The case for a secular education system

This is the second in a series of articles on secular education and human rights law. The first article is here.

Secular schools are neither religious nor atheist

There are two reasons why State schools should be run on a secular basis. But first, it is important to explain that a secular school is not the same thing as an atheist school.

A religious school teaches that a god exists, an atheist school would teach that no gods exist, and a secular school is neutral on the question of religion: it does not teach that gods either do or do not exist.

Instead, a secular school teaches children in a neutral, objective way about the different beliefs that different people have about gods, and leaves it up to parents and churches to teach specific religious beliefs outside of school hours.

As a symbolic example, a recent European court case ruled that Italian schools should not display crucifixes on classroom walls. But removing the crucifixes would not turn the school into an atheist school: that would require replacing the crucifixes with signs saying that there is no god. A classroom wall with no religious symbols of any type would symbolise a secular school.

Secular schools are good for society

That said, here are the two reasons why State schools should be run on a secular basis.

Firstly, it is good for society for children to be educated together. We in Ireland can see from the recent history of Northern Ireland how separate schooling contributed to the problems of children understanding and respecting each other across religious divides.

Secular schools bring children together. They teach them the normal subjects that have a basis in scientific fact, like mathematics and languages and history and critical thinking. They teach them about different religious beliefs and help them to understand other beliefs and respect other people.

And, outside of school hours, the children’s parents and churches can teach them more about their own specific beliefs about the nature of reality and personal morality.

Secular schools respect human rights

Secondly, in practical terms, secular schools are the only way to ensure that everybody has their human rights respected with regard to education.

Under international human rights law, parents have a right to have their children educated in a way that is consistent with their religious or philosophical beliefs. I will outline in a later article the reasons why this is so.

At a minimum, this means that schools should not indoctrinate children with religious beliefs that conflict with those of their parents.

In theory, this could be done by having schools based on every religious view and atheism, and to have enough of these schools spread around the country so that, in practice, each child can attend one suitable to their circumstances.

In practice, this impossible to do. There is simply not enough money to provide so many schools, and even if there was it would be an administrative nightmare.

So that leaves the other option: have secular schools that are neutral with regard to religious beliefs, as I have described above. This option respects the human rights of all children equally. That is what a fair and just society would do.

The case for secular education

Combine both reasons, and the argument is clear. Secular schools are good for society, because they help children to understand differences and respect other people; and secular schools are the only way in practice to respect the human rights of all of our parents and children.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist Conference in Denmark in June

I look forward to speaking at an international atheist conference titled “Gods & Politics” in Copenhagen, Denmark, from June 18-20, 2010.

It is the first Atheist Alliance International conference to be held in Europe, and is co-hosted by AAI and the Danish Atheist Society.

The venue is the Royal Danish Library also known as “The Black Diamond”.

It would be great if as many atheist activists as possible from Europe and beyond can attend this conference, as atheism is a concept that crosses national boundaries and we can all learn from each other and support each other in our advocacy work in our respective countries.

The full list of speakers is:
AC Grayling (UK)
Aroup Chatterjee (UK)
Brian Arly Jacobsen (DK)
Christer Sturmark (SE)
Dan Barker (US)
Gregory Paul (US)
Ivana Bacik (IRE)
Jens Morten Hansen (DK)
Lone Frank (DK)
Michael Nugent (IRE)
Mikael Rothstein (DK)
PZ Myers (US)
Paula Kirby (UK)
Per Bilde (DK)
Rebecca Goldstein (US)
Rebecca Watson (UK)
Richard Wiseman (UK)
Robin Ince (UK)
Simon Bressendorff (DK)
Taslima Nasrin (US)
Victor Stenger (US)

You can get further information at http://www.godsandpolitics.eu

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist Ireland’s 25 blasphemous quotes

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we in Atheist Ireland begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law

We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.

If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland

1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Campaign for a secular Irish constitution

Today is the first International Blasphemy Day, run by the Center For Inquiry as part of its Campaign for Free Expression. Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group for an ethical and secular Ireland: see details in these Irish Times articles on the Irish blasphemy law and our first AGM.

Atheist Ireland is seeking your help today to launch and shape a new long-term campaign with two important aims: to repeal the new Irish blasphemy law and to attain a secular Irish Constitution. Specifically, we are asking you to do three things: send us a message of support, get actively involved in shaping this project, and lobby to persuade Irish politicians to pursue these policies.

We will soon be holding public meetings around Ireland to launch this campaign. We want it to include religious and nonreligious people working together, within Ireland and with international support. The campaign has one common aim that transcends any other differences we may have: that all Irish citizens, of all beliefs and none, can live together in equality, with the State being neutral on matters of religion.

In recent decades, several independent and all-party committees (most whose members were Christians) have repeatedly called for an end to discrimination against nonreligious citizens in our Constitution. Not only has this not been done, but a new religious crime has now been created. The blasphemy law is the final straw. We need a secular Irish Constitution, and we need it now. Please help to make this happen.

Our Immediate Aim: Repeal the Blasphemy Law

The Defamation Act 2009 makes blasphemy a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine, after the Minister for Justice signs the commencement order in mid-October. Blasphemy is defined as “matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion” with safeguards to make it harder to prosecute.

Regardless of the detail, it is wrong in principle for a modern democratic republic to have any type of blasphemy law. Theological thought-crimes belong in the past. Religious and nonreligious people alike should be protected from harm and incitement to harm, but religious and nonreligious ideas alike should be open to any criticism. That is how human knowledge progresses. Blasphemy laws discriminate against nonreligious citizens, by protecting the fundamental beliefs of religious citizens only.

This law also has serious international impacts. Irish citizens could face blasphemy charges elsewhere under the European Arrest Warrant. Also, Islamic States are lobbying at the UN to make defamation of religion a crime internationally. Ireland has voted along with the other EU States against this, because Islamic States can use blasphemy laws to justify religious persecution. These Islamic States can now point to a modern pluralist Western State passing a new blasphemy law in the 21st century.

Our Overall Aim: A Secular Irish Constitution

We have a blasphemy law because the Irish Constitution of 1937 says we should have one. And our Constitution also discriminates against nonreligious citizens in many other ways. For example, you cannot become President or a Judge unless you take a religious oath asking God to direct and sustain your work. So up to a quarter of a million Irish people cannot hold these offices without swearing a lie. This is contrary to Ireland’s obligations under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Preamble states that all authority of the State comes from, and all actions of the State must be referred to, the Most Holy Trinity. Article 44 states that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God and that the State shall hold His Name in reverence. This is not merely an assertion of the right of citizens to worship this god. It is an assertion of the right of this god to be worshipped by citizens.

The Constitution also contains many other references to this god and to religion generally. Our national parliament reflects this by starting each day’s business with a prayer explicitly asking the Christian God to direct all of their actions. Under this guidance, they have legislated for many public policies that are heavily influenced by religion.

We should be removing these 1930s religious references from our Constitution, not creating new crimes to enforce them seventy years later. A modern secular Constitution would allow all citizens, whether religious or nonreligious, to live together as equals with the State being neutral on matters of religion.

Our Request to You: Please Help This Campaign

The blasphemy law is the final straw. We now need a secular Irish Constitution. We will soon be holding public meetings around the country to shape this campaign for equality for and by all Irish citizens, of any or no religious beliefs. But we will be much more likely to succeed if we have national and international support.

Here are three ways that you can help:

• One, please send us a message of support. Just a few lines will do. We want to be able to show that there is a wide support for these ideals.
• Two, please let us know if you would like to get actively involved in any way. You are more than welcome to help shape how this project evolves.
• Three, in whatever way you can, please help to lobby Irish politicians at national and international level to implement these policies.

This will be a lengthy campaign, but a very worthwhile one that you can be proud to have played your part in. We look forward to working alongside you to build an ethical and secular Ireland.

Michael Nugent
Chairperson
Atheist Ireland

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist Ireland radio interview

Earlier this week, I was a guest of Simon Maher (pictured here) on the Dublin radio station Phantom 105.2 FM, where we discussed atheism in Ireland, in the context of the UK atheist bus adverts, and the formation of the new advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

Here’s a recording of the interview, and a complete transcript.

Recording

You can listen to the interview here.

Atheists in Ireland

Simon Maher: We were talking last week about the atheist bus campaign in England, where there are advertising posters saying ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’ And it got us talking generally about religion and atheism, and we said let’s try and apply it to an Irish context. And luckily enough there is a man called Michael Nugent who is a well known blogger at michaelnugent.com, where he writes about happiness, atheism and life, and a man who we’ve tallked to before here on Phantom Daily, and he joins us here in the studio. Good afternoon, Michael. Good to have you with us in the studio today.

Michael Nugent: Good afternoon. It’s nice to be here enjoying life and not worrying.

SM: Good. That’s a good start. I suppose the question we asked people when we talked about the feature last week was how the poster campaign might go down if it was to happen on buses trundling around the streets of Dublin?

MN: Well, I think there’s an awful lot of people in Ireland who aren’t particularly religious. We don’t go about shouting about it a lot, despite the temptation to do so given the way that non-religious people are treated by default here. But if you look at the last census, there are almost 190,000 people who said that they had no religion. And then there’s another 60,000 people who didn’t answer the question. So you have about a quarter of a million people who either said they have no religion or else didn’t answer the question. That’s quite a sizable minority.

SM: I was going to say, it is. A quarter of a million people in a population of 4.2 million or 4.3 million there or therabouts.

MN: Yes, technically, it’s the second largest grouping after Roman Catholics.

Atheists and Reason

SM: And when it comes to something like this, to give people a bit of background on atheism in general, its very much based on the idea of facts and evidence and reason, isn’t it?

MN: It is. Well, at it’s simplest, it’s either one or other of two things. It’s either saying that there’s no god, or else not saying that there is a god. And they’re both particularly unremarkable claims. You know, if I said that I don’t have five heads, it’s not a particularly remarkable thing to say. Equally, saying that there are no supernatural beings intervening in our lives and creating the universe, that isn’t particularly remarkable.

The default position is that rational thinking makes several things more likely. It makes enquiry more likely, in terms of trying to find out rationally what is true. It makes empathy more likely, in that people are going to treat each other as fellow human beings rather than being told what to do by deities, and it makes equality more likely, in that you’re going to have a secular society that’s based on respect for everybody rather than on rules that are handed down by a book that was written several thousand years ago.

SM: I don’t think anybody would disagree with any of that, but the idea of needing rational explanations for everything… you know, there’s a lot of things that go on in our lives. And we were talking before about the idea of love and marriage, which is probably one of the more irrational things that happen in our lives. Do we need a rational explanation for everything?

MN: It’s not so much that we need a rational explanation. It’s just that, whatever explanation that we come up with, we come up with by discussing it among ourselves. And we decide as natural beings, well, this is what love means to us, or this is what humour means to us… that’s all that it is, really. It’s not dictating what your ethics should be, or what love is. It’s just saying that it comes from within us, that it isn’t dictated to us by an imaginary being who wrote a book two thousand years ago.

The Atheist Bus Ads

SM: Right. And if we did see, let’s just say, the campaign that’s running now in the UK with ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’ If those buses did start chugging down O’Connell Street, do you think that people would have a problem with the idea of it, or would have a problem with the wording of it?

MN: Well, I’ll put it to you this way. As you know, there is a complaint in England about it. If people did have a complaint about it on the basis that you can’t prove there is no god, they should equally have much more complaints with promotions of the idea that there is a god, because the evidence certainly, in all probability, is leaning towards there not being a god.

If you take for example, it’s not technically an ad, but last year there was an ad banned by the Advertising Standards Authurity for slimming pills. And it was banned on the basis that the company couldn’t substantiate its claim that it would soak up fat from your food, and so on. Now, the reason I remember that particularly is that, on the same day that ban was announced, the Pope was announcing an even more unsubstantiatable special offer, which was that if you visited Lourdes with a year, you would get time off from Purgatory, and you would get to Heaven earlier, when you die. Now, on any basis, those types of claims are far more unsubstantiatable than the unremarkable claim that the world is, broadly speaking, as it seems to be.

Atheists and Faith

SM: Right. And when it comes to atheism, and the idea of proving – and once again, we are back to our rationality once again – if in a hypothethical situation, someone was to come along and present evidence, that an atheist was to find convincing, of something, in this case, the existence of god… that’s a large part of atheism, that you’re willing to accept that evidence then.

MN: Sure. Exactly. And, you know, whatever is true is true. We don’t know what it is. We’re not claiming that we know certainly what it is. All that we’re saying is that, on the basis of the evidence we have so far, we’re living beings, that live in a natural world, that is part of a natural universe. And it is up to us to figure out the nature of the reality that we live in, and to figure out how best to live together, and how to treat each other, and how to be kind to each other, and to have a society built on those values.

SM: And when it comes to the idea, then, of faith, obviously people themselves have an idea, they have an notion in their head. And if they take comfort from the fact that they have faith or belief, they may not perhaps be able to rationally explain to you… is that something that is maybe missing from atheism? Or is it something of an alien concept to you, the idea that you have faith in something yet it doesn’t necessarily have a rational explanation.

MN: No. Well, you don’t necessarily have to be able to explain everything. You know, there’s nothing wrong with saying ‘I don’t know.’ I mean, we can’t know everything. There are things that, centuries ago, people didn’t know that we now know. And there are things that we don’t know now, that in a couple of centuries time, people will know. At any given time, there are things we don’t know. And some people, in any given generation, happen to call those things God, and say God did it.

Atheist Ireland

SM: Right. And you yourself, and some like-minded individuals, have now got involved in the Atheist Ireland project.

MN: Yes, it’s a group that we’ve started off with a meeting last month, and we’re going to be formally launching it soon. It arose out of a website called Atheist.ie, which is a discussion forum where people can discuss atheist related issues in Ireland. And we have now formally started an organisation called Atheist Ireland, and its aim… we have two aims. One is to promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. And the second aim is to promote a rational, ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

And arising from that, the tpe of things we are going to be looking at initially are promoting a secular Irish Constitution… currently our Constitution starts off by saying that all authority comes from the Holy Trinity and that we humbly acknowledge our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ. I mean, it’s quite fine for people to do that, but it shouldn’t be in the Constitution.

And there are some extraordinary claims in the Constitution, such as ‘The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God’. That’s not actually a defence of the right of people to worship God. That’s a defence of the right of this God to be worshipped. We’re placing the rights of the Gods within our Constitution. And it may sound like it’s just picking holes, but there are cases where fundamental rights have been interpreted on the basis that we have a Christian Constitution, so they have to be interpreted that way.

So the Constitution is one thing, and the second main thing that we are looking at is the education system, and the need to have a secular education system where people can be taught rationally. And they can learn whatever religion that they want from their religions, but not from the education system.

Conclusion

SM: Very good. Well, if people want more details, they can go to the website, Atheist.ie.

MN: And they can get involved either in discussions, or indeed get involved in the preparations for the launch of the organisation, by going to Atheist.ie and just getting involved in the chat generally there.

SM: Michael, thanks very much for coming in and talking to us.

MN: Simon, you’re welcome.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you 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)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you 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)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The toy Vatican State at the UN

The Vatican is by far the smallest State in the world, being just over a hundred acres in size. It plays at being a real State by issuing its own stamps, but it has no proper citizens (just transient employees of the Catholic Church), few public services (Italy provides it with police and water) and no real economy (though it does have a novelty ATM machine that issues instructions in Latin).

But that does not matter, because the toy Vatican State does not generally interact with other real States. Instead, an entity called the Holy See, which is the central government of the worldwide Catholic Church, masquerades as a State and deals with actual States from its base in the Vatican.

This distinction is very important. It is the openly religious Holy See, and not the theoretically civic Vatican State, that swaps diplomats with actual States, and that has Permanent Observer status at the United Nations and other bodies. But the Holy See does not have any citizens, or any defined territory, and all that it governs is the religious affairs of some citizens of actual civic States.

Preaching to Diplomats about God

In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI gave a ‘state of the world’ address to all foreign diplomats to the Holy See. He told them that ‘law can be an effective force for peace only if its foundations remain solidly anchored in natural law, given by the Creator,’ and that ‘God can never be excluded from the horizon of man or of history.’

In a particularly patronizing passage, he added that ‘my thoughts today go especially to the nations that have yet to establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See: they too have a place in the Pope’s heart.’ But he could be forgiven for sounding smug: compared to the 176 States that have diplomatic relations with the Holy See, there are only seventeen that have not (nine of which are Muslim, and four communist).

Vatican Issues its own Stamps

How did this happen? How did the worldwide leadership of one religion come to be accepted as not only a civic State, but an influential one, while it is preaching to diplomats about God?

Well, in 1929, when Mussolini’s Italy recognised it as a State, the Vatican started issuing its own stamps. Because of this, in 1951, it got to attend UN meetings through its membership of the Universal Postal Union.

In 1957, the Vatican delegates persuaded the UN to refer to them as ‘the Holy See’. There was no vote on this, just an exchange of letters with the Secretary General. With this political sleight-of-hand, the Catholic Church could now officially act as a State.

Vatican Gets Status at United Nations

In 1964, the UN gave the Holy See permanent observer status, allowing the Catholic Church to attend and vote at UN conferences.

Pope Paul VI quickly set the tone when he colourfully told the next General Assembly that the UN must ‘not favour an artificial control of birth, which would be irrational, in order to diminish the number of guests at the banquet of life.’

Since then, because the UN takes most decisions by consensus, the Holy See has been able to frustrate negotiations on population, contraception, reproductive health care and women’s rights.

Vatican Status Upgraded at United Nations

In 1999, a campaign called ‘See Change’ tried to get the UN to treat the Catholic Church in the same way as it treats other religions – by allowing it to make submissions as an ordinary nongovernmental organisation. A reasonable suggestion, you would think.

Instead, in 2004, the UN upgraded the Holy See to having all of the rights of a full member State except voting at the General Assembly, which they didn’t want to do.

And so today, because the toy Vatican State can issue stamps, the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that can attend and vote at UN conferences and co-sponsor drafts of UN resolutions and decisions.

I am of course exaggerating for effect here. The Vatican did not get to attend UN meetings solely because they could issue their own stamps. It was also because they ran their own radio station.

Photo: Vatican Postbox by Dear Barbie (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The unelectable atheist President

An atheist running for President of the United States today faces roughly the same level of prejudice from voters as a female candidate would have faced in the 1940s while women workers were being sacked to make way for returning soldiers.

Or as a black candidate would have faced in the 1960s while Martin Luther King was delivering his ‘I have a Dream’ speech. Or as a gay candidate would have faced in the 1980s while many of the straight community were blaming gay men for an AIDS epidemic.

In 2007, a Gallup poll revealed that most Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as President. Incredibly, half of all American moderates, and three in ten liberals, said they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist who was nominated by their own party. If you look at similar polls since the 1930s, you will see that black and female politicians are gradually escaping from this prejudice – or, at least, voters are less willing to openly admit such prejudice to pollsters – but atheist politicians, like gay politicians, still have decades of catching up ahead of them.

The question that Gallup asked, for USA Today, in Feb 2007, was: If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [atheist etc], would you vote for that person?

Gallup has asked similar questions in Jan-Feb 1937, Sep 1949, Sep 1958, Mar 1969, Jul 1978, Jul 1987, Aug 1987, and Feb 1999.

Photo: The White House by David Paul Ohmer (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

America’s top elected atheists

Americans elect a lot of public officials – over half a million, from the President down to school district level. If atheists and other nonbelievers were represented fairly, you would expect about 50 in the US Congress and another 50,000 at State and local level. In 2007, the Secular Coalition for America tried to find them. They found only five. Three were very local officials: a school board president, a school committee member and a town meeting member. And the two most senior were both in their seventies, much closer to the end than the start of their political careers.

Pete Stark, United States Congressman

The first, Pete Stark, was born in 1931 and served in the Air Force and founded a bank before being elected to Congress in 1973 to represent a liberal district in California. He grew up a Republican, but had switched sides when he opposed the Vietnam War. He is a Unitarian Universalist, a congregation in which members seek their own truth about theological issues. Stark does not believe in a supreme being, saying that he is more interested in people, though he adds that the Stark family does recognize a supreme being – his wife Deborah.

So what horrific future would this openly atheist Congressman inflict on Americans? His shocking priorities are universal health care, ending the war in Iraq and protecting Medicare. He wants higher taxes for the wealthy and on cigarettes. He wants incentives for teachers to work in low-income schools. He wants higher payroll taxes to better fund social security. He wants better job re-training, child care and housing assistance. He supports the UN, the Kyoto protocol, abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action. He opposes the death penalty, and wants to restrict sex and violence on television. May God protect us all from Pete Stark.

Stark is unruffled by religious fanaticism, saying that ‘the leading candidates all agree that they believe in a supreme being, but forget about it as soon as they are elected.’ He believes that religion affects the style, rather than the substance, of the main political debate in America, which he says is between the Democrat view that government makes our lives better and the Republican view that government is dangerous for us. On ‘coming out’, he looked forward to ‘working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social service.’

Ernie Chambers, Nebraska State Senator

Next comes Ernie Chambers, the only openly atheist lawmaker at State level. He was born in 1937 and worked as a barber before he became a local civil rights leader in the 1960s. He was first elected as an independent candidate to the Nebraska Senate in 1971, and is the State’s only black Senator, its longest serving Senator and the only one to wear blue tee-shirts and jeans instead of a suit. His crimes against God include ending corporal punishment in state schools, getting equal state pensions for women, and blocking the legalization of concealed weapons. He strongly opposes the death penalty, and starts every legislative session by proposing its abolition.

Chambers got world attention in 2007 when he took a legal case against God. In a different case, a Nebraska judge had barred a woman from using the words ‘rape’ or ‘victim’ while alleging that she was a rape victim. He insisted that she describe what happened as ‘sex’, which is a bit like calling a mugging a ‘financial transaction’. The woman took a lawsuit against the judge, but her case was dismissed as being frivolous. Chambers took her side, arguing that the Nebraska constitution allows anyone to sue anyone. To make this point in a satirical way, he sued God in the district court of Douglas County, Nebraska.

Chambers wanted an injunction ordering God to cease certain harmful activities including the making of terroristic threats as well as ‘fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like.’ He argued that the court had jurisdiction because God, being omnipresent, was personally in Douglas County, and that he should not have to serve legal papers because God, being omniscient, already knew about the case.

Three Local Elected Officials

The three local officials who responded to the Secular Coalition were Terry Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, California.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Massachusetts. And that, in the early twenty-first century, was the extent of openly atheist elected officials in America: Pete Stark married to his supreme being in California, Ernie Chambers suing God in Nebraska, and three local officials scattered across three million square miles of land.

Clearly there are many, many more elected atheists in the American closet. If one in every ten citizens rejects belief in gods, then about fifty members of Congress should do so. The Secular Coalition says there are 21 others who are not yet willing to go public. Even if this is true, it would still be less than half the amount that would be proportional to the overall population. It is time for elected American atheists to stand up for their rational beliefs.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!