Thou Shalt Ignore Stupidity

If we only could, right?

The Louisiana legislature passed a bill this month that will allow a monument of the Ten Commandments to be placed on the capitol grounds in Baton Rouge.

This falls under the guise that such a "serious" presentation will be in reference to the historical significance of this per the First Amendment or other such nonsense. You see, there are people who believe that without the Ten Commandments we may not have been able to come up with the laws we have today. Somehow civility would have been lacking without the influence of this particular set of religious rules. Bless their hearts.

So the very first hominids, when faced with a violent member of their clan, didn't figure out fairly fast that this kind of thing (murder) wasn't all that good for their survival? Really? Most everything today that we hold as common sense laws came from our experience over the thousands and thousands of years of trying to get along in groups. At some point, someone said, "...hey, we gotta get rid of that guy who is going around killing everyone. I need a quorum for the hunt next week, man." Ta da! There's a law.

I'm told by friends there are several versions of "ten commandments" that have been passed down through history from various religious groups that claimed their version as "the" version, so to speak. It stands to reason that the first question these State House morons should ask themselves is this: just exactly which set are you referring to?!? Only time will tell if this will be challenged in court and if it will pass constitutional muster, but the word is that it's a huge invitation to spend millions of dollars in litigation arguing about this insanity.

There's been talk that "they" (the people who will handle the selection and design of the monument) will allow submissions to be considered. Well, my friend, Jim, has a suggestion for a list of commandments that is very clever and I'm passing along for your consideration:

Separation of Church and State: An American Tradition

I

“No [one] shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever….”

--Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1777

II

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

--Thomas Jefferson, 3^rd President of the U.S., 1782

III

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

--Article VI, U.S. Constitution, 1787

IV

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

--Amendment I, U.S. Constitution, 1789

V

“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

--Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

VI

“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”

--John Adams, 2^nd President of the U.S., 1812

VII

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

--Thomas Jefferson, 3^rd President of the U.S., 1814

VIII

“I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State.”

--Theodore Roosevelt, 26^th President of the U.S., 1915

IX

“Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

--U.S. Supreme Court, Emerson v. Board, 1947

X

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

--John F. Kennedy, 35^th President of the US, 1960

Do you think these have a chance? Maybe if we adopt them as our own and chisel them into a marble slab?

The Whole Enchilada

It's pretty clear that secular, progressive citizens of Louisiana will not have any "wins" this year. What am I talking about, you ask? Here's the big four bruises, so far, for this year:

CREATIONISM: The repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act did not make it out of committee despite Baton Rouge high school graduate Zach Kopplin's most valiant efforts and the support he generated from forty Nobel Laureates. Here's one example of the blow back our state can expect:

“The lawmakers of Louisiana are a laughing stock as far as the scientific community is concerned,” Harold Kroto, a Florida State University scientist who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1996, said in an email to The Associated Press. He added, “The present situation should be likened to requiring Louisiana school texts to include the claim that the Sun goes round the Earth.”

WOMEN'S RIGHTS: Rep. John Labruzzo of Metairie continues his hateful assault on women's reproductive rights and may just succeed in banning abortion, even in cases of rape and incest and to save the life of the mother. This is so bizarrely evil that I'm unsure how he and his followers can face the public. But as I always say, the wives, mistresses and daughters of men like this probably aren't too worried about their medical needs, so the rest of us can be ignored with impunity.

TEN COMMANDMENTS: Who would have thought that someone in the 21st century would propose to place the Ten Commandments as a monument on the State Capitol grounds, but they are and it most likely will succeed. Who in this overtly religious legislature can vote against it without fear of political repercussions?

PRAYER IN SCHOOLS: And the cherry on top of this bloated sundae is Bastrop High School administration who thumbed their noses at the Establishment Clause of the Constitution during their recent graduation. This despite the embarrassment of making national headlines for ostracizing and threatening the student who made the complaint. Not to mention that they are in violation of the law.

It's enough to make you cry, cuss or laugh. Is there anything we can do to push this religious zealotry back even just a tad? That's the question I think everyone who calls themselves a humanist, atheist, freethinker or any other category of a church/state champion should ask themselves.

One suggestion I'd like to put out there is that where prayer in school is concerned (and has a high potential come graduation season) would be for every major public high school in the state to be petitioned by their local Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, Jewish and Humanist "congregations" for the opportunity to make a similar statement alongside the Christian version, especially if there has been prior notice given that they will include a prayer in the ceremony. This no doubt would create quite the problem for a public institution to deny a local student (representing these groups) the opportunity to speak. It might even invite a legal challenge that would be costly and shameful on a national scale.

I call this making them "eat the whole enchilada." If they absolutely must flaunt the law, then they must accept the consequences of allowing other prayers. It would provide very teachable moments to people who aren't as concerned about it and who adopt the "....well, why can't they say their little prayer, it's not hurting anyone?" attitude. It might also educate students that there are other families in their community who feel as passionately about their religions and philosophies. Now getting the students and religious groups to agree to this is the hard part. No one wants to be singled out and bullied for standing up for their civil rights.

But, honestly, if we don't start standing up now, we might find we don't have the guts, balls or other body parts to fight back. And that's a reality I and others simply can't swallow. So serve up parity, hot and steaming, with a side of salsa and remind them of how good it will taste.

To Mock or Not to Mock...

That is the question. And it seems to be a question of the minds of people who were concerned that our "Left Behind" activities would send the wrong message to the public about NOSHA and what we stand for. Are we mocking people and how does that promote respect and harmony? It's a valid question even if you don't feel we are doing anything to be ashamed of. (Which we aren't IMHO.)

A friend of mine, Jim, wrote a very thougtful piece that is worth sharing because it does a very admirable job of explaining what mockery is and how it is an important part of a society that is open and vibrant.

On Mockery:

I’m not surprised that some have reacted negatively here to what they see as ridicule of a particular religion, or of religion in general.  I point out that the real objective of this party is to celebrate our own freedom from fear and superstition.  Since it is impossible to celebrate freedom from fear and superstition without labeling something “fear and superstition,” that might come across to some as ridicule.

That being said, I would amplify Susan G’s quite cogent remarks made earlier in these posts: those who ascribe to the philosophy of Secular Humanism have at least a right, and probably an obligation, to mock religious beliefs of this type.  This party is being organized in reaction to a particular group who loudly proclaim that on May 21st true believers will be Raptured into heaven, an earthquake will shake the whole world, and the dead will rise from their opened graves.  Such ideas deserve mockery at several levels:

*  Most self-identified Christians reject ideas of a literal and physical rapture, bodily resurrection, and Second Coming.  This is not to say it is OK to mock an idea just because it is held by a minority, but to say that even most Christians think this is nonsense.  How much more ridiculous must this seem to outsiders?

* It is ridiculous to believe that one modern-day person, without any special training in ancient cultures or languages can rummage through the Bible, connect disparate passages as he sees fit, choose an obscure and unsupported dating scheme, throw in a dash of numerology, and  on that basis come up with the one true date for the beginning of the End.  Yet this is exactly what Harold Camping and his supporters claim.

* It is ridiculous to believe that this particular date proclaimed for the End is any different from the vast array of failed predictions that precede it.  History is littered with Great Disappointments, and to believe that this prediction is any different from hundreds of other abject failures is gullibility beyond measure.

This is not about anybody’s privately held religious beliefs.  This is about a small but well-funded group who have vigorously sought publicity for their monster-under-the-bed stories, both nation-wide and right here in New Orleans.

Agnostics, atheists, and Secular Humanists have wide and varied opinions on such matters.  But a key point of Secular Humanism, at least for those who ascribe to that philosophy, is that if we want to have better society now and in the future, then we must  leave the supernatural and superstitious behind so we  can apply human logic and human reason to solving our shared problems.  That principle is in direct conflict with the kind of deference to religion a few on this blog think we ought to show.  It is perfectly fair that religious believers had the right to proclaim their ideas to the public.  But it is neither fair nor reasonable for the religious to demand that nobody point out their irrationalities, once they’ve made a public issue of their beliefs. 

Share The Good and The Bad

Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Most of us chalk it up to chance and luck.

But one of the annoying comments that will come up every once in a while is the charge that because non-believers, atheists, secular humanists and others "of our ilk" don't believe in magic, we must not know what it means to have traditions and share in the community at large.

I know it's part of psychology to distance ourselves from those who we think are different by branding them as "lesser than" in order to protect the group, but folks, this is the 21st century and that attitude needs to be kicked to the curb. We've all enjoyed the milestones in life: the birth of a child, a marriage, a death and we all most likely have family or neighborhood events that form around these big moments. Not to mention the seasonal parties that we grew up with and then indoctrinated the children and the friends who came along.

NOSHA is a community of people who count each other as friends, acquaintances, cohorts and, sometimes, as family, blood or not. And we would like to know about these major events in the lives of NOSHA friends and supporters.

* Major birthdays
* Weddings
* New babies
* Graduations
* Promotions
* Deaths
* "Once in a Lifetime" Trips
* Major anniversaries

No matter your age, sharing this with your secular buddies brings us closer together as, yes, a real community. Non-believers experience joy and sadness and since we have systematic way to acknowledge these interesting and important moments via NOSHA News, take advantage of it.

Send your newsletter items to:  charlotte@nosha.info

Saying Goodbye To Our NOSHA Friends

In the past month, two members of our community died only a few weeks apart and we should take a moment to remember them fondly.

First, there was Tina Lovine Missildine from Marrero, age 48, who died on January 21. Tina had attended our first NOSHA banquet in 2009 with Percy Prestenbach and had been a long time member. Next there was Scott Major who died on February 3 after a brief illness. Many of you met Scott (who also attended our first NOSHA banquet with his girlfriend, Renee Gunnells) when he could make it to our monthly meetings over the past year. He was a regular on our Google Group generally stirring up passions and keeping the conversation lively. Both Scott and Tina were parents, had interests they enjoyed and were one of our many non-believing friends.

It's been several years since one of our closely tethered group passed away. Serena Bodellini passed away in October 2009 and was a member of the NOSHA board of directors. One thing that all three of these lovely people have in common is that they each had events celebrating their lives with no mention of worshipping a deity or other overly religious element involved. This is a refreshing trend in the 21st century and one that all of us should consider in depth - how we see the end of our lives unfolding for our friends and family. I always say to myself that I will get my will written and write a few ideas down "officially" for my "end of life" ceremony, but since I don't have kids or a major desire to deal with my death realistically, it's on the list where it stays.

Scott Major's untimely death forced me to accept that the luxury of waiting may not always be there for me or anyone I hold dear in my life. Like all of us, one day he was walking down the street enjoying his morning and the next thing he knew, he's being taken into emergency surgery to repair his dissected aorta, the defective organ that he never knew he had. From that moment  on, his life, had he been able to recover slowly, would have consisted of caution and concern. And the awareness that things can change for you in a minute, just like my mother always told me they could. Unfortunately, bad things happen to good people and that's happened here.

At times like this, I'm very sensitive to why having a religious belief is a comfort to people who haven't explored the possibility that it may be a fairy tale. I wanted to pray for Scott, to talk to a god about how this time he needs to step in, make this right and save our friend. What could possibly be fair about striking down this 40-something man? I wanted to pray for Scott the way I wanted to pray for my brother and mother who've died in the past few years, but, you know, I couldn't. Not believing in a god is a very lonely place to be when you realize that all of us may simply just be lucky: to not get that disease, to not be strolling down that street, to not find ourselves in that ill body.

And I think that's why I'm not too puzzled by my anger. I'm very angry about what happened to Scott. That he didn't have more time to stabelize and get back to his life, to visit with friends and family a little longer, to eat some favorite food, to go on one last trip, maybe. To do all of the things we take for granted. I'm sure he, Tina and Serena would tell me that this is the one thing about dying that none of us can prepare for easily.  Serena said to me that one disappointment for her was just when NOSHA seemed to have more activities and was starting take off since Katrina, she simply couldn't depend on her body to let her participate. She was always fighting a serious condition that made her extremely tired. Truly, the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak.

When my father found out he had lung cancer, he was home recovering from surgery one December many years ago while I was on holiday from college. I remember sitting with him and he still seemed vibrant and healthy to me, even if neither of us realized he was at the beginning of a slow decline. That I could be with him daily pretending that somehow this was going to turn out differently were some of my fondest memories, because if it hadn't been for his illness, he would have been at work and I wouldn't have had a chance for this time with him. Ironic. But still being able to process how lucky we felt, if only for the moment, gave me the time to start understanding what was to come.

Some of us don't get the chance to pretend that life will be different, to pretend that maybe we'll be lucky this time. I will always wish that Scott Major did.

The Next Thirty Years?

In October 2010, I attended my first ever major non-believers conference, “Setting the Agenda: Secular Humanism’s Next 30 Years,” which was sponsored as a subscribers’ conference for the magazine, Free Inquiry. Since I’ve been a subscriber for at least 15 years, this seemed like a good fit for me. I was eager because there was a remarkable list of secular celebrities on the program and it was touted as a definitive event.

To give you one humorous glimpse into the conference, Mark Oppenheimer with The New York Times observed, “The largely white and male crowd—imagine a Star Trek convention, but older…” My main goal here is to report every unique moment from my trip.

Depending on who you ask, it was a complete “sell out” with anywhere from 325 to 370 people at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in attendance. It seemed that since the CFI (Center for Inquiry) had to schedule this conference back in Fall 2008, at the beginning of the recession, they were forced to organize for a smaller number rather than risk not having enough people to fill the next level of hotel space. I think they could have easily had 100 or even 200 more attendees, but the economy dictated a more prudent choice back then. Amazingly enough, I found a friendly face in the crowd, Douglas King, a NOSHA member who resides in Baton Rouge and who attended our banquet featuring Ellen Johnson in August. The weekend was looking up!

The first plenary I attended on Friday was appropriately called “The First 30 Years” and boasted some of the heavier hitters in the secular movement: James “The Amazing” Randi, whose book Flim-Flam is regarded as a skeptical classic; Tom Flynn, current editor of Free Inquiry; Ed Buckner, past president of American Atheists; and Paul Kurtz, founder of Free Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism and CFI.

Randi was predictably charming and entertaining with his story of appearing on “The Johnny Carson Show” to debunk the faith healing preacher, Peter Popoff, back in the 1980’s. Randi’s technical investigation revealed that “…God is a woman and she sounds remarkably like Popoff’s wife, Elizabeth!” He told us that later that he got a delightful note from someone watching that night who said “I’m so glad that you exposed Rev. Popoff. Now I’m giving all of my money to Rev. So and So.” He found that very sweet and offered this thought to the audience that “…we are part of the remedy for ignorance. No one wants to come forward to say how stupid they are!” I discovered first hand how very spry and delightful Randi is when he chatted with me while I was buying books prior to this panel starting, before it hit me just exactly who this old man was. My luck.

However, sweetness gave way to more acerbic matters when the case was made by Kurtz that atheists are “bad” if they don’t support humanism out right. Clearly, there was a mentality of “us vs. them” being sown by the adherents for both points of view that continued throughout the weekend. Kurtz related an “untapped sentiment in society” back in 1980 that precipitated his pursuit and creation of CFI; there is something more that “mere atheism simply cannot address.” An example of the division at the national level was Flynn’s explanation of his push for promoting National Blasphemy Day, a move that Kurtz adamantly opposed, but nonetheless couldn’t prevent. A few resolute atheists challenged Kurtz that they are no less moral or good than a person who self identifies as a secularist.

In fact, one woman felt that Kurtz was not taking the “cultural wars” as seriously as he should that some of us must wage in parts of the country (where it is not as conciliatory for non-believers). His most memorable statement to me was his describing why he feels so strongly: “It is not enough to destroy, we must provide alternatives.” I happen to agree with this even as I feel we must not shrink from confrontations when they are necessary. The New York Times probably hit upon the best explanation of this divisiveness: “The disagreement was not, then, between atheism and humanism. It was about making the atheist/humanist case in America. A central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?’”

The next major panel was “Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation?” which was by far the most lively in forcing the issue of how differently each perspective views the conflicts of science and religion in society. Science writer Chris Mooney (and the son of former NOSHA board member, Sally Mooney) admitted that his viewpoint falls more in line with accommodating the potential allies of non-believers, moderate or liberal Christians, and he bases his choice on the latest research into the attitudes of belief. Christians “are rejecting science because of a perceived conflict with moral values.” Like Kurtz, who believes that “the core of humanism is ethics and values” that are relevant to our lives, Mooney argued that “atheists should be mindful of this perception.”

Since believers resist science and the teaching of evolution in public schools because they fear that it will lead to a rejection of morals, this is a huge piece of evidence that cannot be totally dismissed out of hand. He suggests that atheists “should reassure Christians that their faith is compatible with modern science.” As conciliatory as Mooney was (considering that he has been taken to task this past year by the second speaker), noted biologist and well-known combative blogger, P.Z. Myers, wasn’t pulling any punches and is a “confrontationalist” with a capital “C.”

I found it especially refreshing to hear someone suggest that anger is a valid emotion when dealing with the way religion attempts to thwart scientific and social progress in our modern society and one that he feels shouldn’t be denigrated by our more passive supporters. Myers understands why “the new atheists are fed up with fighting the symptoms and want to take on the disease—religion.” Truth is the new atheist’s real value, he said.

Eugenie Scott, also a panelist and the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, was a disappointment for me simply because she seemed like she had so little to offer on this topic when her professional position should obviously demand otherwise. Clearly, she didn’t want to take a side and by that, I assumed, she is a deliberate “accommodationist.” That was a bit of surprise and left me concerned that she is in charge of the very organization that is so often fighting for science education in our schools. How can someone with such a decidedly unmotivated stance defend science against more aggressive and louder opponents? As likeable as she is, she didn’t care to express her opinion either for or against anything Mooney and Myers proposed. And isn’t that why she was invited to this conference? Strange.

Victor Stenger, celebrated professor of particle physics and distinguished author whose latest book, The New Atheism, brought him as a speaker to NOSHA in October 2009, provided more support for people voicing their atheism instead of “sucking up” to Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus “and any others who claim they have some sacred right to decide what kind of society the rest of us must live in—what a human being can do with her own body.”

He feels encouraged that younger generations are less likely to be accommodationists because they are moving away from organized religion and that the United States is on its way to joining the developed world in rejecting religion’s control over our progress. He supports the idea that in order to see change in our society, it takes both approaches ultimately. “If you look at the history of every great social movement, you will see both components. There are people who work within the system to make changes. They often succeed, but usually at a snail’s pace—too slow to satisfy the millions who are impatient to have their inherent rights recognized by the power structure.” This outlook must be how confrontationists get their wings.

Friday evening culminated in a gala banquet where Richard Dawkins, author of numerous books—perhaps most well known is The God Delusion which has sold over two million copies in English and has been published in more than 30 other languages, was presented with the Robert Craggs Prize and over $45,000 to his foundation. Dawkins, who was present for the day’s sessions, spoke briefly and pointedly to the need for non-believers to be insistent that we reject efforts to coddle religion and made it clear that he didn’t share the same opinions as his esteemed dinner companions, Kurtz and Mooney, who flanked him at the head table. He was respectful, but it was clear to me he was “bitch slapping” everyone who fell more in line with the acommodationists’ arguments from earlier that day.

On the Saturday panel for “What can philosophy, ethics, aesthetics and the sciences contribute to our pursuit of the good life in this life?” author Jennifer Michael Hecht offered an interesting observation that there are two kinds of atheists: “…those who attack the silly stuff and those who attack the subtle beliefs” of Christians and others. This may be the source for the concern over how stridently we promote non-belief. Ron Lindsay, who is the president and CEO of CFI, spoke about the perception of humanist ethics and that the method by which we approach deciding many issues has a lot to do with content. People want to make decisions where moral certainty is not always possible, such as the right-to-die for the terminally ill. He gave a nice presentation about the Oregon law and what it means for current efforts. Rev. Barry Lynn with Americans United, delivered a rip-roaring speech on a panel about the separation of church and state and made me truly sad for anyone who had to follow his presentation.

The highlight of Saturday evening (maybe the entire weekend) was the debate between Sam Harris, author of New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation and Robert Wright, who has been named one of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers” by Foreign Policy magazine and is also a New York Times bestselling author of The Evolution of God. They were to speak on the subject of where “secular humanists stand today and tomorrow on questions of religion and belief,” but instead Wright baited Harris about his obvious disdain and public derision of Islam and we never made it back to the topic at hand. It didn’t help that Harris’ entourage of body guards put the throngs of attendees through a security detail (because he’s received death threats from both Christians and Muslims), which only hyped the paranoia of the evening!

Wright started off by stating that what bothered him most about the “new atheism” is the claim of being new. He’s also concerned that the new atheists think that religion is a major problem, and that the tendency to over emphasize religion means that “we take our eye off the ball.” I was never sure what the ball actually was to which he was referring.

What provoked Harris was Wright’s comment that new atheists are adding to the anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States. Once Islam was on the table, they never quite gave any time to the original topic, which was very disappointing. I made a note of one fascinating question he posed to Wright: “What would it be like if Dawkins came out as a Muslim?” It is easy to assume that Dawkins declaring he is any religion would cause a colossal stir simply because it would invalidate everything he stands for. So, Harris is concerned that we’ll wake up in a world “where the only people we can trust are our own religious people.” So for him, that is why what people believe matters; beliefs are the “engines of our behaviors” and that is why he is steadfast that Islam as a religion should be scrutinized.

There wasn’t enough time to even scratch the surface of the neuroscience surrounding morality, nor am I completely convinced that Harris does that well at presenting this in person yet. Even though I did and do enjoy listening to him in general. He is one of the “rock stars” for non-believers, after all. (He does have a new book out titled The Moral Landscape where he explores neuroscience in much greater detail). Nevertheless, he makes the compelling and evolutionarily sound proposal that “morality is a product of neuroscience” and that our pursuit of happiness, and that which is good for society, depends on brain chemistry. I do agree with that personally. I just wish he could have talked more about our people and what brain science can tell us about how we can make progress as a movement. That was the “send off” I had hoped for with this conference and, unfortunately, we have many rather large egos to stroke while we search for the answers.

Would a Secular Majority Make a Better America?

NOSHA's president, Harry Greenberger, made this presentation to the Lakeview Community Unitarian Church here in New Orleans in November and we wanted to let everyone who couldn't be there that day read what he had to say on this important topic.

******************************

Would a Secular Majority Make a Better America?

By Harry Greenberger

All recent U. S. surveys have shown that non-believers and non-church-goers are rapidly increasing in numbers, yet are still below 20% of our adult population. When I made an outline for this talk, the last listed item was “conclusion” and I thought I knew what that conclusion would be. And I suspect you also think you know where this talk will end. But, as I present material assembled for this talk, you will hear many questions casting doubt as to where it would ultimately take me.

Where are we today vis-à-vis religion versus secularity?

Here are some descriptions of contemporary conditions.

At a recent conference of Free Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, Victor Stenger said “We are now probably only about a generation or two away from the catastrophic problems that are anticipated from global warming, pollution, and overpopulation. Such disasters are predicted to generate worldwide conflict on a scale that could exceed that of the great twentieth-century wars.”

Later he concludes, “So, the time has come to rise up against the unthinking, immoral acts that are brought about by religious views—to state the case for science, reason, and honest compassion. We need to demonstrate that a nation no longer dominated by religion will be a better nation and that we must work to achieve that goal no matter how long it takes.”

Atheists for Human Rights includes this paragraph in their list of principles: “Traditional religious morality is notorious for the astounding number of ways it hurts people. On a short list are: human sacrifice, slavery, subjugation and reproductive control of women, persecution of homosexuals, religious wars, cruelty to children, torture and execution of heretics, denial of end-of-life self-determination, and opposing every advance in science and medicine…”

In Michael Parenti's book God and His Demons the author writes, “Backed by moneyed interests, the right-wing Christianist media propagate free-market corporatism, militarism, and super-patriotism.” And he makes the accusation “…emotional extortion of money from the gullible for personal enrichment has been the hallmark of fundamentalist Christian leaders.”

Countering those negative views, we know of religious heroes—civil rights leaders, founders of universities and hospitals, Catholic Charities, etc. The comfort and solace that faith provides to believers in times of loss and sorrow can’t be denied. But zealous spokespeople warn against secularism. Televangelist Pat Roberson asserts that when a society is without religion “the result will be tyranny.” Ann Coulter says that societies which fail to accept God’s significance are headed toward slavery, genocide and bestiality. Bill O’Reilly advises that a society that fails to live “under God” will be a society of “anarchy and crime.”

Where will the recent “New Atheism” movement lead us?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation recently sponsored a billboard at Canal and Rampart Streets with the message "Imagine No Religion.” It might have added words from The Richard Dawkins Foundation: Imagine no “superstition, astrology, fortune telling, pseudo-science, voodoo, alternative medicine, or other …grandiose promises that are never fulfilled…Imagine a world where everyone has access to education, health care, and the freedom to explore and discover their world.”

Recent proposals for achieving this secularly improved society have developed a “rift” between confrontationists and accommodationists regarding the best strategies for advancing the secular, scientific worldview. Best selling atheist authors in the last few years, Richard Dawkins, Christoher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger aggressively promote activism for the public adoption of the non-theistic life stance, at the risk of offending large portions of the American society. The Council of Secular Humanism even promotes celebration of “Blasphemy day,” much to the chagrin of its founder, Paul Kurtz, who feels that the new angry atheists will set the movement back—not unlike the abrasive style of American Atheists founder, Madelyn Murray O’Hare

Greg Epstein, secular Chaplain at Harvard University and author of Good Without God, writes: “Atheism alone, as the rejection of gods and the supernatural, cannot meet our deepest human needs for connection and inspiration.” And, he adds, “Maybe if we allow the more aggressive ideas to gain a little speed we will see secularism being a stronger force in the community.”

On the other hand, where will today’s right-wing Christian movement, which now dominates the Republican Party, lead us?

While much of what is considered positive religious morality is adopted from much older classical ethics, it has been distorted from time to time. Newt Gingrich formed “American Solutions for Winning the Future” with the position that the Democrats are promoting a secular socialist America that violates what he deems to be the Christian or Judeo-Christian foundation of the Republic.  

This reflects the promulgated erroneous view that this country was founded on Christian principles, including the Ten Commandments. The Tea Party groups are seen to be primarily highly religious and anti-big government, women’s right to choose, gay marriage and adoptions, and church/state separation; and in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and Christian prayers and teaching of “creationism” in public schools. Many see their ultimate goal as a conversion of our republic into a theocracy.

So which is best course for America—the present status, where atheists will take us or where the Christian activists are leading?

Take a look at recent surveys of different countries

In an essay in the August/September 2009 issue of Perspectives entitled “Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment” sociologist Phil Zuckerman reported that “countries with the highest rates of happiness, life expectancy, literacy, income, gender equality, and education are relatively secular. So are the countries with the lowest rates of homicide, infant mortality, AIDS, and teen pregnancy.” Also covered in that issue is a David G. Myers article that cites a Gallop survey from 152 countries. “Countries, where most people say that religion is not an important part of their daily life and where most people have not attended religious services in the last week, tend to be countries where people report high quality of life. Folks in highly religious countries (think Pakistan, Uganda, the Philippines) mostly rate their lives well below the best possible life.”

Myers wrote further, “I extended this association between secularity and the good life by comparing U.S. states. The Southern states all have higher religious-adherence rates than do the West Coast states. They also have slightly higher divorce rates, and much higher crime, teen pregnancy and smoking rates.” However, the results regarding individuals provide a different picture. He writes: “National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey of 47,909 Americans since 1972, (reports) very happy people ranged from 27 percent of those who never attended a religious service up to 48 percent of those attending more than once a week.” “Although religion comes in both healthy and toxic forms, religiously engaged individuals, on balance, tend to be happier, healthier, more generous, less crime-prone, and less often involved with premature sexuality and pregnancy.”

Reported in the November 20 edition of Times Picayune, a Gallup survey of over 500,000 Americans regarding their physical and emotional health and their work environment showed that the very religious scored 68.7% on the well-being index while the moderately religious and non-religious scored at 64.2%. Not much difference.

What measures of “good,” “better” and “best” can we justify?

Is it likely that the form of government might determine the level of individual wellbeing as documented for countries under communism, socialism, republic, democracy, dictatorship? But each of these can be either religious or non-religious, so what role does the government play? Are the ones allowing the most individual freedoms most inclined to produce general life satisfaction? How important is the concept of “Give me liberty or give me death?”

 How about Standard of living as it is generally measured to include necessities and luxuries.

Should we measure by the opportunity for individuals to achieve a high living standard or alternatively reach for “the greatest good for the greatest numbers”—e.g. Communism’s “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” If this requires a totalitarian government is that an acceptable cost?

Lastly, consider the quality of life, level of happiness (as reported in some of my prior cited surveys)

My inclination is for the “happiness” scales which are applicable in any of the forms of government, at various standards of living, and at a variety of levels of religiosity. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims the pursuit of happiness to be an inalienable right. But what is “happiness?” “America,” the national catholic weekly, reports, “The new study of happiness, or subjective well-being, is a growing interdisciplinary field…Any monopoly that religion or political philosophy once held as the preferred guides to Eden is over.” “Policy makers in developed and undeveloped countries are drawing on happiness research to increase the ‘gross national happiness’ of their populations.” However, there is a caveat to be considered before relying on these surveys, as  that article further reports, “Current secular critics will doubt whether happiness researchers have been able to avoid the problems of self-report, self-deception, response bias and social framing effects. Are the results and experimental interventions of happiness research reliable or valid by standard scientific norms.”

And one sobering thought about the role of happiness, is reflected in the final verse of a familiar poem by Thomas Gray published in 1923:

To each his sufferings: all are men,

  Condemn’d alike to groan—

The tender for another’s pain

  Th’ unfeeling for his own.

Yet, ah! Why should they know their fate,

Since sorrow never comes too late,

  And happiness too swiftly flies

Thought would destroy their Paradise.

No more;--where ignorance is bliss,

  ‘Tis folly to be wise.

Should this one concept invalidate an advocacy on behalf of reason and science?

And now for my Conclusion

I recognize that those with Ph.D’s, especially in study of philosophy, and others more learned than I will find my analysis of this question to be superficial and possibly naïve, but I am trying.

I’ve lost the source of the following pertinent quotation: “We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”

The article I previously referred to in the National Catholic Weekly concluded with this: “And here we come to the theological crux of the matter. Is it possible to become positively transformed and virtuously happy without being empowered by God’s Holy Spirit given in, with and through Christ? Happiness and joy are promised to the virtuous followers of God’s precepts and to those who become Christ’s disciples through faith.”

(I am still quoting the National Catholic Weekly) “But does happiness seen as our loving relationship with God make other ways of happiness impossible, invalid or incomplete?” A Nathan Murillo article entitled “Why Religion?” opines, “The forces that propel and propagate religion are powerful indeed and are not likely to diminish in and of themselves. Perhaps there is only one force equal or greater than these and which offers the most likely challenge to religion: the truth of reality”

The previously quoted Myers article in the journal Perspectives equating frequent church attendance with “very happy” people, further wrote:  “…the data help us appreciate a spirituality that gives meaning to our lives, connects us in supportive communities, motivates morality and altruism, and offers hope in the face of adversity and death.”

But he adds: “I hasten to remind people: these data do not validate theism. The benefits of faith are irrelevant to its truth claim. And truth is ultimately what matters. (If theism’s central claim is untrue, though comforting, what honest person would choose to believe? If true, though discomfiting, what honest person would disbelieve?”

Now here is my moot conclusion: A secular society, armed with the conviction that theism is untrue will be a better America because that awareness shall set generations free for their constitutionally provided “pursuit of happiness.”