The Gaytheist Agenda

While it’s still too early to tell, rumor has it things may be going our way according to this article on HuffPo.

The fight for gay marriage in California has been a tough one during the last decade. In 2000, Proposition 22 was passed by 62% of the state’s voters, limiting marriage to a man and a women. Its since been sent to the State’s Supreme Court. Gov. Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed Gay Marriage Bills sent to him by the California Legislature, the second as recently as last year. “He will uphold whatever the court decides,” Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said after the bill’s original passing.

Fearing the court’s decision, the Family Research council has launched a ballot initiative for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage in California. “After oral arguments in the case, it appears very likely that the majority of judges on California’s highest court will rule against the current meaning of marriage, opening up God’s ordained institution to same-sex couples,” they said in a March fundraising email.

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it’s marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

Obviously aware of what’s coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC’s proposed amendment, “I will always be there to fight against that,” he said to huge applause this weekend at a Log Cabin Republican Convention in San Diego. He went so far as to call the initiative a “waste of time” and acknowledge that the people of California are, “much further along on that issue.” The latest Field Poll shows only 51% of Californians oppose full gay marriage, an 11 point drop since 2000.

There seems little doubt that California is moving toward full gay marriage equality.
…..

If Mr. Davis is right, this is certainly good news. Right now I’m engaged to my partner and we’ve got things on hold while we wait to see if we’ll be able to get a mere Domestic Partnership, or a full Marriage. We’re hoping it will be the latter. Equality is a wonderful thing.

 

The handy chart from eQualityGiving will help you determine how your rights stack up in six different categories: Hate Crimes, Non-Discrimination, Marriage, Gender, Youth and Parenting. Hat-tip to Autumn Sandeen.

 

The score indicates the number of Equality Goals that have been reached in that state. Each “YES” gives 1 point. Half a point is given for partial achievement of an Equality Goal. One of the seven Equality Goals (repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”) can only be achieved at the federal level. Therefore, at the state level, the maximum score is 6.

ANALYSIS (50 states + District of Columbia):

* Half of the states satisfy none or just one of the 6 Equality Goals that are required to ensure that LGBTQ people have the same legal protections as everyone else.

* No state offers full legal equality. California would have been the first state offering full equality if it were not for the veto of marriage equality legislation by Governor Schwarzenegger.

* Only two states (California and New Jersey) achieve 5 of the 6 Equality Goals.

* Massachusetts scores only 4.0 despite that if offers marriage equality. This is because it falls short in transgender protections in hate crimes, non discrimination, anti-bullying, and providing new birth certificates.

* Passing federal legislation on an Equality Goal would increase every state score by 1.

The scores range from California’s high of 5.5 (Yay!) to the shameful low of 0.5 shared by Idaho, Mississippi and Ohio. Click here to see the chart and find out what your state’s score is!

 

On April 15th the National Center for Science Education will be posting their full response to Ben Stein’s Expelled. In the meantime they’ve provided a handy list of resources for us including reviews and news coverage of Expelled, and other useful information. For future reference I’ve included a permanent link to this on the sidebar under “Helpful Links”.

 

The enemies of science, rationality and historical truth are at it again. The following is a press release from the Center for Inquiry.

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
April 07, 2008

Contact: Nathan Bupp
Phone: (716) 636-4869 x. 218
E-mail: nbupp@centerforinquiry.net

(Amherst, New York) –The Center for Inquiry (CFI), an international think tank promoting science and secularism, released a 25-page report today detailing what it calls “egregious errors” sufficient enough to warrant “immediate correction,” in a widely used civics textbook found in many secondary schools around the country, including advanced placement courses. CFI believes that the textbook American Government: Institutions and Policies, 10th edition, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006) contains inaccurate and misleading statements, in particular in its analysis of global warming and certain constitutional law issues. In response, CFI’s legal experts have analyzed the textbook and prepared a critique that sets forth recommended changes.

Derek Araujo, a lawyer and executive director for CFI’s New York office, spearheaded the textbook review project. Araujo stated that he was “surprised and dismayed that a textbook used in advanced placement courses would contain clearly erroneous statements about significant issues, such as global warming and school prayer.” Araujo recruited leading scientists, including Stuart D. Jordan from NASA, to provide their assessment of the book’s treatment of global warming.

CFI’s critique focuses on six areas: the science of global warming; the legality of school prayer; the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas; the alleged influence of the religious concept of “original sin” on the structure of the Constitution; the meaning of the Establishment Clause; and the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case (what lawyers refer to as the denial of a writ of certiorari).

Ronald A. Lindsay, CFI’s general counsel, characterized the errors as “significant and inexcusable. For a civics textbook to state—as this book does—that the Supreme Court will not allow students to pray in schools betrays either a serious misunderstanding of the law or a willingness to have the textbook serve as a propaganda vehicle for the Religious Right.”

CFI maintains that it is very important for civics students to obtain accurate information about our Constitution, our legal system and public policy issues, and that instructional material should be objective and free of ideological bias.

The textbook critique was researched and written by Araujo, Lindsay, and Jordan. A downloadable PDF copy of the full report is available online here

 

Addendum. A comment has arrived. Ebon said:

 

It comes to something when the Religious Reich’s lies manage to find their way into textbooks.

 
The RRRW has infiltrated the controlling elements of our society; every branch of the government and the police, the military, school boards and others. They want their people in power positions as a means of achieving complete control of everything. There are even Dominionists among those RRRWers, and they make the standard RRRWers look like Mary Poppins.

I always wonder why they feel the need to go to such lengths. If their god is so all-powerful and intends to punish the crap out of all the sinners (which by their standards includes about 95% of us) then why don’t they just let him do it? Why not leave everybody the heck alone and leave the almighty god to do his work rather than making our lives hell on earth now?

But maybe they just don’t have the faith in their god that they claim they do, and that’s why they have to do his hating and punishing for him.

 

You may recall that I previously wrote about the ongoing problem in the US military with persistent Christian evangelism and bigotry toward those of other faiths, or of no faith. Recent news indicates that the trend continues, sadly. Spc. Jeremy Hall, the atheist who filed a religious discrimination lawsuit, has recently alleged that he has been threatened as a result.

Spc. Jeremy Hall filed a formal statement Wednesday with the Army. He says he overheard a conversation between two sergeants in his platoon and one wanted to “bust Hall in the mouth.”
Hall says he faces the animosity because he is an atheist and is suing the Department of Defense. He alleges it permits a culture that pushes fundamentalist Christianity.

He says he does not feel safe his unit.

Apparently Freedom of Religion, particularly in the military only applies to Evangelical Christians. Woe to non-conformists.

Now, from Newsweek:

The little book, with the camouflage cover, is everywhere. There are more than 50,000 copies with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s on military bases across America. It’s in the homes of military families, who are praying their dear ones come home. It’s circulating at the Pentagon. Even the president has allegedly read it. “An aide to President Bush called me and said, ‘Henry, I think you’d like to know that the president is on his face before God every morning, and he’s using your [book]’,” its author told NEWSWEEK. The author is Henry Blackaby, a 72-year-old Canadian minister who is largely unknown outside Christian circles and who wrote the book together with his son Richard more than a decade ago. The book is the ever popular guide to prayer called “Experiencing God Day by Day.”

The Blackabys had already written and published the devotional when Henry was invited to speak in 2005 before a group of U.S. military chaplains. The chaplains were so inspired by Blackaby’s talk, the story goes, that they asked for copies of “Experiencing God Day by Day” to give to the men and women in the Army. Blackaby took the request to heart: he tapped some of his friends in the business world, received $176,000 in donations, redesigned the cover to match the Army’s camouflage uniforms and, with the help of his publisher, printed 100,000 copies to be distributed to the Army free of charge. …..

Military bases are flooded with religious literature, Christian literature in particular, and “Experiencing God Day by Day” is notable mostly for its serious tone and its orthodox approach to evangelical Christian theology. The book presents a daily verse from Scripture and a commentary on that verse; its intention is to help readers keep God ever present in their minds……The devotional is also a deeply evangelical text, and as such holds Christianity above other religions. “If you did not grow up in a Christian home,” reads the entry for June 10, “you can decide, as Joshua did, to reject your heritage of unbelief and begin a generation that serves the Lord.”

There would not seem, on the face of it, to be much of a problem with a group of private citizens sending a Christian prayer book abroad to lonely and spiritually hungry men and women who are, for the most part, Christian. But if you look closely at the “Experiencing God” phenomenon, says Jeff Sharlet, there is. Sharlet is a journalist who has been covering the Christian right for many years and is author of “The Family,” a forthcoming book about fundamentalist elites in America. “The military stands for our democratic nation, not for any religion,” he says. The ubiquity of this devotional “creates the appearance that this is an approved religion, that it’s favored by the state.” Not only is such an appearance isolating for military men and women who happen to not be evangelical—even mainline Protestants on military bases say they can feel marginalized, Sharlet says—but it also continues to create the impression abroad that the United States is engaged in a holy war. One man’s comfort is another man’s crusade, and such is the sad state of the world.

I find it disgusting, particularly considering the evangelical slant of the book. It’s obviously designed to recruit new Christians in addition to offering reading material to existing ones. Would the military allow books intended to proselytize for other religions, for atheism, etc? If not, then why are they allowing books evangelizing for Christianity and for one form in particular? This is wrong on so many levels.

Now from TheReporter.com :

What do the U.S. military and Christianity have in common? Nothing, if Mikey Weinstein has his way.

Weinstein is the founder of Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization that seeks to resurrect what he believes is the crumbling wall between church and state in the military.

Specifically, Weinstein believes that a minority Christian viewpoint - one that seeks to turn the military into a Christian force - is infiltrating the ranks at all levels. If they succeed, he says, their beliefs could be forced onto people around the world and here at home.

As Weinstein says it: “We’re a Tiger Woods’ putt away from becoming the United Fundamentalist Christian States of America, brought to you by the faith-based Department of Defense and its Pentacostalagon.”

…..

It’s a cause that came to him four years ago, in the form of a conversation with his younger son, who at the time was a sophomore at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado. His son complained about being unduly pressured by other cadets and academy leaders to give up his Jewish faith and become a Christian.

Weinstein, a 1977 Air Force academy graduate who served in Judge Advocate General Corps for 10 years and also did a stint in the Reagan White House, said he’d look into it. He thought it could be resolved with a few phone calls.

But as he probed, he began to see evidence of what seemed to be U.S.-sanctioned proseltyzation not only at the academy, but throughout the Air Force and in all branches of the military. Locally, he said he’s event received complaints from Travis Air Force Base, though he would not detail them.

Now the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has been in contact with more than 7,500 active-duty military members with similar complaints. Weinstein estimates that “96 percent” of those complaints come from other Christians.

“We’re at war, with the fundamentalist Christians pitted against the nonfundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters,” he says. “This is a national security threat internally every bit as much as that which is now challenging our country externally by a resurgent Taliban and al Qaida.”

The threat isn’t just to individual service members’ ability to practice their chosen faith - or nonfaith, as in the case of an avowed atheist whose opportunity for a promotional interview was rescinded, allegedly because he declined to participate in Christian prayers, according to a lawsuit recently filed by the foundation.

And it’s not just that “combat troops refusing to accept their commanders’ biblical world view are sent on more dangerous assignments,” or that “commanders are censoring movies,” so that troops are having trouble obtaining “Lord of the Rings” or Harry Potter DVDs, as Weinstein has been told by service members.

So much for the claim that atheists and other religious minorities aren’t actually put in harm’s way by the discrimination they experience.

The threat to national security comes when American Humvees are “driven through Iraqi cities playing, in Arabic, Rick Warren’s “The Purpose Driven Life,” or when company commanders are allowed to hand out tracts in Iraq depicting Christians going to heaven and Muslims going to hell, as alleged by a soldier who contacted Weinstein. Such actions serve to fuel the belief in Muslim countries that they are engaged in another holy war, and that this time, the Christian crusade is being led by the U.S. military.

But I thought they hated us for our freedoms. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the hostile religious behavior of the occupying forces. (Of course when Christian missionaries behave in similar ways and face violent backlash they call it “persecution” rather than face the reality that antagonistic behavior has repercussions.)

Needless to say, the US Military has far to go in bringing its Evangelical strain under control and making the environment safe and equal for people of all beliefs and non-beliefs. Fortunately the MRFF seems to be launching a formidable counterattack on the religious bullies. It will be worth keeping an eye on the situation to see how it pans out.

 

I bring you a theologian who attempts to dispel the “myths” he sees atheists presenting. If you wish you can read the first installment of his series “Myth 1: Atheists are Smarter” before continuing. The second installment attempts to prove incorrect atheists who hold the opinion that religion does more harm than good.

 

Hitchens, for instance, in his book God Is Not Great, asks whether the net effect of religion is positive or negative. Does religion do more harm than good (p. 217)?

He answers with a resounding “Yes!”
Religion is the cause of all social woes. The provocative subtitle of his book — How Religion Poisons Everything — seems to imply that religion does nothing but harm.

This may strike us as strange, since the common wisdom of humanity has always held that religion makes people better, not worse. Our own experience often backs this up.

 

I suppose that depends on who you are and what your perspective is. The Crusades and The Spanish Inquisition are just two events that make me question the notion that religion makes people better. In more recent times religion and the Bible were used to support slavery and segregation in America, and to oppose interracial marriage. Currently women seeking reproductive freedom and LGBTs certainly can speak to the problems visited upon them by those preaching in the name of Biblical Truth, God’s Word and the like.

 

So what possible reasons could the atheists have to make the extravagant claim that religious belief has a negative effect on people’s behavior? What evidence do they put forward?

On close examination, it turns out that the atheists’ real evidence is rather thin.

 
I’m not sure what “real evidence” Father Williams has been examining other than Hitchens’ God Is Not Great , but he could come up with a plethora of examples if he truly tried. For illustration purposes, here are just a few examples of how religion causes people to act abominably:

Sally Kern goes on hateful homophobic rant for which she will neither apologize nor meet with protesters then has fellow haters stage a “free speech for Sally Rally”–as if she’s been censored or silenced in some way.

Mary Frances Forrester echoes Sally Kern.

State Senator Gary George goes on racist, homophobic rant.

Wiley S. Drake calls for people to pray for death of Americans United leaders.

Traditional Values Coalition violates the 9th Commandment to advance their anti-gay agenda.

Focus on the Family spreads lies and propaganda to keep marriage equality away from LGBTs.

Traditional Values Coalition tries to trick to senior citizens as part of its anti-gay agenda.

Christians post death threats and other hate-speech against atheists on message boards. (Their hatred and death threats against LGBTs can be found here. )

RW Christians try to prevent laws that would forbid discrimination against transgender students in MD schools, using propaganda and lies.

Concerned Women of America use lies and propaganda to attempt to keep LGBTs from being added to CA schools anti-discrimination policy.

 

I could keep going, but I believe I’ve made my point.

 

Hitchens, for example, prefers to offer anecdotal evidence for his claim. He begins his 13th chapter titled “Does Religion Make People Behave Better?” with a personal attack on Martin Luther King Jr.

Here Hitchens makes a clever, though absurd, assertion. He asks whether King’s Christianity made him a better person. His answer is that yes, Martin Luther King did all sorts of good things for society in the area of civil rights, but … here’s the kicker … he wasn’t a Christian. He may have said he was a Christian and thought he was a Christian, but he was mistaken, and Hitchens knows better.

…..

The only proof he puts forward to back up this thesis is that King didn’t advocate violence and didn’t threaten people with hell, so he must not have been a true Christian.

This is like saying that Hitchens couldn’t be a true atheist, since he is too nice a guy.

 

The notion that King couldn’t be a true Christian simply because he didn’t advocate violence or threaten people with hell is indeed faulty. But then again look at the countless Christians who claim atheists cannot ever be moral because they don’t believe in God. That’s just as flawed a perception, yet it is responsible for centuries of bigotry and oppression toward atheists .

 

In making their case, Hitchens and company refrain from considering the almost countless ways that Christianity has benefited the world as we know it today.

What of the hospitals? What of the orders of nuns established to care for the dying or educate young girls? What of the soup kitchens and orphanages? What of the preservation of classical culture? What of the artistic and literary treasures?

 

Atheists don’t ignore those things (though they don’t trumpet them either–the Church does that just fine on its own while sweeping all of the evils under the rug). Atheists merely point out the fact that, in general, people could be inspired to do good without the need for religion–and all the negatives it entails. The reality is that millions of people are inspired to do good without religion, which is a fact that many of the religious hate to acknowledge.

 

By the way, how often do the religious search out instances of atheist philanthropy, altruism and heroism? Not that often I suspect. But they’re quick to spread the news of any misstep we make, be it real or trumped up.

 

There is no doubt that religious people could do more, and Hitchens’ accusations, though mean-spirited, do oblige us to a serious examination of conscience and a renewed commitment to offer a more consistent witness.

Yet an impartial examination of the facts will lead any objective observer to the conclusion that religion, and Christianity in particular, has been and continues to be an overwhelming force for personal and social good.

 

It’s good that Father Williams admits more could be done, but I’d hardly consider him an objective observer. As I’ve been on the receiving end of much bigotry from Christians (though I was one for about 20 years) I don’t know if I’d be able to consider myself fully objective either, but I’d say Christianity is not, overall, an “overwhelming force for personal and social good”. While I have no particular beef with Liberal Christians (except their nasty tendency to not stand up against their RW brethren often enough) the RW Christians are pure evil in my book. I’ll close with a quote from Steven Weinberg that sums up my feelings on the matter. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

 

Addendum. A comment has arrived. Ebon said:

 

 
Weinberg makes a very good point but I don’t think he takes it far enough. To my mind, the personality of an individual affects how they approach their faith just as much as the faith affects the individual or, to put it another way, the a**hole will always practice his faith in a way that lets him remain an a**hole.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was a great man but I suspect his greatness came from within himself. He may have been inspired by his Christianity but I think he would have still been a great man if he had been a Hindu, Jew, Muslim, athiest, whatever. The difference between his faith and that of, say, Fred Phelps isn’t in the doctrines they held, it is in the different emphasis each placed on particular parts of that doctrine. They took the same faith but viewed it very differently.

Incidently, I apologise for the plethora of comments recently but you keep posting thought-provoking stuff.

 

The personality and intentions of a person do indeed affect where they take religious belief. As Susan B. Anthony said, I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. While some are taught bigotry and evil by their religion (children in particular), others take their pre-existing hatreds and use religion to justify them. They search the Bible, the Koran or other holy texts to justify their beliefs and use the “Word of God/Allah” to try to make their hatred carry more significant weight. At the same time they ignore wholesale other portions of those same texts that are inconvenient or of no interest to them, making various justifications for their actions.

I agree fully about MLK Jr. (about whom I’ll be posting later tonight). He was an amazing man and as far as I’m concerned he would have done much good with or without religion, despite his position as a Baptist minister. He wanted equality and justice for blacks, for the poor and for people in general. That doesn’t require belief or religion. It simply requires compassion and empathy for one’s fellow humans.

I always return to the universality of the Golden Rule, which is found in nearly all religions, spiritualities and philosophies. It’s too bad that more people don’t follow this simple rule, for if they did life would be much better.

 

People speak of Freedom of Religion quite a bit in our society, but when they do they’re usually speaking about their religion, and most often Christianity. Let’s face it, if you’re not Christian in America you really don’t count, nor do your rights as far as many are concerned. That’s where our current story comes in.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a religious group must be allowed to put its monument in a city park near a similar Ten Commandments display.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal by the city, Pleasant Grove in Utah, arguing that a lower-court ruling for the religious group could affect whether cities around the nation must display privately donated monuments on public property.

The Summun religious group, founded in Salt Lake City in 1975, sought to erect a monument to the tenets of its faith, called the “Seven Aphorisms,” in a park where there are other monuments, including one dedicated to the Ten Commandments.

Pleasant Grove rejected the request, citing its requirement that park displays be related to city history or donated by groups with longtime community ties, like the Fraternal Order of Eagles that gave the Ten Commandments monument in 1971.

Interesting how they set up all of these rules and regulations for the park displays that aren’t Christian based. I’ll bet that if I were to go in as an atheist who has never lived in Utah they’d accept my donation of a 10-Commandments monument right now. But everything else must pass all sorts of arbitrary tests or they’re rejected.

“If government creates an open forum, it can’t pick and choose among religions,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

But attorneys for the city argued that the appeals court’s ruling will require cities and states to remove longstanding monuments or permit groups to display any monument in public places.

Well, fancy that concept. All groups are represented in public places or none are. Some can’t fathom the concept of equal access or think that it is a bad thing, but that’s just too darn bad. They either have to accept it or deal with no representation. Still some simply refuse to understand that. From the AP:

Pleasant Grove City Mayor Michael W. Daniels said the city’s objection is not with the content or placing of the monument, but with the precedent it could set.

“It’s about not letting just anyone walk in and say, ‘Because you have this, we have a right to put this up,’” Daniels said. “Summum was pretty much demanding — and by law, trying to sue us — to allow their particular monument to come into our park.”

Mr. Daniels, like many others, just doesn’t get it. Once one religious monument is put on public property it gives reign for others to be put there. Otherwise government is condoning and advocating one religion, which is simply unacceptable. Of course there are those who prefer to predict the worst.

In a dissent, Judge Michael McConnell warned of dire consequences if the appeals court decision was not overturned. “Every park in the country that has accepted a VFW memorial is now a public forum for the erection of permanent fixed monuments; they must either remove the war memorials or brace themselves for an influx of clutter,” he wrote.

Judge McConnell’s warning continued: “A city that accepted the donation of a statue honoring a local hero could be forced under the panel’s rulings, to allow a local religious society to erect a Ten Commandments monument – or for that matter, a cross, a nativity scene, a statue of Zeus, or a Confederate flag.”

Yes, all that plurality would just be horrific. We simply couldn’t find a way to deal with that so it’s best to go with the status quo, which is the Christian monuments and statues of war heroes. People who want monuments to other religions and other ideas can just suffer because, well, we just don’t have the room or the tolerance to deal with what you want.

 

 

Addendum. A comment has arrived. Ebon said:

 

I actually think this would be great. Let’s have a little “faith garden”: A 10 Commandments monument, a plaque of the Wiccan Rede, a statue of Buddha, a few verses from the Bhagavid Gita and so on. Not sure what you’d include for athiests (which I know isn’t a faith but I’m having fun with this one), a statue of Einstein perhaps?

 

I’m fine with that idea. Some claim that atheists are intolerant of religion/faith but I’m just intolerant of intolerance and inequality. If people want to put up a little equal-opportunity spirituality garden (so long as it isn’t supported by tax dollars) I certainly wouldn’t object to it. Atheists might put up the 10 Commandments offered by Ethical Atheist or Positive Atheism.

You know, the whole multi-faith/spirituality garden idea might help people realize that other belief systems aren’t as scary as they’ve been led to believe, but that they’re often more similar than they are strange. For example, The Golden Rule, aka The Ethic of Reciprocity, is very much universal, yet many people think it is found solely in Christianity/the Bible. It could be helpful for them to discover otherwise about that and other things.

 

Ebon also provided me a link to the following video which applies to the theme of this post. Enjoy!

 

 

That’s what happened to me, more or less. I posted this ten days ago and personally invited people to reply. Then I prepared myself for a barrage of comments and got only one, from a Satanist no less. So either not that many Christians are reading or none were able to rise to the challenge. Nonetheless, here is Ebon’s reply to the original post:

 

I’m a person of faith (Satanist, as it happens, but still faith). For all the atheists I’ve met (and I work for Beliefnet so that’s a lot), I’ve only ever met two I would classify as fundamentalist and both of those wanted (or said they wanted) to make religion illegal. That would be my classification of a fundamentalist, the desire to control another’s faith.

That said, i also recognise that those two were very much the lunatic fringe.

 

A Satanist working for Beliefnet, you certainly are brave. I’ve been a member of Beliefnet off and on and given up out of frustration after fighting with some of the more rabid RRRW types who think they and their religion run the world. They just can’t understand why “The Bible says…” doesn’t make everybody just stop in their tracks and obey. Like most places, Beliefnet is not particularly friendly to anybody not of the “dominant religion”.

 
That being said, I myself don’t care about what religion anybody is so long as they don’t push it on me, don’t harm anybody with it and don’t infringe upon the rights of others with it. It’s also a quirk of mine that I feel a bit of an affinity for people who practice the less-mainstream religions (yours included) simply because they have to put up with so much discrimination and bigotry–mostly RRRW Christians–which is something I certainly know about.

 

Now, technically there is no such thing as a “Fundamentalist Atheist”, at least not in the strict sense of the term. For example, Fundamentalist Christianity generally is typified by belief in the following “five fundamentals”:

 

* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith (Hebrews 9)
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
* The authenticity of Christ’s miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)

 

Atheism is, simply put, non-belief in deities (weak/implicit atheism) or belief that deities don’t exist (strong/explicit atheism). There are no scriptures or doctrines, and therefore it’s not possible for atheists to be Fundamentalists in the way that Christians (or even Muslims) are Fundamentalists. (Go here for a more comprehensive explanation.) That doesn’t mean that atheists can’t be dogmatic or intolerant, however, and that’s where your thoughts come in.

 
There are, of course, some atheists who see any form of belief and religion, however moderate, as harmful and potentially dangerous, and therefore something to be eradicated. While I agree that religion has definitely been behind many hideous acts historically and currently, I don’t advocate active attempts to rid the world of it. (I wouldn’t, however, mourn its natural demise should people simply cease practicing it.) A number of the more prominent of these atheists are very vocal, have written best-selling books. From them and their supporters sprang the term “New Atheists”, and it’s also likely where the concept of “Fundamentalist Atheists” developed.

 
Ironically I just stumbled across this comic that depicts a fictional “Atheist Apocalypse”. If you follow any of the high-profile atheist authors you might recognize the Four Horsemen in the comic. While I find it amusing and somewhat intriguing, it’s also rather overreaching (as are most things of its nature). Yes, world without religion–particularly certain forms of religion–would go a long way in eradicating many of the ills of society. But we wouldn’t have the Utopia envisioned in the comic, for atheism is not a panacea. There are no panaceas. (And that, of course, is just my humble opinion.)

 
Of course I’ve rambled all over the place, as I’m sometimes wont to do. And the wine hasn’t even kicked in yet…

 
Life under “Fundamentalist Atheists” (or dogmatic/intolerant Atheists), if they became numerous and powerful enough, could potentially result in religion being outlawed. To me that’s as inappropriate as religion being forced upon people by law or other coercive means. If there’s no opportunity for choice then it’s wrong, plain and simple. There are others (on both sides of the spectrum) who disagree, however. And that is very sad indeed.

 

The annual Blog Against Theocracy is now up. Blog Against Theocracy is a blogswarm dedicated to the separation of church and state. This is a very important topic and many fine bloggers have contributed so stop by and show them some love.

Addendum: Comments are already coming in for my contribution to the Blog Against Theocracy, Move over DADT, Make Room for COE. First up, FranIam said:

As someone who is a Christian, this makes me ill. So many who identify as followers of Christ act like anything but.

I could go off on how there are so many inconsistencies between Jesus Christ and the military, that the two could ever be joined in anyone’s mind but this is not the place.

All I will say is this- every time a so-called Christian forces his or her will upon another, their behavior and choices fly in the face of the Jesus that I know.

Can we all just live peaceably? I know that probably sounds like a stupid question. However, as someone very committed to my faith, married to an agnostic, close friends and related to all manner of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists, I would hope that we could all find our way.

Call me a dreamer I guess.

Your post is brilliant and so well written. It is just another reason I loathe so much about the military.

Peace.

Thank you very much, Fran. I too wish we could all coexist peacefully. It’s a shame some feel the need to force their chosen beliefs on others rather than simply using them as a guide for their own lives. While I am an atheist I do find certain religious ideals noble. In particular I am fond of the Wiccan Rede: An it harm none do what ye will. Then there is always The Golden Rule, which is not exclusive to Christianity.

The next comment is from Barbara:

Even as a Christian, I am appalled and disgusted by this sort of behavior. Discrimination and intolerance are not Christian values, no matter how many fire-and-brimstone preachers try to claim otherwise.

And it’s no wonder the Muslim world is so offended and upset by our continued military presence in their homelands, if our soldiers are being told that it’s part of their mission to serve as evangelists for the radical right.

But I thought they hated us for our freedom… Huh.

I agree. I was a Christian for about 20 years and was always deeply respectful of the rights of others to practice religion (or not) as they wished. I don’t understand the drive some have to force their chosen religion on others by evangelism, legal action and other means. What is even more astounding is the mental disconnect that allows them to see any resistance to these actions as “persecution”, but their actions as righteous and proper.

Oklahoma has joined Texas and several other states in the dumbing down of the nation’s students. Our schools are already overburdened and underfunded. But now they’ll have to deal with students squabbling over religion and being bullied by religious zealots who insist on “converting” them to save their immortal souls. Worse yet, is what the bill will mean for the status of education itself.

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

So why have tests at all? Might as well just have each student offer their opinions as to what, why and where things are. That would be as valid as anything else under this bill. After all, considering the constraints teachers will now be under they dare not challenge anything a student puts down as an answer or the student could easily come back and claim “religious discrimination”.

If a student chose to take his opportunity to speak to a group of students in a school-sanctioned assembly to tell them they must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or go to hell, then that student would have a right to do so, according to this bill. Especially, but not only if the student held a position of honor and authority (class officer, team captain), and was speaking in his or her official capacity, the school has clearly established religion in violation of both the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions.

Wonderful. Enter all of the evangelists screaming about how the LGBT students, atheists, Muslims, etc, are going to hell, because the Bible says so. Expect the bullying and hate-crime rates to escalate any time now.

The same would be true if the student chose to tell the assembled students that they would not go to hell, that there is no hell and that those who promote belief in hell are liars. What if a Wiccan student chose to tell the assembled students that the only true God is Nature, or a member of a radical religious sect advocated assassination in order to preserve God’s will? According to this bill, those students would be free, in a forum supported by the school, to do so. Any or all of these scenarios would lead to lawsuits.

That would be classified by the Christians as “persecution”, of course, as it always is. Funny how when they cram their beliefs down the throats of other people its “speaking the truth” but when others reject them or speak their own beliefs its “persecution”.

The consequence of the bill will be to create havoc and promote discord in the public schools. That’s already happening in Texas, where the bill has been law for several months. Denton, Texas Independent School District, responding to the law, has decreed that no students may ever speak in assembly, to graduation, to the crowd at an athletic event or in other group function. As reported in The Denton Record Chronicle Sept. 1, the superintendent there said if no students are ever allowed to speak, then there will be no discrimination and no basis for lawsuits. Another school superintendent in Texas said, “… we’re just trying to have school, and I think this is a complicating factor” as reported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that has spoken out against the bill.

So they’ve already discovered by experience in Texas that this insane law doesn’t work, yet it’s still being attempted in Oklahoma? Why do the legislators in Oklahoma think the results in Oklahoma will be any different? I can safely say it’s not bloody likely.

This is a foolish bill that will result in chaos, injustices, bullying and a serious downturn in the quality of education. Particularly since it has been proven faulty in another state it’s foolish to try it in Oklahoma. If parents want to send their children to a religious school they have that right. Otherwise the best option for everyone is a secular school where all rights are respected and religion is kept strictly out of the equation.