Atheism Is a Belief Part 1

As an atheist, I believe that atheism is a belief, or more accurately a set of related beliefs, and that it is not merely an absence of belief. This is the first in a series of articles in which I will tease out my thinking on this. I would welcome any feedback as I do so.

I realise that many atheists today choose to interpret the word “atheism” to mean simply a lack of belief that gods exist. This interpretation has its uses in, for example, shifting the burden of proof in debates.

But I believe that this is a mistake, both etymologically and practically. Here’s why.

THE LABEL SUGGESTS BELIEF

The idea that atheism is not a belief is based on breaking the word “atheism” into “a-” (meaning absence of) and “-theism” (meaning belief in a god). But that is not how the word evolved. The word “theism” did not exist when the word “atheism” entered the English language.

The word “atheism” began as “atheos” (meaning godless, in ancient Greek). The suffix “-ism” was later added onto it (or, technically, “-isme”, in French, before being translated into English). The correct breakdown is “athe-” (from godless) and “-ism” (meaning, broadly, a belief or a set of related beliefs about something).

Etymologically, atheism is a belief or set of related beliefs about godlessness or the absence of gods. It is the “-ism” of godlessness, not the “a-” of theism. That is why dictionaries typically define atheism as some variation of the belief that gods do not exist.

THE CONCEPT SUGGESTS BELIEF

More importantly, the concept of atheism (the idea that the label points to) is in practical terms a belief system. Atheism exists within our minds, along with our other beliefs. If it was merely an absence of one belief, and nothing else, then in practical terms it would not exist or we would not be aware of it.

Once you are exposed to the idea that gods may or may not exist, you automatically form a belief about this. You either believe (on balance) that gods exist, or you believe (on balance) that gods do not exist, or theoretically you could believe that there is precisely a 50-50 chance of gods existing or not existing (which is itself a belief).

It is true that the atheist response, when exposed to this idea, involves an absence of believing that gods exist. But that does not mean that we also have an absence of any beliefs about the idea of the existence of gods.

Whatever each of us believes about whether or not gods exist, we believe that. It is merely a trick of language to suggest that our belief (whatever it is) is simply the absence of a different belief, and nothing else.

WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE?

Atheists differ in how we define our atheism, and each of these self-definitions is a reflection of our many individual beliefs. However, there are some beliefs that seem to follow neccessarily from the essence of atheism.

Here are three beliefs that I believe all atheists share. These beliefs can each be phrased negatively or positively, but they are in essence the same beliefs.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods exist. Atheists believe that the idea of supernatural gods was invented by humans, and that it exists only as an imagined idea within the minds of some people.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods reveal the nature of reality to human beings. Atheists believe that we as natural beings must discover for ourselves the nature of reality.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods dictate our ethics or behaviour. Atheists believe that we as natural beings must decide ourselves how best to live together as fellow sentient beings.

BELIEF DOES NOT MEAN CERTAINTY

None of these beliefs implies certainty. It is impossible for anybody to be certain about anything. None of these beliefs even requires rational thinking, although rational thinking certainly leads to them more easily.

But they are beliefs, not merely the absence of beliefs, and I believe that they are the core beliefs at the essence of atheism. As I mentioned at the start of this post, I would welcome any feedback as I tease out my thinking on this.

 

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Welcome to Atheist Ireland

I had the honour last Sunday of being elected the first chairperson of Atheist Ireland, which is Ireland’s first atheist advocacy group. Our mission to provide a platform for people who wish to work together to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.

We have two aims. One, to promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. And two, to promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the State does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

Our priority goals include promoting our aims, initially to Irish people of no religion, and campaigning for a secular Irish Constitution and a secular Irish education system.

We will be launching the group formally in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we would welcome any help or interest from people with relevant experience. If you want to find out more or get involved, please visit the discussion forum at www.atheist.ie, which is the website that brought together the friendly and committed group of people who have founded Atheist Ireland.

Meanwhile, here is some background on three of our immediate goals:

Promoting Atheism and Reason

Many people define atheism in different ways, and most atheists also share common values that arise from our belief that we are natural beings living a natural world. We will promote a greater understanding of atheism in Ireland, and of the benefits of reason and science and evidence over superstition and supernaturalism. We will do this through debate, publications and networking with relevant groups.

At first, we will focus our attention on Irish people of no religion. In the 2006 Irish census, there were almost 190,000 of these. And another 70,000 did not answer the question about religion. That is over a quarter of a million people, more than 6% of the population, and considerably more than 6% of the adult population as most children are likely to have been included under the religion of their parents.

Promoting a Secular Irish Constitution

The preamble to the Irish Constitution states that all authority of both men and States comes from “the Most Holy Trinity”, and that the people of Ireland humbly acknowledge our obligations to “our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ”. Actually, all authority (in the sense of legitimate power) comes from agreed relationships between people, and not from any gods that some of those people imagine to exist.

Article 44 begins with an extraordinary claim: “The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God.” This is not a guarantee of the right of Irish citizens to worship a god, but of the right of this god to be worshipped by Irish citizens. The next line—the State “shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion”—also protects the rights of this god, not the rights of Irish citizens. And the State’s respect for religion flows from the rights of this god to be revered, not from the rights of its citizens to revere it.

Articles 12, 31 and 34 prescribe religious oaths in which the President, Councillors of State and Judges must ask God to direct and sustain them. Article 40 makes blasphemy an offence. Partly because of these references in our Constitution, the courts have found that certain personal rights of Irish citizens “flow from the Christian and democratic nature of the State”.

Promoting a Secular Education System

We believe that children should to be educated on an equal basis, regardless of the religious beliefs of their parents. As an overall aim, the State should own at least a majority of Irish schools, and should manage them with a rational, secular ethos. As an immediate short-term goal, we are going to focus on the issue of schoolchildren being able to opt out of religious education classes.

Members Welcome

We have other short-term goals, some of which are about the practicalities of setting up a new national organisation. As I mentioned earlier, we will be launching the group formally in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we would welcome any help or interest from people with relevant experience. If you want to find out more or get involved, please visit the discussion forum at www.atheist.ie.

Photo: Ireland Landscape by Obbino (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Atheism is a Positive Belief

Atheism is a passive label for a positive, radical belief system: the assertion that reality is natural, and that we as natural beings are responsible for interpreting and governing our lives without being directed by imaginary supernatural beings.

Atheists believe that we live in a natural world, which is part of a natural universe, which may be part of a wider natural reality. And we believe that we, as natural thinking sentient beings, are responsible for discovering the nature of all of this reality, for forming ethical judgments and for governing our lives. As an important part of this belief system, we reject the idea that gods exist, but the core of our belief is the positive assertion that reality is natural.

As it happens, most but not all atheists also typically share some other beliefs and values. We usually believe in rational thinking, ethical behaviour and secular government. So, in practice, this is an extra set of secondary beliefs that most but not all atheists can also unite around. But the core belief that we all share is that reality is natural, and free from supernatural direction.

The Label Atheism

For whatever historical reasons, the word ‘atheism’ happens to be the label that has become most associated with this particular view of the world. Etymologically, the label ‘atheism’ seems to be passive (it derives from the Greek ‘atheos’, meaning ungodly). But the concept that the label points to is a positive naturalistic belief system.

The belief that reality is natural, and that we as thinking sentient beings are responsible for discovering the nature of this reality and forming ethical judgments and governing our lives, is not an added set of positive beliefs, separate from the absence of a belief in gods. Instead, these positive beliefs are at the core of the concept labelled ‘atheism’.

The passive etymology of the label is a distraction. Many passive labels also describe positive concepts. The label ‘freedom’ means not being coerced, but the positive concept that it describes is the ability to make our own choices. Fearless people are brave. Nonsectarian people are tolerant. Blameless people are innocent. Nongovernmental groups are independent. And atheists believe that reality is natural.

Using Other Labels

Historically, many atheists have tried to address this issue by adopting labels that sound more positive than the label ‘atheism’. We can call ourselves humanists, rationalists, secularists, freethinkers and a host of other names. All of these labels serve useful purposes, and there are times when I would describe myself in each of these terms.

But none of these labels capture the core, the essence, of the radical belief system that we share, as effectively as the word ‘atheist’ does. For whatever historical reasons, ‘atheism’ happens to be the label that has become most associated with our core beliefs. So, in practice, choosing not to use the label serves to marginalise the concept.

We may choose to use another label, because we are uncomfortable with the label atheist. But, to others, what comes across is that we are uncomfortable with the concept of atheism. Or we may choose to define atheism as a passive absence-of-belief, because it puts the onus of proof on theists in debates. Which is tactically useful in certain circumstances.

Using the Label Atheist

Instead, I believe that we should use the label atheist with integrity and pride. We should seek to reframe it as the positive, radical belief system that it represents. And we should assertively challenge theists whenever they use the idea of gods to dictate how we live our lives.

As atheists, we can and should campaign on such issues as rational thinking, ethical behaviour and secular government. We should do this as individuals, as groups of atheists, and as part of wider campaigns that include people with any beliefs about gods.

But it is only by adopting the label atheist, with integrity and pride, that we can also promote our radical core belief: that reality is natural, and that we as natural beings are responsible for interpreting and governing our own lives without being directed by imaginary supernatural beings.

Photo: In Celebration by Midirisyu (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Atheist and Humanist Groups

How do Atheist groups differ from Humanist groups? And how can we best work together to promote a rational, ethical and secular society?

This article examines the aims of American Atheists, Atheist Alliance International, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and ten Atheist or Humanist groups in various countries around the world, and concludes:

(1) The labels are unimportant in themselves. Most atheists and most humanists share most of the same fundamental beliefs and values. We reject the idea that gods exist and all that follows from that idea, and we usually support rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government.

(2) The labels are useful in practice. They enable independently-minded people to socialise and bond together using whatever self-description that we each feel most comfortable with, and whatever nuances of emphasis that we each prefer. They can also enable us to promote our aims using whatever label we feel is most useful in different circumstances, whether that be atheist, humanist, secularist, rationalist, skeptical or freethought. 

(3) If we are to achieve a rational, ethical, secular society, then all people and groups who reject the idea that gods exist should work together, in a series of shifting alliances, on a series of issue-based campaigns and projects, at whatever level of involvement we feel most comfortable. We should find ways to use our differences in emphasis to jointly promote our shared aims.

In this article, I examine: What is atheism? What is humanism? How do atheism and humanism differ? What do Atheist groups want? What do Humanist groups want? How do Atheist and Humanist groups differ? And how can we best work together to promote a rational, ethical, secular society?

1. What is Atheism?

Many people define atheism in different ways, but all atheists reject the idea that gods exist. Some people define weak atheists as people who lack a belief that gods exist, and strong atheists as people who have a belief that gods do not exist. Some people define agnosticism as a subset of atheism, because agnostics lack a belief that gods exist. And some pragmatic atheists simply ignore the idea of gods as being in practice irrelevant to their lives.

But how do active atheists define themselves? American Atheists, which was founded in 1963, is an umbrella network for over sixty affiliated Atheist groups. It grew out of two legal cases related to separation of church and state. In those cases, they defined Atheism as including: “An Atheist seeks to know his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death… He wants an ethical way of life… He believes that we are our brothers’ keepers, and are keepers of our own lives, that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

Atheist Alliance International, which was founded in 1991, is another umbrella network for almost sixty Atheist groups, most in the United States and the rest in ten other countries. Atheist Alliance International promotes these beliefs and values: (1) Atheism is living one’s life without the supernatural. (2) Every human being is entitled to freedom of conscience. (3) Scientific inquiry has proved the best process for improving the physical welfare of humankind. (4) Human compassion and empathy are crucial to improving the human condition. (5) Reason and cooperation are essential to meeting the challenges that confront humankind. (6) We are responsible for humane interaction with other animals and for the preservation of our habitable planet. (7) Humanistic atheists work toward fostering cooperative diversity among humans.

2. What is Humanism?

Many people define humanism in different ways, and some may call themselves secular humanists or even religious humanists. The International Humanist and Ethical Union, which was founded in 1952, promotes one set of widely accepted definitions. The IHEU brings together over 100 Humanist and related groups in more than 40 countries. (The IHEU call their life-stance Humanist, with a capital H and no qualifying adjectives. I follow this custom in this article.)

All member groups of the IHEU must agree this minimum statement: “Humanism is a democratic and ethical life-stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.”

In Amsterdam in 2002, the IHEU adopted these points as defining world Humanism: (1) Humanism is ethical. (2) Humanism is rational. (3) Humanism supports democracy and human rights. (4) Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. (5) Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. (6) Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. (7) Humanism is a life stance aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living.

3. How do Atheism and Humanism differ?

Technically, Humanists include some but not all atheists. Some people say atheism is simply the absence of a belief in gods, while Humanism is a specific naturalistic life-stance. (Humanists coined the word life-stance to describe a person’s relationship with whatever they accept as being of ultimate importance. The word life-stance can be applied, neutrally, to religion and alternatives to religion). So let us examine this proposition.

In reality, atheism is more than simply the absence of a belief in gods. If you reject the idea that gods exist, you automatically also reject the ideas that gods are responsible for revealing truths about reality, or creating ethical judgments, or governing our lives. So you automatically accept that we as humans are responsible for self-determining these aspects of our lives. This is not an added positive belief, separate from atheism: it is a necessary part of atheism to automatically adopt a positive naturalistic life-stance.

What, then, of the specific principles of the life-stance labelled Humanist? For most atheists, they are simply the type of principles that flow naturally from the type of thinking that led us to atheism in the first place: rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government. The life-stance of most atheists is broadly the same as the life-stance of most Humanists.

Atheism and Humanism are, therefore, in most cases, two different labels for the same thing: rejecting the idea that gods exist and adopting broadly the same naturalistic life-stance under one or other label. So why do some people prefer one label over the other? Is it merely because of the etymology of the labels? Or is there a serious difference of emphasis? To examine this further, let’s look at the aims of ten sample groups in different countries.

4. What do Atheist groups want?

Explicitly ‘Atheist’ groups share a broadly similar core of aims, adapted to local circumstances. As one example of the many such groups in the USA, the Atheist Coalition of San Diego has these aims: (1) To keep a firm, tall, and wide wall separating church and state. (2) To promote atheism as a worthwhile and wholesome point of view. (3) To promote science literacy.

The IBKA in Germany has these aims: (1) To represent the political interests of non-religious, agnostics and atheists. (2) To support human rights, rational thinking, individual self-determination and tolerance. (3) To support the separation of church and state. (4) To criticize religion as an ideology, and the socio-political role of the churches.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has these aims: (1) To encourage informed free-thought on philosophical and social issues. (2) To safeguard the rights of all non-religious people. (3) To serve as a focal point for the fellowship of non-religious people. (4) To offer reliable information in place of superstition and to offer the methodology of reason in place of faith. (5) To promote atheism.

Atheist Centre in India has two broad sets of aims: (1) To counsel victims of, and to challenge, issues such as the untouchability and caste systems, superstitions, witchcraft and sorcery. (2) To promote issues such as science, ecology, environment, social cohesion, sex education, family planning, and secular and humanist education, art and culture.

The Atheist Association of Finland has these aims: (1) To protect the legal and cultural interests of atheists. (2) To separate the state from both state churches. (3) To enlighten and educate citizens. (4) To promote freedom of atheism, religion, belief and civil rights. (5) To promote secular and atheistic culture. (6) To investigate scientific atheism.

5. What do Humanist groups want?

Explicitly ‘Humanist’ groups also share a broadly similar core of aims, again adapted to local circumstances. The American Humanist Association has these aims: (1) To be a clear, democratic voice for Humanism. (2) To increase public awareness and acceptance of Humanism. (3) To establish, protect and promote the position of Humanists in society. (4) To develop and advance Humanist thought and action.

The Society for Humanism Nepal has these aims: (1) A rational society wherein all enjoy equal status as human beings. (2) To influence people from all walks of life. (3) To promote a scientific way of life. (4) To promote democracy and justice with a Humanist bias. (5) To promote Humanistic ethical practices. (6) To raise awareness about human obligation.

The Humanist Society of South Australia has these aims: (1) To promote a Humanist approach to personal living and society. (2) To facilitate Humanist interaction and communication. (3) To lobby State and Federal Governments about important issues of the day. (4) To tackle issues on which politicians have a “conscience vote”. (5) To hold social events and outings.

The British Humanist Association has these aims: (1) To promote Humanism. (2) To support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. (3) To work for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech. (4) To work for an end to the privileged position of religion - and Christianity in particular - in society.

The Nigerian Humanist Movement has these aims: (1) A rational, constructive approach to human affairs. (2) To offer a positive alternative to all religious and dogmatic creeds. (3) To uphold and defend the human rights of Humanists and of the general public. (4) To improve social conditions. (5) To support the widest conception of education and enlightenment.

6. How do Atheist and Humanist groups differ?

Most Atheist and Humanist groups share broadly the same fundamental aims, though each group phrases them differently. They usually support rational enquiry into the nature of reality, mutual empathy as the basis of ethical relations, and secular equality as the basis of civic government. And they usually campaign to promote these aims within society.

There are some differences in emphasis. Some groups that label themselves as Atheist can be more assertive in how they campaign, and less deterred by how others might perceive the word atheist. Some groups that label themselves as Humanist can be more focused on creating a common Humanist identity as an alternative to religion, and may conduct secular services for weddings, baby-naming and funerals.

But these differences in emphasis do not depend on the labels. Any of the above groups could conduct their activities with integrity under the label Atheist or Humanist, or indeed Secularist, Rationalist, Skeptical, Freethought or Freedom from Religion. In practice, the labels and activities of each group reflect the diversity of personalities and self-definitions among independent thinkers, and the historical and social circumstances in which each group operates. 

For example, Britain has three main national groups that have been active since Victorian times. The National Secular Society, founded in 1866, campaigns against religious influence in government, education and public life. The British Humanist Association, founded in 1896, campaigns on the same issues, and also conducts secular funerals, weddings and baby-namings. The Rationalist Association, founded in 1899, supports and promotes humanism and rational enquiry and opposes religious dogma, primarily through publishing. 

In other countries, similar groups were formed in different times, in different circumstances, and with different labels. However, while the labels are unimportant in themselves, they are useful in practice. They enable independently-minded people to socialise and bond together using whatever self-description that we each feel most comfortable with, and whatever nuances of emphasis that we each prefer. And they can enable us to work together on shared aims, using whatever label they feel is most useful in different circumstances.

7. How can we best work together?

Here are ten things that people who reject the idea that gods exist can do together to promote a rational, ethical and secular society, whether or not we choose to join an organised group. Naturally, as we are independently-minded people, each of us will do only whatever combination of these things that we feel comfortable with. But we should find ways to use our differences in emphasis to jointly promote our shared aims.

1. Act as an individual to support relevant groups and campaigns.

2. Join any group or groups that reflect your own preferred self-description.

3. Establish a new group or groups with like-minded people. The group can be based on a shared geographic area, or a shared interest in a specific topic.

4. Don’t try to represent all of the people who reject the idea that gods exist. Just set a specific set of aims for your group, and work to promote those specific aims.

5. Keep the aims and structure simple. Keep the focus outward, on promoting your aims within society. Encourage initiative and avoid complicated approval procedures for activities.

6. Build alliances of small autonomous groups, if necessary with with overlapping memberships. If a group gets too big to function effectively, split it into two groups. Join relevant umbrella networks, whatever label they may use.

7. Respond to relevant issues as they arise. Write to or telephone the media. Question politicians and institutions. Discuss topical issues with friends and colleagues.

8. Run specific pro-active campaigns or projects on specific issues. Each campaign or project can be jointly organised by any combination of groups and or individuals.

9. Brand each campaign or project distinctly, so that it can be supported by people who may not agree on other issues that are distinct from that specific campaign. Have specific, measurable and achievable goals. Keep your focus on a manageable number of projects at a time.

10. Each campaign or project could focus on one specific aspect of: (a) promoting scientific enquiry and challenging dogmatic creeds about the nature of reality; (b) promoting mutual empathy and challenging supernatural commands as the basis of ethical relations; or (c) promoting secular equality and challenging religious control as the basis of civic society.

Image: Godless Americans March on Washington by Anosmia (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.

Why Atheism is Important

The idea of gods is bad for society, because it spreads irrational dogma that causes good people to do bad things. This affects three practical areas of our lives: the quest for knowledge, treating people fairly, and civic society.

Rational thinking makes the following more likely: Enquiry: an ongoing unbiased quest for knowledge and truth. Empathy: adult ethics, based on relating to other living beings. Equality: a secular society that protects everybody’s rights.

And irrational dogma makes the following more likely: Creeds: accepting, as truth, imaginary answers to big questions. Commands: childish ethics, based on orders, desire and fear. Control: unjust laws that are influenced by religious dogma.

Enquiry vs Creeds

Nearly four thousand years ago, a man gazed inquisitively at the night sky over what is today near Baghdad, and he started to record the movement of the stars. This scientific breakthrough was used to create omens, such as: ‘If in month one the Demon with the Gaping Mouth rises heliacally, for five years there will be plague, but it will not affect cattle’. Today NASA has mapped the oldest lights in the universe, the ancient Babylonian omens have evolved into vacuous horoscopes, and religions have embedded gods into seasonal celebrations of nature.

Throughout time, this is the pattern of the quest for knowledge. Inquisitive and rational thinking has steadily helped us to understand more about how nature works – the latest major breakthrough being the map of the human genome, the ‘book of life’ which will dramatically improve healthcare – while superstitious and dogmatic thinking has hindered and corrupted this quest for knowledge, by teaching imaginary answers instead of seeking the truth, with the odd stoning to death or roasting alive thrown in for people who dared to disagree.

Empathy vs Commands

When I was five, I knew that I had to be good coming up to Christmas because Santa Claus was looking down from the North Pole and judging the behaviour of every child in the world. For many adults today, an imaginary creator of the universe has taken over Santa’s job – God’s making a list, he’s checking it twice; he’s going to find out who’s naughty or nice – except this time, instead of a present or an empty stocking, you get the bliss of paradise or the torment of hell, for eternity, after you die.

Throughout time, religious belief has corrupted our morality, by extending childish thinking into adulthood. The reason that we should be fair to other people, and to all sentient beings, is because we relate to them as fellow living beings. This is known as the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. It is common to atheists, agnostics and theists alike. It requires no belief in gods, particularly gods that boast of drowning every living being in the world except the passengers on an ark.

Equality vs Control

In Ireland in 2007, an advert for slimming pills was banned because the company could not substantiate its implausible claim to ‘soak up’ fat from your food. This is how society protects vulnerable people from being conned. In the same week, the Pope announced an even more unsustainable special offer: if you visited Lourdes within a year, you would get a free ‘plenary indulgence’ and early release from Purgatory after you die, thus getting you to Heaven faster. But there was no legal mechanism to protect vulnerable people from being conned by this claim.

Throughout time, religious leaders have influenced the law and culture of civic society. Today, many States officially protect, subsidise, encourage or even enforce religious dogma at the expense of the rights of their citizens. In recent years, Islamic States have sentenced homosexuals to death and a female rape victim to be lashed. More subtly, an atheist would be almost unelectable as President of America. In a State that respects everybody’s rights, government should be secular, culture should be pluralist, and beliefs should be personal.

Image: Pantheon of Gods by Grizzli (cc)

Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.