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.

 Jim Wilson can’t believe Russell Crow’s Supposed UFO Sighting!

Recently Russell Crowe shared this video with his Twitter followers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W63K–xUg6o&feature=player_embedded

The star of Gladiator and Les Miserables stated, “UFO? Time Lapse Photos THESE ARE REAL! A friend and I set camera to capture fruit bats rising from Botanic Gardens, this was a big surprise.”

In the time exposure video, a flat white object moves across the upper portion of the screen. A red beam of light appears to radiate down from it.  The video is from Crowe’s office in Sydney on Woolloomooloo Bay.  His office sits on the pier directly across from the botanical gardens.  There are many explanations for the images including glare from the camera lens or photoshopping but Russell Crowe insists that he did not photoshop them.

The explanation offered in this video is most compelling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjlK7kjgphU

This largely explains the strange images that were captured. Had he captured fruit bats, what would they have looked like in the timed exposure?

It has been a busy week! Brother Jed just finished his first week of evangelizing on the University Of Arizona Mall. The newly formed Secular Student Alliance at the University of Arizona had a rough start but finished well. On Monday on the way to the Alumni Plaza, a box dropped off of the hand cart that was transporting the table and supplies. The box that dropped off contained all of “Brother Jed” Bingo cards printed up for the occasion. All 850 cards disappeared out of existence along with a box of highlighters and some twirly helicopter toys but it turned out OK because the weather made the first day a very short. More cards needed to be printed up AND there was Skeptics of Tucson meeting on superstition that night. Both were accomplished and Tuesday turned out to be a better day. Wednesday, Ash Wednesday, was an even better day still and included some expected and unexpected excitement. A student group planned on taking the stage from Brother Jed and performing the Harlem Shake. Brother Jed caught word of the plan and had a counter plan. Everyone’s plans were working out when, in all the excitement, a young man dressed in a Penguin suit fell on the grassy hillside and Brother Jed fell on top of him. No one was hurt and everyone involved including Jed and the Penguin chalked it up as an accident. Some people that weren’t involved and some that weren’t there might claim otherwise, however. Some claim that the kids should be ashamed of themselves for pushing over a 70 year old man and some claim that Jed “tackled” the Penguin. Brother Jed believes that the Penguin fell first and pulled him down. In any case, the show must go on. Preaching and heckling continued throughout the rest of the day on Wednesday and on Thursday and Friday as well.

The Secular Students Alliance of the University of Arizona manned the table, passed out prizes, distributed, and collected Bingo cards all week. They plan on continuing throughout the coming week. After Brother Jed leaves, someone that played Brother Jed Bingo will receive a board game called “Blasphemy” (a $100 value). Brother Jed is a great recruiter for the Secular Student Alliance, a group that is meant to provide community for the non-religious students on campus. The FaceBook page for the new group indicates that there are now over 100 members. The founder and current president of the group announced that regular meetings will begin on Wednesdays at 7 PM on the campus at a place that has yet to be determined. She also indicated that there will be other activities including social events and community service activities. If the logistics can be worked out, her group will be hosting Roy Zimmerman on the campus for some funny songs about ignorance, war, and greed on the 10^th of March.

Tucson Atheists and FreeThought Arizona are sponsors for the SSA of the U of A.

FreeThought Arizona will be having lectures on Sunday, the 17^th at the UMC DuVal Auditorium starting at 10 AM. The first lecture by Dr. Jay Quade, a professor at the U of A, will be on, “Evolution in Honor of Darwin Day” which was on the 12^th of February. The remaining lectures will start at 1 PM. Roy Speckhardt, the Executive Director of the AHA (American Humanist Association), will speak on, “Building a Non-theist Rights Movement” followed by Maggie Ardiente, the Development Director of the AHA, will speak on “An Update from the American Humanist Association.

The Tucson Atheists will be having their monthly meeting at the Denny’s near the corner of Alvernon and 22^nd at 7 PM on Monday the 18^th. The subject of the meeting will be: Is Modern Science due to Judeo-Christian Influence?

Of course, you can still catch Brother Jed and play Brother Jed Bingo throughout the upcoming week. His last planned day at the university is Friday, the 22^nd.

Jim Wilson has a few questions:

Did God give us Free Will? No. There is no reason to think so because there is no evidence to suggest that God ever existed but the existence of free will is still in question. For all practical purposes, it seems that we have it and we must act as though it exists. On the other hand, it could be that all of our behaviors and thought processes are the result of chemical reactions that we have no way of controlling.

The existence of free will depends on the definition of the term. After all, we may have free will in the sense that we are free to make decisions ourselves but, at the same time, we may lack it in the sense that actual decision making process is dictated by immutable physical laws.

Many religious people use free will as an explanation for why the world is messy. They argue that God wants us to voluntarily choose Him. They say our failure to do this has introduced sin into the world along with tapeworms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Of course, this argument flies in the fact of the claim that God is all-knowing, all-benevolent, and all-powerful. All-knowing assumes prescience and all-powerful assumes total control of everything that happens. If God has a plan, no human activity can effectively alter the plan.

If, however, God is lacking in the infinite knowledge depart, or the infinite powers department, then free will maybe a little more plausible. But that makes God a little less great which may be just fine for some believers. The Judeo-Christian then must ask, “What did God know and when did he know it?” Additionally, it gives rise to countless other questions, such as:

Did God not create Satan? Could God not destroy Satan at this very moment? Did God not knowingly allow Satan to introduce evil into the world? Did God not knowingly begin the chain of events that led to evil being introduced into the world? Could God not have removed evil from the world at any time if he wanted to? If so, wouldn’t that make God ultimately responsible for the existence of evil in the world? Did God know that the world would become such brutal and inhospitable place for humans as a result of Adam eating the fruit? Was this part of this God’s plan or the result of a miscalculation on God’s part? Did God intentionally set Adam and eve up for failure? Were Adam and Eve simply tools used by God to introduce sin into the world? Could God have tweaked Adam and Eve’s personalities such that they could have avoided the whole incident, but chose not to? Was the talking snake actually an agent of God’s will, or the result of some sort of error in his judgment? Why should Adam’s descendants be punished for Adam’s actions? Was it God’s intention that humans should be a permanently ignorant?

Some believers argue that the world we live in is far from the human ideal because this allows humans to be virtuous rather than acting as something akin to robots. This leads me to ask:

Was Adam’s fall necessary for humans to be virtuous? Were Adam and Eve capable of being virtuous before their fall? Given this, is it possible to be virtuous in Heaven? Is there free will or sin in heaven?

Other Christians argue that Satan, rather than God is ultimately responsible for the evil that exist in today’s world. That is too convenient.

There are ambiguities within the Judeo-Christian world-view and areas that are potentially problematic for believers. Different believers will have different answers for these questions but the Bible says, “Prove all things: hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

These are my thoughts on free will and my latest set of questions for the faithful.

The title refers to an old joke…A skydiving instructor was reviewing procedures with his student just prior to his first jump. He reminded him how to deploy his main chute and then discussed how to activate the emergency chute, if necessary. The student asked what to do if both chutes failed. The instructor says, “If all else fails, clear your mind and say ‘Buddha, oh Buddha.’” So as it happens in old jokes and made up stories, the student was faced with the failure of all of his equipment at which time he clears his mind and says, “Buddha, oh Buddha.” Much to his amazement a couple of hands appear under him and begin lowering him safely to the ground. Happy and greatly relieved he says, “Thank God!” and the hands open immediately allowing him to perish as he hit the ground at terminal velocity.

I was a believer when I first heard this story. It was a bit uncomfortable to hear for a couple of reasons. First, it laid bare the idea that we are on our own during dire situations as it is very unlikely to be saved in a miraculous way by God. In all my life, I had never heard or read about a miraculous save such as the one depicted in the story and part of the humor was the how unlikely the situation really is. The second reason it was a bit uncomfortable was that it opened me up to the idea that if the other deities are looked upon by outsiders as ridiculous, how does the God of the Bible stack up?

Hearing that joke may have been my first experience with cognitive dissonance. It made me realize that there may be answers that I hadn’t considered before. Many current believers must have a similar feeling when they hear Mike Huckabee blame our most recent tragedy in Connecticut on the lack of prayer in public school. The difference of course is that he wasn’t telling a joke, at least not on purpose. It is a most “cringe worthy” statement and it’s amazing that he states his opinion with such confidence. Do you believe that saying a prayer before classes would have made the least bit of difference in that tragedy? But also buried within his statements is the underlying theme that there is no morality and no values in secular society. Dave Noise in Psychology Today also cites Huckabee’s comments in his article on Atheist discrimination. Somehow Atheists are to blame for everything bad that happens. Mike Huckabee and others forget that religion played no part in the Sandy Hook tragedy.

About that religious student skydiver, do you think it showed a lack of faith for him to put on a chute to begin with? Mike Huckabee may be a hero of the religious right and his professions, while silly to the unbeliever, may resonate with those who believe in Christianity but Atheists have their spokesmen too and many of them are comedians (on purpose). For example, Eddie Izzard got it right when he says, “If there was a God, don’t you think he would have flicked Hitler’s head off?” And just between you and me, don’t you think he might have made Adam Lanza’s four weapons inoperable?

Jim Wilson weighs in on some of the claims of public personalities about the recent tragedy in Connecticut.

In response to the horrific mass shooting in Newtown Connecticut, in which 20 children and 6 adults the gunman and his mother were killed, I have heard numerous people make the argument that this is what happens when you take God out of schools. Apparently, it’s not the shooter who is responsible for these tragic deaths but those of us who had the audacity to remove the Christian God from our public schools.

There is so much wrong with this argument. No one removed God from any school. If we assume for the sake of conversation that the Christian God or something like him exists, it would be impossible for mere mortals to escort him out of a school or any other building for that matter. Supposedly, his powers are infinitely greater than those of us ordinary humans and many believe him to be omnipresent. The very idea of removing an omnipresent being from any location is absurd.

What secularist did do was remove government imposed religious instruction from tax-payer funded schools. When religious conservatives say we took God out of schools, it is code for the fact that the heavy hand of Government is no longer using other people’s tax money to shove Christian religious beliefs down the throats of other people’s children. This governmental restraint is a good thing. Freedom of religion means that government doesn’t force religious instruction on the people. People are still free to teach children about their God in their homes, in religious private schools, and in their churches free from the encroachment of government and the use of other people’s tax money.

But even though public school teachers are no longer allowed to or required to push religious instruction, it still does not mean God has been taken out of schools. Children are still allowed to pray; they just cannot be instructed to do so by a school official. Children are also free to join religious clubs, read religious texts in their free time, and talk among themselves about religious topics. We live in a country where most people are religious and most school teachers and children believe in some form of God but the teachers are not allowed to use their power over the students for religious purposes. As long as public schools continue to give tests there will always be prayer in schools.

Some public figures believe that the increasing secularism of the school system has told God that he has not wanted and that he has withdrawn his “protective influence.” This is such a morally despicable notion. Are we expected to believe that God makes it possible for little children to be brutally murdered solely because adults no longer use the government to force feed kids religious teachings? Do the people who spew such rubbish from their mouths seriously believe that none of the murder victims at that Connecticut school house believed in God or sought his protection? It is highly likely that at least one of the children believed in a God and was otherwise innocent and yet, we are told that they had to die because God was not wanted at their school.

Atheists reject the notion that a God exists and can’t blame removing God from our schools for the recent violence. There is no evidence that any god or any protective influence exists. Such a thing has never been demonstrated. The occurrence and distribution of tragic events in time and space can be explained entirely by individual humans and natural events. Hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, and killing sprees by deranged individuals hit God believers and sinners alike. Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews all die in mass shootings, bombings, acts of war, and terrorism.

The apparent disinterest of God stands in stark contrast to the shameless, manipulative behavior of some of his most fervent, politically-active followers.

Jim Wilson lays down another post in what could be a very long series of clueless lawmakers:

It is amazing the disturbing things one can say and still be considered a viable political candidate in this country. Today’s case in point is Charles Fuqua, who is running for the State House of Representatives in Arkansas. He gained nationwide attention with his recent book God’s Law, which among other things proposes instituting the death Penalty for unruly children. He justifies this by appealing to the following passage from Deuteronomy:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

With the bible as his guide, Fuqua states:

“A child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly.”

Glad to see he does not take killing children lightly (note: sarcasm). I wonder if he favors going with God’s prescribed method of stoning them to death. He goes on to acknowledge that:

“This passage (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children.”

Despite believing us humans to be depraved sinful beings, he nowhere acknowledges the possibility that there are in fact parents in this country who would abuse the power to have their kids legally executed. The notion that kids should be made to behave by subjecting them to constant fear is horrendously cruel, primitive, and insane. It would literally turn family life into a totalitarian police state and cause endless psychological damage to the children.

It’s time to admit that the Bible is not a good source of law or morality and has some truly horrible ideas in it. Human morality has advanced far beyond the murderous tribalism of the Bible. We no longer stone people to death for working on the Sabbath or being rebellious. Keep in mind, rebelliousness is often a good thing. It is a sign that your kid can think for himself or herself. Stubbornness can also be a sign of being strong willed which can also be a good thing. These are not traits that people should be killed for possessing.

In their wisdom, the founding fathers of this country created a legal system that was not based on the Bible but instead based on protecting personal freedom. They rejected cruel or excessive punishments for trivial crimes which is exactly what Fuqua prescribes. The founders also promoted freedom of religion which Fuqua also explicitly rejects. He proposes expelling all Muslims from the country and forcing all elected representatives of this country to swear and oath of adherence to biblical infallibility. While I find Islam to be one of the most dangerous and deeply flawed belief systems in existence, I still stand in support for the freedom to believe it so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. The notion of biblical infallibility is utterly insane. Any book that recommends stoning children to death for being rebellious is clearly very fallible.

It’s disturbing that a position as radical and outright insane as Mr. Fuqua’s can be called conservative in today’s political climate. There is nothing conservative about it. It is completely at odds with the vision of this country’s founders as well as even the most basic human decency.

Former Republican legislator Charlie Fuqua is running for legislature with financial support from the Arkansas Republican Party.

Here is another incredulous entry from Jim Wilson:

Americans display disinterest, distrust, or illiteracy when it comes to science. They enjoy their smart phones and the other toys and conveniences science produces, but few delve further than that. Many felt a sense of nationalistic pride with the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars in August but these moments seem all too infrequent. On a given day, there is more interest in sports or celebrities than scientific issues. Too many in this country reject scientific thinking in favor of new age superstition or ancient religious nonsense.

Today’s case in point is US House Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia; he recently told an audience at Liberty Baptist Church that:

 God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says. And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.

In other words, we have a superstitious, religious zealot in our government who rejects all scientific findings that contradict his favorite story book. The theories he rejects as being conspiracies from Satan himself are the cornerstones of our understanding of the universe. Evolutionary biology, old Earth geology, and the big bang cosmology are consistent with all existing evidence and are contradicted by none of it. The universe we live in makes no sense without these theories. Scientific literacy requires knowledge of these theories. Representative Broun rejects them in favor of willful ignorance.

Can you believe that this superstitious ignoramus is on the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology which has jurisdiction over NASA, the Department of Energy, EPA, ATSDR, NSF, FAA, NOAA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA, the U.S. Fire Administration, and United States Geological Survey as well as over federally funded scientific research and development that is not military-related? He shares this position with Todd “legitimate rape” Akin, who recently made news because of his incorrect belief that pregnancies are not likely to result from rape. There is certainly disagreement, among freethinkers about what role government should have in the sciences, but nearly all will agree that if we are to have a science committee the last people on it should scientific illiterates like Broun and Akin.

There are quite a few problems with Broun’s claims that the Bible is a good source of information on how to run society or a family. It is silent on many important issues like Nuclear proliferation, space travel, vaccinations, fossil fuel usage, and television to name a few. The New Testament’s main political instruction is to be obedient to earthly authorities: The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1). The Bible’s instructions on family life are completely insane. For example, it prescribes killing rebellious young people as well as family members who suggest you join other religions. Jesus himself was surprisingly anti-family when he said: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

Unfortunately, as of the time of writing Representative Broun is running unopposed. We need to free our government from the influence of superstitious crackpots and scientific illiterates who cling to Bronze Age mythology. Science has endless potential for improving our lives and our understanding of the universe we live in. We need law makers who understand this, rather than ones who want to base policy on primitive stories and outdated belief systems.

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.