.  Furthermore, overuse tends to water down the meaning of terms like fascism, which represents one of the darkest chapters in human history.

Many of us habitually like to equate conditions or people we dislike with the ultimate evil and invoking “fascism” is very handy for doing just this.  Unions, bosses, vegetarians, cat lovers, Christians, Atheists,  and Muslims are all guilty of using the F-word, in various contexts, especially on the Internet.  A closely related phenomenon was well described in 1990 by American Author, attorney, and staff council for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mike Godwin. He observed, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1…  ”

This became known as Godwin’s law and the related concepts of “fascism and fascist” just as easily apply.  Note that Godwin was not making any claims about the validity of such comparisons, just the likelihood of their occurrence.  Despite this many people wrongly use the term “Godwin’s law” to end discussions and claim undeserved victory in their debates.

Godwin’s observation often holds true.  People throw out the words “NAZI”, “Hitler,” and “fascist” around with an amazing ease.    Unsurprisingly, this is often done fallaciously and there are few known fallacies related to claims of fascism, Nazism, etc.

There is also the practice of denouncing any idea as evil, fascist etc. for having some, often tenuous, connection to Nazism.  It’s a form of guilt by association fallacy that’s referred to as the Argumentum ad Nazium, Reductio ad Hitlerum or “playing the Hitler card”.  If the Nazis or Hitler did it, it must be bad.  For example, people argue against vegetarianism by pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian and against Atheism by claiming Hitler was an Atheist (a claim that is contradicted by Hitler’s declaring himself a Christian).  Many more examples of this fallacy can be found here.

Recently Bill O’Reilly calls the American Atheist President, David Silverman, a fascist for apparently wanting government to get out of the holiday/religion business.  Whether you agree or disagree with him, it hardly seems appropriate to call someone a fascist for wanting to limit the role of government in promoting a religion, philosophy, or whatever.

Labels like “fascist” are way over used, and often should be reserved for the most unambiguous of tyrants; otherwise they do not promote a productive conversation.

Jim Wilson has been waiting to drop the hammer on Kirk Cameron for a while now:

Kirk Cameron  made the news again. From the Crocoduck to the banana, everything he gets involved in is a show case of Christian ignorance and gullibility. Hours ago, the former child actor and star of Growing Pains—a family sitcom from the eighties—made a recent post on his twitter account. The post discusses a massive Ten Commandments monument at a hotel in Odessa, Texas.  Cameron states:

“Check out this huge stone monument at the front door of the hotel I checked into tonight in Odessa. This is the #1 city for jobs in the US (lots of new found oil)! Try to tell this hotel owner in West Texas to remove these commandments and I’m pretty sure a good ol’ boy down here would be willing to make an exception for the 6th commandment just for you… Don’t mess with Texas!…”

The sixth commandment is the one stating that “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”.

Cameron is confused. Secularists such as those in FreeThought Arizona are against displaying Ten Commandments monuments and all other religious monuments in government spaces. We are not against displays in private homes or hotels. However the appearance of religious monuments on government property implies a preference of the religious over the nonreligious and tax money should not be going to the promotion of religious superstition of any kind. No one is challenging the right of private citizens to post religious nonsense on homes or businesses.

Any business owner can be as overtly religious as they please. While they are forbidden from religious discrimination in public accommodations, they can post all the crosses, Ten Commandments monuments, and Ichthys symbols they desire. While it could cost them business from the Freethinking community, that same community would stand with them in opposition to those that might try to remove those things due to our strong desire to preserve freedom of speech.

Kirk Cameron’s celebration of the willingness of “good o’ boys” to ignore their own Bible and kill people is a bit scuzzy but it’s worse if he is implying that it should apply to people who wish to remove such monuments from government places as well. He could be saying that in the wilds of west Texas, they have rugged gun toting “good ol’ boys” who don’t listen to the namby-pamby, politically correct rules such as separation of church and state where bullying Atheists and gay kids is so common that young people are often terrified to come out to their own families. This should not be celebrated… especially from the guy from Growing Pains.

Cathi Herrod of the very religious political lobbying group, CAP (The Center for Arizona Policy), just sent out another letter to motivate her followers. She is watching the recent political discourse about marriage and wondering why anyone following the debate would “support the true definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Based on her email, she seems to believe that the conversation leaves out the meaning and purpose of marriage. She then points out that “the reality is that marriage is the engine that drives our country.” She believes that marriage creates the ideal environment for personal independence, wealth creation, and the nurturing of future generations. She then goes on and uses the 41 year marriage of “Joe and Sarah” to demonstrate her point. Joe and Sarah stayed married a long time and raised two kids. One of their kids decided to adopt and isn’t this a wonderful result? Of course it is, Cathi and no one is arguing that marriage is a bad thing. In fact, most are arguing that it is such a wonderful thing that everyone should be allowed to participate. Going back to Cathi’s story, how will allowing a same sex couple to marry prevent future Joes and Sarahs from having future storybook marriages with great kids and adopted grand kids?

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.

On March 10^th the Tucson FreeThought Community (Freethought Arizona, Tucson Atheists and Skeptics of Tucson), will be hosting a performance by humorous singer/song writer Roy Zimmerman.  The performance will take place at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson Located at 4831 E 22^nd Street.

Roy has been performing satirical folk music since the early eighties, as both a solo artist and a member of the Fore (a group who had the distinction of playing the national conventions of both major parties in 1996).  Roy’s music focuses on political and social issues, and his songs about religious topics have made him quite popular in the FreeThought Community.  Here are a few examples:

1.  Jerry Falwell’s God
2.  I want a Marriage like they had in the Bible
3.  Creation Science 101

Zimmerman’s lyrics often come from an admittedly liberal or progressive point of view and may alienate some more conservative listeners. However, Roy’s performances are fun, enjoyable and often hilarious. The Tucson FreeThought Community is proud to sponsor this fine entertainer along with other entertainers and speakers from a wide variety of view points.

Come and join us for this fun night of song with Roy Zimmer on March 10^th at the Unitarian Universalist Church.  Hope to see you there!

It gives me great pleasure to post this blog entry. Cathi Herod and her homophobic minions were handed a defeat in Phoenix last Tuesday. I posted a blog on the “Red Herring” tactic being employed by the Center for Arizona policy. It took a couple of days to write and I may even have lost a friend over the posting but it’s good to see that reason won out over irrational bigotry in our state capital. At issue was the passing of the amendment to Chapter 18 of the Human Relations Commission section in city code. Here is the declaration of policy as posted in the original blog entry:

It is declared to be among the civil rights of the people of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, to be free from discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and for it to be contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or marital status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, OR DISABILITY in places of public accommodation and employment and it is contrary to the policy of the City of Phoenix and is unlawful for employers doing business with the City of Phoenix that are vendors, suppliers or contractors and employ more than thirty-five persons to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation OR GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION.

As you can see, the intention was to add to the list of folks that companies are not allowed to discriminate against in their public accommodations and employment. For some reason, the CAP believes that companies have a constitutional right to discriminate against people of different sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability and should be free to do so in their public accommodations and hiring.

The note I got from the CAP states that, “On Tuesday this week, approximately 500 people packed into a downtown Phoenix auditorium and witnessed injustice.”Cathi Herod also thoughtfully provided this LINK (local Phoenix news coverage of the vote). Now, Cathi is on the war path claiming that her legal concerns were not addressed by the council. She’s identifying the council members that voted for the measure and reminded her loyal subjects that “elections matter.” The most pleasing part of her note on the subject was the part where she turns her ire on many of the people protesting against the measure alongside her. She states in her note, “I must share my deep disappointment with how some who opposed the ordinance handled their statements.” She further stated that people on her side were:

“using God’s name in a mean-spirited, bigoted way to oppose the ordinance. Or perhaps you heard some oppose the ordinance in ways that I am sure were grievous to God and grievous to those sitting in the audience. A public hearing seldom is the venue in which one should stand up and speak condemnation on others from a supposed Scriptural standpoint. Regrettably, the misguided words of a few who spoke out against the ordinance greatly hurt our testimony.”

How are you supposed to come out against a provision which expands equality without appearing to be “mean-spirited” or “bigoted?” Telling an entire class of people that you’re not entitled to equality is by definition “mean-spirited.”

In any case, good job Phoenix! Way to stand up for human decency against the tyranny of religious bigotry! And Cathi, keep criticizing your supporters we can use the help.