It may not be that difficult

The recent Religious News Service analysis piece "Non-religious voters present a puzzle for political parties" makes a few decent point but does overlook a few key points. I won't pretend to speak for all atheists let alone all of the "nones" but there does seem to be one political element that many of us can agree on; Separation of Church and State.

Markoe writes:
"The nones are also a difficult group for politicians to define and woo, said Dan Cox, research director at the Public Religion Research Institute. They’re not cohesive, in that they include atheists and agnostics but also believers unattached to religious institutions. And unlike the pursuit of an actual religious group, it’s not so clear how to connect with the millions of people defined by their lack of religious connections."

It is true that we are one of the most diverse demographics around. However, I have yet to come across any that fall under the "nones" label that particularly like being told by others what and how we should think. Most also seem to distrust or dislike religion being foisted on the rest of us. Seems to me that if a politician wants to court us as a group they would have to make it clear they will not use their own or accept others attempts at imposing religious views on the rest of us. That would mean clearly and consistently supporting the Separation of Church and State. That doesn't seem too "difficult" to figure to me.

One-Size-Fits-All Politics

"Atheists should not be organizing as a political party" is bullshit! This is not to say that there are not any valid points made in the piece or that there aren't a few difficulties involved in organizing atheists into a political party. There are. However, most of the reasons given in this short article and that have been used since the National Atheist Party first started forming (since it isn't even two years old yet it is still a work in progress) are at best superficial and hypocritical.

One of the main arguments is based on the false assumption that a political party must meet all the needs and interests of every constituent. What political party has ever managed such a thing? It is not possible. That atheists tend to be very individualistic and very diverse does not necessarily loan itself to large scale organizing but that does not mean it can't be done or that the attempt is not worthwhile. The notion that we should not try, as far as I'm concerned, is only one step removed from insisting that we "shut up" and "stay in the closet."

That this piece was written by an atheist does not make it any better or excusable. In some ways it makes it more disappointing and irritating especially since it is apparent that they really did not bother to look into the NAP before making up their mind. A few of the discussion questions used display a lack of understanding regarding the party. For example, "Would you vote for a poorly qualified candidate simply because he or she is an Atheist?" What? Why would any intelligent person vote for a poorly qualified candidate? That is not what the NAP is about or for. In fact, currently the NAP cannot run or endorse candidates. It's non-profit status is based on issue advocacy. Eventually, the goal is to upgrade its status but simply running a candidate because they are atheist is not among its goals and does not represent its principles.

Another such question betrayed the author's (and the atheist/freethought group he's associated with) lack of knowledge of the US' political landscape. "What would we feel about a 'Natioanl Christian Party?'" I'm not sure how feelings have any value when it comes to reality? Whether we like it or not there is a national Christian party. They may not use that name but that does not change their purpose or goals. The grossly misnamed Constitution Party has been around for a while and they do want to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. On that note, I would point out that unlike a "Christian" party (or any other religious based party) the NAP would not come in conflict with separation of church and state.

It is also important to point out that despite our many differences there do seem to be a number of issues and principles that the majority of atheists do share. Most us are supportive of separation of church and state, free speech, and civil rights among others. Each of those alone is well worth fighting for and therefore organizing around. Ultimately, the goal is provide atheists with more of a voice in local, state, and national politics. That alone is worth the attempt.


Note: for the sake of disclosure I feel obligated to point out that I am a member of NAP and am also on one of its committees.

They really Don't Know Us

It is incredibly rare that political pundits pay much attention to Atheists and unfortunately when they do they tend to reinforce rather than dispel ignorance and intolerance. I understand how headlines work but a recent piece in The Hill still is a bit grating. "Obama's atheist problem" is not a particularly good title to start with. It implies he has a problem with us, which would further imply that he actually thinks much about atheist to begin with. I doubt that. Occasionally inserting a vague throw-away line into a speech or two, though better than nothing, doesn't show that much concern or thought.

Mellman's initial concern is both superficial and a conflation.

"Fresh Gallup data make it clear that President Obama is hemorrhaging support among white atheists. The president’s vote is down 10 points since 2008 among whites who profess no religion..."

Not identifying with a specific religion does not automatically make someone an atheist. The more generic term "non-religious" tends to include plenty of theists. The notion that he is "hemorrhaging" atheist support is premature and misleading. If by support Mellman means votes I wouldn't worry too much. If he means favorable rating then he might have more of a point. Pointing out that Obama has been more favorable toward atheists than previous presidents is like saying it's better to have one form of cancer over another. Sure, it is technically true but it would be better not to have cancer at all. Vague, ineffectual support may be counted as an emotional victory but serves no real practical purpose.

As an atheist (as a liberal I have a whole other set of problems with him) Obama only made one campaign promise that I cared for in any way. Even his claim to reform the "Faith Based Initiative" fell way short of what it should have been. Within months of taking office he backed away from his pathetically weak promise. Mellman is incredibly naive to think Obama had much support among atheists over issues directly related to being an atheist. I'd be surprised if he got many votes from atheists beyond the reason that the other guy would have been even worse on such issues. That, of course, assumes an atheist point of view even came into play. Being atheist does not say much about an individual' politics. There seem to be two sizable political camps within atheism: liberals and libertarians. The former tends to favor Democrats while the latter seems to favor Republicans.

Mellman still seems to think that for Obama, "Reclaiming the godless must be a priority." I'd love it if that were true but I have no reason to reach such a conclusion. He has yet to pay much attention to us. Put bluntly, he doesn't have that much reason to do so. We don't make up that much of the electorate. By we, I mean actual atheists not the non-religious. It is for that reason that groups like the National Atheist Party have emerged (I am a member). Unfortunately, since the NAP is in its infancy it will probably be a few more years before it will be able to exert much influence. Until we are able to pool our resources and efforts more effectively, which we are moving towards, I see my self voting the way I have always voted. I'll cast my vote for the lesser of two assholes.

I look forward to the day I can cast a ballot for a candidate I actually want. It will take some work but I think it can be done. If you're interested in working towards such a goal at least take a look at the NAP.

Terrorism is not the Reason

"Interest in the scientific study of religion has surged over the past decade. While this development is positive in many ways, it comes largely for an unfortunate reason – global terrorism, exemplified most clearly by the September 11th attacks of ten years ago." There are a handful of things wrong with this statement made by Connor Wood on the Science on Religion blog but I will start with what seems to be the main point. Terrorism is not the main reason for studying religion in a scientific manner. This approach predates his primary example, September 11  attacks, by quite a bit. The development of modern science immediately led to greater scrutiny of religion. To be fair, it is true that the mainstream media has largely ignored this trend until fairly recently. Dennett's book Breaking the Spell was one of the first to get any attention but it was preceded by decades of scholarly research by not only himself but a wide number of others

Whether Wood intended his statement to be delusional and arrogant it certainly comes across that way. Global terrorism is not new, not even here in the US. Unfortunately,terrorism has always been used. Just because the average American had no sense of these horrors does not mean they did not exist on a large scale before 2001. Wood's erroneous piece carries this foolishness over to its basic position, which is not even hinted at in the opening sentences. He never establishes anything resembling scientific evidence that terrorism is explainable through evolutionary theory. He conflates the work of others regarding the evolutionary explanation of religion as a whole with this specific offshoot. For instance, "So religion, while originally merely a random offshoot of other, unrelated cognitive adaptations, is now an adaptive function." There is reason to believe that religion over time became an adaptive function but that says nothing about terrorism. It also says nothing about contemporary terrorism. it could be argued that religion is no longer an "adaptive function." There are, after all, plenty of evolutionary remnants that no longer serve their original purpose. They simply have not become detrimental enough for the evolutionary process to weed them out.

This is not to say I disagree with looking into the root causes of terrorism. If we are to have any hope of decreasing its use we need to study it honestly and thoroughly. And, yes, religion does seem to be a key component but is not the only one. We should never overlook any aspect of this heinous and deadly practice. Socio-economic and political issues are also key factors that should be reviewed.

America, sometimes home of the scary

Even though there is no direct link between these two posts beyond them being published on the same day both are frightening and serve as examples of how dangerously foolish we can be as a nation.

The posts in question are:

"Survey: Religion a key factor in determining support for Obama vs. Romney"

Religion should play no role in selecting a president. The country is far too diverse and religion far too contentious. The president is suppose to represent all Americans and do what is best for all Americans. Mixing religion into politics has never proved to be positive and I find it hard to believe it ever will.

"Kirk Cameron's Growing Circle of Reconstructionist Friends"

That a fool like Cameron is gaining influence among any group is disturbing enough, it is even worse that he seems to getting more media attention. I have no doubt some will still view him as the cute guy who once played a mischievous but lovable character on Growing Pains. They may be willing to overlook some of the details of his new career out of misplaced sentimentality. This thin veneer isn't likely to get him all that far but it may be just enough to gain more attention and resources to do real damage.

Put these two together and I can't help but start feeling pessimistic about our future. Little things can make big differences. Every little step forward  made by the religious right is a step back for all of us.

Anti-Abortion and Pro-Gay, Maybe

It seems that a favorite Bible passage among anti-abortionists has become a favorite among advocates for Homosexual rights. A few verses of Psalm 139 are being used to support both groups goals. While I support the idea that all people should be treated equally I find it a bit disturbing that Gay rights groups are citing the Bible. I realize simply repeating the Bible is a worthless piece of shit doesn't really accomplish much and I'm not holding out much hope that specific examples like the drivel found in David Van Biema's "Psalm 139 Used By Pro-Life, Gay Rights Group" will be more successful. I still find the need to make the attempt.

The fact that two groups who not only share no common ground but are generally opposed to one another can use the same Biblical passage should send up red flags. The verse specifically cited is not from the King James edition but is fairly similar. There are some nuances that make the King James version a little less useful but that is, of course, one of the points I have often made. There are a multitude of variations just in terms of edition and translations. Even if everyone could agree on one version (good luck with that) most verses are still vague enough to be interpreted numerous ways. This is all before you get to the problem of context, or more accurately a lack of context. Most verses are cherry-picked from the larger passage in order to avoid anything in the same chapter that may confuse or contradict the desired purpose.

The favored passage discussed in Van Biema's piece is Psalm 139 verses 13 and 14, which reads in King James as follows:
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother'swomb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

The marvelously made bit is pleasant enough. I can see latching on to that but what is with the fearful part?
Perhaps if you continue reading you might come up with an interpretive answer. I did. Verse 19  seems as good as any for explaining the fear referenced previously. It starts with, "Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God." Of course he will. If you've read the Old Testament and familiarized yourself with Mosaic Law you should be aware of the massive number of behaviors and even lack of behaviors that make one "wicked." If I actually believed in God I'd be scared shitless since it is virtually impossible to not be wicked and the God of scripture routinely initiates rather savage murder sprees.

You don't often see Christians cite those fun verses.

Any text that requires a massive amount of cherry-picking and interpretation to make it palatable should not be seen as a source of authority for anything. Whether the goals are worthy or not mixing passages from the "Good Book" in can only make the cause seem weak, desperate, and inhumane. Liberals, please stop doing it. Let conservatives have the scriptures. After all, it seems to suit their knack for hypocrisy, contradictions, and corruption.

Bad Advice even Hypothetically

Even if you take Birdsong's advice hypothetically it is still horrible. Setting aside that over the past decade or so more and more Americans have become fed up with politicians interjecting their personal faith into public policies, Dan Birsong's take on "civil religion" is idiotic and his insistence that Romney is somehow not religious enough is just as wacky.

In his CNN Belief Blog post, "My Take: How Romney could transcend Mormonism with civil religion", he lays out five main points. Each is at best misguided nonsense. I find it interesting that a political science lecturer could fail to understand the Constitution so thoroughly. The first few points he makes are made in complete ignorance, or possibly defiance, of some of the most basic principles our government in founded on.

"1.Talk about a sacred Constitution."
No! The Constitution is of great importance but is not sacred. The framers of the constitution intended it to change. Sacred scriptures are intended to be unchanging. It is also important to note that God/Divinity are not mentioned once in the entire document. That was not by accident. Despite claims from the religious right, our government was intended from the very beginning to be secular. There are only two references to religion in general and both are cautionary. The last paragraph of Article VI states "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." And then there is the more familiar First Amendment that does provide the basic concept of separation of church and state.

"2.Present himself as America's patriarch."
Again, no. I already have a father, whom I love dearly, and I don't need another one. In this context patriarch could easily be interpreted as an authoritarian figure. It seems to have slipped Birdsong's mind that we fought a war to establish our independence. Technically, Britain was no longer a monarchy at the time but the King of England was a potent symbol for tyranny that we used to recruit soldiers.

"3.Use civil religion to compensate for his Mormonism"
It is highly debatable that Religion can ever be truly civil. As for mixing religion in to politics, the results are almost always bad. It is also completely unnecessary and by its nature divisive. Does Romney really need to "compensate for his Mormonism"? If he does, what does that say about religion? If he makes it clear he won't use his personal religious views to make policy that impacts the rest of us it should not matter. Basically, keep religion out of public matters and everyone will be the better for it.

"4.Follow the lead of previous presidents."
Because they never fuck things up. Birdsong throws in a few quotations that don't really mean much and completely ignores the type of statement that show how horrible religion can be when it comes to "civil" matters. During a campaign stop in Chicago on August 27, 1987 George H.W. Bush stated in an interview answer, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." What a wonderful example to follow.

"5. Look for a 'Book of Mormon' moment"
This section makes me suspect that this whole piece may be a joke. If it is meant to be satirical it is a little too subtle in the above sections. He doesn't seem to get that the Book of Mormon musical is intended as a farce. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone involved in the study of politics and/or the media could be so utterly clueless.

If this is a joke it is a really bad one. If it isn't then I have to conclude that Birdsong is one of the most ignorant and incompetent political scientists and campaign strategists on the face of the planet.

"What happens when candidates called by God drop out?"

"What happens when candidates called by God drop out?" Unfortunately, nothing. Religious right nuts will continue to run for various political offices claiming God told them to do so. When they fail, they will not think they were wrong, question the existence of God, or question their delusions about knowing the will of such a being.

The rest of society will most likely also fail to question such claims. Most will shrug it off as the foolish pronouncements of fringe candidates even if the candidate in question is a notable figure within one of the two major political parties (usually Republican) and therefore not "fringe" at all. They certainly will never question the various pronouncements they themselves frequently make about God.

A Question of Civil Rights?

I agree with much of what Eboo Patel says in his recent post "Attacking Mitt Romney, Attacking Faith" but with a few caveats. I firmly believe that everyone has a right to believe whatever they choose, which includes religious ideas. However, Patel seems to be confusing the idea of respecting an individual's rights with respecting the ideas that individual subscribes to. There is a huge difference. I can easily agree that you have a right to believe in faeries but that doesn't mean I am compelled to accept or tolerate that idea. In fact, it's my right to think you are complete moron for believing such nonsense.

Patel also makes an incredibly idiotic comparison when he states, "...our society has, again for the most part, recognized that counting someone's race against her in a political election is an act prejudice, and it's bad. So why is counting someone's religion against him any less an act of prejudice?" Why? You do not choose your gender (at least not till you are a legal adult) or ethnicity. Gender and ethnicity also do not come with a set of beliefs. Simply being a male Caucasian does not mean I have to believe x, y, or z. You choose a religion. Whether you end up following all the doctrines or practices is a separate matter but by choosing the specific religion you are at the least publicly endorsing those ideas and behaviors.

He is right that no one should be denied rights because of the faith they have chosen but that is not what is happening with Romney or any other politician who publicly proclaims, and rather loudly, their particular religious beliefs. I see no reason to apologize for thinking that Romney is not qualified to run the country I live in because among other things he is a practicing Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks their underwear (look it up) is magical is too fucking ignorant and stupid to run a country. I don't really care what the source of such a ridiculous notion is. If you endorse a system of beliefs that contains a huge amount of ludicrous ideas I'm going to assume you are an intellectual cripple incapable of making important policy decisions. I fail to see that as being a civil rights infringement. If there is evidence that clearly demonstrated that those ideas are sound I'll be happy to apologize and reconsider my own position. Till that time I'm going to reserve my right to think that Romney is an incompetent delusion ass.

Even Opinion Pieces Should Be Fact-Checked

A recent post on CNN's Belief Blog was so ludicrous that I found it hard to believe that I was actually reading what was written. When I was still teaching I used to point out that opinions are in fact not always valid. There are two ways to hold a false or wrong opinion. Either you express an opinion that contradicts known facts or you in no way provide support for your opinion. Dan Merica's opinion in "In age of political vitriol, opposing Christians call for civility" proves to be false on both counts. He certainly didn't do any fact checking. If he had he wouldn't have taken Richard Land at his word that he favored civility in political discourse. Anyone who has followed Land's career would be well aware that he is rarely civil when it comes to preaching against those he doesn't like. There are plenty of people he doesn't like. He has outright demonized Muslims and Homosexuals, among others. You also would know right away that Land's agreement that faith should not be associated with a particular political party runs counter to everything he has done. He is a staunch Republican activist and always has been. The piece defies all known facts. So what is it based on? Apparently, a single discussion. Not much to base such a far reaching assessment on.

I do not know what motivated Land to claim he favors civility beyond potential gains in the are of public relations. I would speculate that whichever of the Republican candidates he favors has taken more of a political beating than he cares for. I admit I have not paid as much attention to Land during this election cycle so I do not know which candidate he is endorsing. I do know that he does seem to be following his usual routine. He did attend this years Values Voter Summit, which is a Religious Right and Republican event. I have no reason to believe his behavior has changed in the least.

Christians do "have it both ways": or why the AVN are a bunch of assholes

I recently became aware of the American Values Newtork's "Ayn Rand or Jesus" Campaign. It is thoroughly despicable. Aside from being incredibly ignorant and extremely bigoted it is also irrational, unethical, and plain old false. It is premised on demonizing atheists as a whole. The basic idea is to bash conservative Christian politicians for their praise of Ayn Rand. It is both amusing and irritating that the AVN ends up acting as a mirror image of those they attack. Conservatives who praise her politics completely ignore her personal life while the AVN focus on one aspect of her personal life to the exclusion of all else. In any case, I've never understood why people insist on using the ridiculous "guilt by association" political attack. Personally, I think Ayn Rand was a horrible human being with terrible political views. I don't see what either has to do with her having been an atheist.

If these idiots want to get into generalizations and the guilt by association tactic they would do well to fact check. Ayn Rand was conservative (libertarian and/or fiscal conservative) but the overwhelming majority of atheists tend to lean liberal. Rand was an adulterer. There is a correlation between fidelity and higher levels of intelligence, as well higher levels of secular attitudes and/or non-belief. There is also a correlation between non-belief and lower rates of crime. Attacking her personal morality, or lack there of, says nothing about other atheists once you start generalizing. If you pay attention to studies and statistics, on virtually every measure commonly used to verify morality atheists fair far better than theists.

The AVN also seem to be a bit off the mark when they claim that you have to choose between Rand and Jesus as role models/idols. If they weren't so ignorant and self-deluded they may have noticed that Christ isn't that wonderful. They attack Rand and through her conservatives as being selfish and greedy. Apparently they skipped over:
"And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? She hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." Mark 14:3-7
Translation: The poor are always around so screw them. Me, I'm more important than the rest of you slobs so I deserve to be pampered.

Sounds to me like you can be Christian and still be an arrogant, greedy, selfish prick. Conservative Christians can have it both ways. In fact you can "have it both ways" on virtually anything you want within Christianity since the New Testament is loaded with contradictions. So why does the AVN find it necessary to demonize atheists. In politics, we could be allies. Instead, they have to behave like the scum they attack.