The Gaytheist Agenda

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.

It appears the Tangipahoa Parish School Board takes a long time to learn it’s lessons, because the ACLU is in the process of suing them for the seventh time for violating the civil rights of students.

In the 1990s, the ACLU sued the board on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs who were upset over prayer policies in the schools. Parents complained that youngsters were routinely pressured to take part in prayers at football games and other school events. In one case, a football coach instructed the players to bow their heads, touch someone nearby and recite the Lord’s Prayer.

The ACLU won that case. A few years later, the board got the bright idea to paste a disclaimer in its science books, warning the kids about evolution. The board lost that one, too.

Now the board is back in court again. This time, the issue is prayer before board meetings. In August 2007, the board adopted a policy stating that clergy from “religious congregations with an established presence in the local community” will be invited to give invocations prior to school board meetings. The board president gets to decide who makes the cut, essentially giving him veto power over the prayers.

“Yet again the Tangipahoa Parish School Board has indicated that it favors some residents over others, and would rather waste taxpayer money on litigation than follow the law,” Marjorie R. Esman, Executive Director of the ACLU Foundation of Louisiana, said in a press release. “The Constitution does not permit school boards to endorse or promote religion, because the government must remain neutral to religion. The Tangipahoa Parish School Board is well aware of this bedrock legal principle, but chooses to flout the law rather than to obey it.”

This new lawsuit marks the seventh time the ACLU has sued the Tangipahoa board. Many of the lawsuits have been filed on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs. They fear reprisal if their names were made public…

Many of the plaintiffs have remained anonymous fearing reprisal, yet it’s always RW Christians crying “persecution”. This school board has been sued six times previously for illegally imposing Christianity on students, yet it’s always RW Christians crying “persecution”. It’s obvious that RW Christians have no real concept of the word persecution. I also have the sneaking suspicion that the ACLU is not yet done with the Tangipahoa Parish School Board.

The evil ACLU is oppressing poor Christians again. This time they’ve swooped in to keep the name of Jesus from being spoken in public forum prayers.

“It’s very troubling for the government to dictate what kind of prayers Christians can or cannot offer in the public forum,” says Dr. Gary Cass. “Jesus taught His disciples to pray to the Father in His name. To require Christians to not pray in the name of Jesus Christ is asking them to pray contrary to their faith. By what authority does the Government deny Christians their First Amendment right to pray according to the dictates of their conscience?”

Reverend Hashmel Turner, a member of the Fredericksburg, Virginia city council, was threatened with lawsuits by from many secular anti-Christian groups, including the ACLU, for his Christian prayers during a council meeting. Turner was apart of a rotation of all the council members who would take turns praying at the council meetings. His case is currently making it’s way to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19, and would allow Christians the right to pray “in Jesus’ name” in the public forum. This case will have a tremendous impact on city councils and state legislatures throughout the United States.

Yes, Jesus taught the disciples to pray in his name (I’ll play along here). But he also said:

Matthew 6:6-7 (New International Version)

6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

Accordingly, public prayers are against the teachings of Jesus and it shouldn’t be an affront to anybody for them to be banned from the meetings.

“Just because somebody objects to praying in Jesus’ name does not mean that should Christians must deny their faith to accommodate another person’s opposing beliefs.

Herein lies the problem. People like Dr. Cass cannot understand that not imposing their faith on others is not the same as denying it. He is being asked to do the former, not the latter.

“Over 80% of American’s self-identify as Christians, but Hindu’s, Muslim’s and Jew’s have all prayed in the public forum and no one has restricted the content of their prayers and the ACLU has not threatened them.

Maybe nobody has asked the ACLU to step in, assuming the prayers offered up by Hindus, Muslims and/or Jews have in any way violated the ruling that prayers must be non-sectarian. If somebody wants the ACLU to help them they must first ask. The ACLU is not, as claimed, an anti-Christian organization and it does not take delight in searching for ways to restrict the rights of Christians. It works to ensure the civil rights of everybody, of every faith, or no faith. The problem is that those who wish to impose their faith on everyone are to blind to see that.

“The majority of Christians are subjected to non-Christian prayers, why are Christians told what they can or cannot pray? This is simply anti-Christian bigotry and an attempt to deny free speech for Christians,” said Cass.

Christians can pray anything they want, anywhere they want, as often as they want–silently. They just can’t impose their prayers on others whenever and wherever they want, particularly on the taxpayers dime. And that’s what just kills people like Dr. Cass.

I thought you might be interested in this recent press release from Americans United.

In today’s world, the separation of church and state is about so much more than school prayer or faith-based funding. Did you know the topic encompasses issues like reproductive healthcare, science education, end of life care, marriage, and medical research?

You’ll know all this and much more if you go see “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Separation of Church and State…but Were Afraid to Ask!” in a theater near you on Wednesday, March 26. (Back in the 1970s, people were afraid to ask about sex, but we’re over that now.)

The simulcast is sponsored by First Freedom First, a joint project between Americans United and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation. Americans United Executive Director, the Rev. Barry Lynn and TIAF President, the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy will sit down with celebrities (and thousands of people watching in theaters across the nation ) to discuss these important issues.

“This is a unique event that brings together celebrity commitment, civic engagement and the latest technology,” said AU’s Lynn. The simulcast will be an important educational tool “and give us an entertaining evening to boot,” he added.

The celebrities Lynn’s referring to hail from the worlds of film, television and music. The simulcast will be emceed by actor/producer Peter Coyote. Jack Klugman (“The Odd Couple”), Dan Lauria (“The Wonder Years”), Wendie Malick (“Just Shoot Me!”) and James Whitmore (“The Shawshank Redemption”) will be on hand to share why these issues matter to them. Actor and stem-cell research activist Michael J. Fox has also written and filmed a special message for the event.

Air America host Marc Maron will add some comic relief and interact with a live audience here in Washington.

For a sneak peek, checkout Jack Klugman, Dan Lauria, Wendie Malick, and James Whitmore’s “First Freedom First” videos on YouTube.

Lynn and Gaddy will also interview Americans who have put their reputations and safety on the line to defend religious freedom. They include:

 

Bryan and Christy Rehm, teachers who, with help from Americans United, expelled “Intelligent Design” from their local public high school’s science classes

Matthew LaClair, the New Jersey high school student who exposed religious indoctrination at his public school by taping his AP History teacher’s evangelistic comments

Roberta Stewart, a military widow who, with help from Americans United, secured equal rights for Wiccan veterans

Dr. Susan Wicklund, who often wears a bullet-proof vest in order to provide reproductive health services in areas where no local doctor will do so

David and Ryan Altoon, who encountered fundamentalist proselytism at the U.S. Air Force Academy

Melinda “Lindy” Maddox, an Alabama lawyer who, with help from Americans United successfully sued “Ten Commandments” Judge Roy Moore

Rev. Madison Shockley, a pastor, talk-show host and
reproductive rights advocate

Susan Jacoby, author of the best-selling new book,
The Age of American Unreason

 

You don’t want to miss these church-state heroes’ often heart wrenching, but always inspiring stories.

The event’s larger goal is to bring attention to these issues during the presidential campaign. “Presidential candidates have been asked what their favorite Bible verse is and what sins they have committed. I want to know where they stand on key issues of individual freedom,” said Lynn.

I bet you want to know, too. So, help us out! Advertise “Everything You Always Wanted to Know…” in your community, see the film on Wednesday, March 26 and then ask candidates pointed questions about how they will defend your religious liberty. Our future and freedom depends on it.

By Lauren Smith

The Freedom From Religion Foundation attempted to rent billboards in Grand Rapids, MI, as part of their Beware Dogma campaign. They were turned down.

“This is new, that a billboard company is censoring us,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The Madison, Wis.-based group, dedicated to the separation of church and state, bills itself as North America’s largest group of atheists and agnostics with 12,000 supporters.

The billboard with the words “Beware of Dogma” and the group’s Web address has been used around the country, she said.

Gaylor said CBS Outdoor Advertising in Grand Rapids declined to rent a billboard to Freeedom From Religion, telling her it had been through controversy in the past and community reaction would force the billboard down within a day. She is working with other area firms, she said, but their locations are not her first choice.

…..

The billboard has been placed in such cities as Columbus, Ohio, and Atlanta as well as in Chambersburg, Pa., where it “created a firestorm,” Gaylor said. “The billboard company badmouthed us, but took our money and put it up.”…

“Community reaction would force the billboard down within a day”? How violent a community reaction did they previously experience that would cause them to turn down legitimate business? Or do they just consider atheist customers less important than their other customers? I get the impression that it’s a little bit of both.

As to the billboards I’m perplexed over the controversy. Churches and religious organizations put up billboards routinely with no opposition from atheists. Yet when atheists, in the interests of free speech, attempt to put their own billboards there’s a virulent backlash. Is it that believers cannot stand opposing views, or that they’re afraid minds might be opened?

I get the impression that it’s a little bit of both.

That’s Christianity Or Else, the prevailing attitude of today’s military. The creeping Christian extremist takeover of the US military has made the news in recent years. For example, in October 2005 the Air Force was compelled after a lawsuit to withdraw its policy of allowing chaplains to aggressively evangelize non-Christian service members.

WASHINGTON — The Air Force has withdrawn from use by its chaplain service a code of ethics that endorsed evangelizing military service members who are not affiliated with a religion.

The move, disclosed by Air Force officials yesterday, followed a lawsuit by a Jewish graduate of the Air Force Academy, Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque. He said senior officers and cadets illegally imposed Christianity on others at the school.

…..

Jennifer Stephens, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the code of ethics was withdrawn for further review on Aug. 10. She did not say why, but stressed it was separate from a code of ethics written by the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, a private organization that provides chaplains. Its code also says military chaplains reserve the right to evangelize those who are not affiliated with any religious faith, but Stephens said the Air Force ”has no authority over the statements of that organization.”

Last week, Mary L. Walker, the Air Force’s top lawyer, wrote in a letter to Weinstein’s attorney that an Air Force chaplain service document ”might have been understood to represent such a policy statement” on evangelizing, but the document was withdrawn from use. Stephens said Walker was referring to the Air Force code of ethics statement.

Weinstein filed his suit last week in federal court in New Mexico. Among the evidence he cited was a July 12 New York Times article that quoted Air Force deputy chief of chaplains Brigadier General Cecil R. Richardson as saying, ”We will not proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched.”

The Air Force’s participation in a three-day evangelical event in Georgia last May raised Constitutional questions according to Americans United.

The event is being hosted by Task Force Patriot USA, as well as LifeWay Christian Stores, the publishing house of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), and Holman Bible Outreach International.

According to Task Force Patriot USA’s Web site, the organization exists “for the purpose of sharing the fullness of life in Jesus Christ with all U.S. military, military veterans and families,” and “Christ is our Commander-in-Chief.” The group’s logo is a shield centered with a Christian cross with its sides bracketed by an American flag and Christian flag.

The May 26-28 event at Stone Mountain Park is billed as a “Salute To The Troops, Memorial Day Celebration,” but the program includes a Christian worship service and heavy emphasis on evangelical outreach.

The event will feature hourly flyovers by Air Force Jets, including B-2 stealth bombers, parachute jumps by the U.S. Army’s Silver Wings Parachute Jump Team and speeches from top military and former military officials and evangelical Christian preachers, including the former SBC president, Bobby Welch.

An events schedule from Task Force Patriot USA’s Web site lists as speakers military officials, such as U.S. Air Force Major Brian “Jethro” Neal, a B-2 pilot, who is to give his personal “testimony” during a worship service that is to feature a B-2 flyover.

A few months later the Military Religious Freedom Foundation had to take the Pentagon to task. Apparently the Pentagon had planned to send American soldiers in Iraq “freedom packages”.

What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which “soldiers for Christ” hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.

The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU. Headed by former kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU is an official member of the Defense Department’s “America Supports You” program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the “Military Crusade.”

Apparently the wonks at the Pentagon forgot that Muslims tend to bristle at the word “crusade” and thought that what the Iraq war lacked was a dose of end-times theology.

In the end, the Defense Department realized the folly of participating in any Operation Straight Up crusade. But the episode is just another example of increasingly disturbing, and indeed unconstitutional, relationships being forged between the U.S. military and private evangelical groups.

The MRFF finally laid it all out with a lawsuit (actually a wave of lawsuits) that definitively alleged that Christianity is mandatory in the US military.

INFLUENCE OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST & APOCALYPTIC CHRISTIAN RIGHT IN THE US MILITARY

1. Uncovered preliminary evidence that top Pentagon officials who appeared in the Christian Embassy video, the subject of a Pentagon Inspector General’s report, may have lied in their testimony to the inspector general.

…..

3. Documented the apocalyptic theological views of the US Army’s new head of chaplains, Douglas L. Carver.

4. Discovered that, in 2005, the Pentagon invited evangelist Dave Kistler into the Pentagon, along with ministry volunteers who brought Kistler’s ministry PA system, to give two consecutive sermons in the Pentagon courtyard at lunch while Pentagon employees were eating their lunch. The Pentagon’s head chaplain called this “cutting edge evangelism”.

5. Uncovered a pattern of Christian nationalist public events held last summer, across the US (details to be released in upcoming MRFF lawsuits) which featured Pentagon endorsements of various kinds violating DoD regulations on the endorsement of religious groups.

6. Investigated alallegations of anti-Semitism at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. That research, in turn, led to the exposure of an egregious anti-semitic incident at Fort Stewart in Georgia.

…..

8. In general, conducted an unprecedented survey into the influence of the Christian right in the US military, that we’ll soon be publishing, provisionally under the title “The MRFF report” (stay tuned). Never before has anyone attempted even a remotely comprehensive survey of this research area. Jeffrey Scahill’s book on Blackwater was a fine piece of work… But, this is more central still - Blackwater is big, but the Pentagon is truly vast, and the work Chris and I have done, for MRFF, has demonstrated an extent of influence never before recognized.

But the Christian extremism and intolerance has yet to end. Case in point,Jeremy Hall.

Remember the story about the soldier in Iraq who tried to organize an atheist group at his camp and had the first meeting broken up by an officer? His name is Jeremy Hall and he is now suing the Pentagon, backed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. And it looks like that was not the only incident where officers mistreated him because of his atheism:

“Immediately after plaintiff made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking … staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist,” says the lawsuit, a copy of which was provided to Truthout. “The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response caused the staff sergeant to tell plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal.”

…..

Moreover, the complaint alleges that on August 7, when Hall received permission by an Army chaplain to organize a meeting of other soldiers who shared his atheist beliefs, his supervisor, Army Major Paul Welborne, broke up the gathering and threatened to retaliate against the soldier by charging him with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The complaint also alleges that Welborne vowed to block Hall’s reenlistment in the Army if the atheist group continued to meet - a violation of Hall’s First Amendment rights under the Constitution. Welborne is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Things have gone from bad to worse for Spc. Hall since then.

TOPEKA, Kan. - A soldier claimed Wednesday that his promotion was blocked because he had claimed in a lawsuit that the Army was violating his right to be an atheist.
ADVERTISEMENT

Attorneys for Spc. Jeremy Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation refiled the federal lawsuit Wednesday in Kansas City, Kan., and added a complaint alleging that the blocked promotion was in response to the legal action.

The suit was filed in September but dropped last month so the new allegations could be included. Among the defendants are Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

…..

According to the lawsuit, Hall was counseled by his platoon sergeant after being informed that his promotion was blocked. He says the sergeant explained that Hall would be “unable to put aside his personal convictions and pray with his troops” and would have trouble bonding with them if promoted to a leadership position.

Hall responded that religion is not a requirement of leadership, even though the sergeant wondered how he had rights if atheism wasn’t a religion. Hall said atheism is protected under the Army’s chaplain’s manual.

“It shouldn’t matter if one is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist,” said Pedro Irigonegaray, an attorney whose firm filed the lawsuit. “In the military, all are equal and to be considered equal.”

…..

Hall’s attorneys say Fort Riley has permitted a culture promoting Christianity and anti-Islamic sentiment, including posters quoting conservative columnist Ann Coulter and sale of a book, “A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam,” at the post exchange.

…..

If I had my druthers I’d do this. Given that the military is hell-bent on discriminating so strongly against not only gay people but non-Christians, I would advocate for anybody who fell into that category to simply not enlist or get out at their earliest opportunity. The military is already hurting for recruits regardless of whatever monetary bonuses and other incentives they offer. Imagine how much more they’d suffer if their candidate pool dropped by the number of gay and non-Christian people that would be choosing not to participate in their discriminatory organization.

Of course I know my fantasy is impractical for a number of reasons. There are a variety of reasons non-Christians and gay individuals choose to serve in the military despite the bigotries they face. Nonetheless I can envision a mass boycott if for no other reason than for my own personal satisfaction.

But, of course, legal and advocacy organizations will keep up the good fight to end the bigotry against non-Christians so that all may serve openly and equally. As it should be.