Atheist Internet Outreach Newsletter
SUMMER 2002 NEWSLETTER
The Rational Take:
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DECISION, ROUND 1
by Mynga Futrell, Atheists and Other Freethinkers
Many Americans will take heart in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, because the
"under God" portion of the Pledge, inserted in 1954, had warped our
Constitution's commitment to freedom of conscience for citizens.
The Pledge was written as a patriotic oath, and it was that for many
years before Congress superimposed religion onto it. The new decision
revives the original religious neutrality of the Pledge, and lots of
good citizens welcome the return to sound and just principle.
Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, wrote our first Pledge in 1892,
about a hundred years after our nation was founded. His version read: "I
pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one
nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Sixty-some years later, though, deep into a cold war with "godless
communists" and after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, Congress
added the words "under God" to our Pledge. This change forced a
patriotic oath into a religious framework, upsetting the intent. In this
emotional time, Americans need to stop and think carefully about that
original intent.
Before 1954, our Pledge was fully inclusive of all the youngsters in a
classroom. It embraced all our diverse citizenry. Whatever our
worldviews--Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or atheist or Hindu--we were
all included, all unified in our love of this nation and of its
democratic and humanitarian principles. The Pledge once affirmed a
national unity, but in 1954, that changed.
Over recent decades, a good portion of our citizens and schoolchildren
have been made to feel like outsiders in their own nation. They were
deemed to be "unpatriotic," because they could not affirm what they
truly did not believe.
The two-word insertion of religion into a national Pledge sets many
children apart from their classmates. There are youngsters who have
wanted to express the love of country in their hearts, but they have not
been able to conscientiously agree with the monotheistic perspective
that was superimposed over the Pledge in 1954.
Consequently, the recent decision finds atheists, rationalists,
naturalists and freethinkers of all sorts cautiously optimistic that the
Pledge will be allowed to return to its pre-1954 form and become once
again a truly unifying convention, rather than the troublesome one it
has been in recent decades.
Under this decision, religion-free citizens can look forward to their
children no longer being pressured by peers or frowned upon by teachers
for a reluctance to utter two words which, in their hearts, they do not
agree with, simply cannot agree with, because those words are a
religious affirmation.
Under this decision, our children in the classrooms and our neighbors in
the community can join as equals on a level playing field to express
their devotion to the nation.
Now, we hope, our Constitution's guarantee of freedom of conscience can
be endorsed in reality and not just in rhetoric. We can have a nation
indivisible.
Sacramento's AOF organization urges Americans to think hard and not
overreact to the decision. Far from undermining our nation, this
decision moves our country forward toward a truly indivisible nation,
united by our Constitutional principles. These principles should live in
practice and not just in theory. Our superb Bill of Rights is for the
citizenry--the full citizenry--and not just for a monotheistic majority.
Top of the Page
The Irrational Take:
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DECISION, ROUND 2
Marie Alena Castle, Atheists of Minnesota for Human Rights
We are about to witness the downfall of civilization. It's really bad
out there in mainstream America.
I got a call from radio station WDAY in Fargo, ND, for a debate about
the Pledge of Allegiance ruling. I was on for almost a half-hour
fielding hostile questions from clueless defenders of the faith and the
far-right contingent. The program is a right-wing call-in show, "Hot
Talk," hosted by Scott Hennen.
Get this: The program was introduced with a taped message from
SUPPOSEDLY liberal Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), urging people to
listen. Scott then came on with a rant in favor of vouchers and the
Supreme Court decision on that, and so you get an idea of what I was up
against.
You all would have been proud of me. I was cool and reasonable and
factual throughout, despite feeling as if I had been transported to
another planet. One and all, including the host, insisted that democracy
means the majority rules, and therefore if the majority wants the Pledge
of Allegiance with "under God" in it, that's okay.
They said this country was founded on the Ten Commandments. They said
this nation was built on tolerance and I was being intolerant to object
to the phrase "under God." They said this country is founded on "god,"
because "god" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. They
asked what I thought would happen if the Pledge were put to a vote of
the people. One person even wondered how atheists could recover from
alcoholism, since we have no "higher power" as Alcoholics Anonymous
requires.
I explained about the Constitution and how it is there to protect the
minority from the tyranny of the majority, that it was the first in
history to separate religion from government, that the Declaration of
Independence is not the operating document of this country--the
Constitution is--and this is one nation under the Constitution.
I said if the Pledge were put to a vote, it would pass overwhelmingly,
but if the Bill of Rights were likewise put to a vote, it would be
defeated. I explained that the Oath of Office in the Cosntitution does
not say "So help me god." I said this country is not founded on the 10
Commandments and pointed out that the first Commandment says that only
the god of the Jews shall be worshipped, but the First Amendment to the
Constitution provides freedom to worship any god we choose, or none.
I asked how they would like it if the Pledge said "one nation under no
god," and said that I, as an atheist, would be totally opposed to that,
because it wouldn't be fair. This is a pluralistic country, and we have
to respect the right of conscience.
I said it is intolerant to marginalize good citizens for not having a
god belief or for believing in other gods, and what is tolerant is for
the government to stay out of religion and not essentially force it on
unwilling people. I mentioned the history of how Jehovah's Witnesses in
the past were persecuted for not saying the Pledge or saluting the flag
as an example of the social coercion that takes place against minority
beliefs.
As for alcoholics, I said I didn't know many atheists who were
alcoholics, but those I did know seemed to recover just fine by relying
on themselves as their own higher power and by standing on their own two
feet.
It went on like that. Reason and facts and common sense made not the
slightest impact on the callers. I just hope there were some reasonably
intelligent people listening, because we are in for a feeding frenzy of
religiosity. It won't be pleasant, and very few politicians will be able
to withstand the mob rule that is taking place and to uphold the
Constitution.
Top of the Page
How It All Began:
THE HISTORY OF THE BOULDER HERETICS
Miriam Basart, Boulder Heretics
The Boulder Heretics began in 1992 as the Boulder Freethinkers and
nominally was an arm of Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) in
Denver.
It started in Boulder with a phone call from two FFRF members requesting
a meeting in Boulder for people who couldn't make the trip to Denver.
Those two callers were Sandy Feroe (deceased) and Ed Zitt. Being a
Boulder resident myself, I called them both, and we had a group.
We posted a weekly notice in the Boulder DAILY CAMERA and received a
fairly good response and eventually had enough like-minded people to
question where we wanted to go with our ideas.
In 1993 Bert Tryba (deceased) was keen on starting an opposition group
to Campus Crusade for Christ at the University of Colorado. However, we
didn't have any students to represent us, and so each person donated
enough money to run a few catchy advertisements in the COLORADO DAILY, a
newspaper distributed on the Boulder campus. Our first ad appeared in
March 1993, and it read, "Why should we sacrifice a world we have for
one we know not of?"
The FFRF phone started ringing, and a few students attended our meetings
at the coffee house where we met at the time. The objective then was to
find a student interested enough to start a student club. John
Cardinale, a former student, told us of a friend who was willing to be
our student representative until we found a permanent person.
During the next student registration, Sandy, Bert and I, along with two
other members, Tom and Eric, sat for many hours at the University
Memorial Center. We had signs and sign-up sheets, and many students
showed interest. Soon we found a leader named Jordan, and she worked
hard to bring students to our meetings.
Our first speaker at a campus meeting was Darryl Mehring, a philosophy
faculty member from the University of Colorado on the Denver campus. He
spoke on the importance of heresy, and eventually we changed our name to
the Campus Heretics.
Flyers and advertisements were used to announce our presence on campus,
and at our speakers events we often had 40 people attend. We even showed
a film in the University theater, KING JAMES VERSION, an African
American film by Robert Gardner, which is the story of a 12-year-old
girl living in New York with her religious parents. When her mother
leaves the church to preach on the streets, the child is torn between
the beliefs of each parent, and the experience eventually teaches her to
seek an identity and independence for herself.
Later, as a reentry student, John Cardinale brought to our attention
that all newly registered students were given an official student
confirmation packet, which contained a religious-preference card. There
was no mention that this card could be signed voluntarily, and the
completed card was then sent to the United Campus Ministries and
distributed among the churches and synagogues scattered around the
University area.
One of our members was on the board of the Boulder ACLU, and he
suggested that we set up an appointment with the ACLU and complain about
this religious abuse of University money. Then a lawyer, Judd Golden,
wrote a letter to the United Campus Ministries, asking for an
alternative way for them to distribute their cards and that they not be
sent in the official University mail.
This became a controversial issue, and it was front-page news in the
COLORADO DAILY on August 2, 1994, and the DAILY CAMERA also printed it
as a front-page story on August 5-7. The outcome was that as of October
1994, the religious-preference cards are no longer sent in official CU
mail.
The Campus Heretics were at the University for about a year, but then
Jordan graduated, and in spite of the many hours on campus and the many
lists of students, we couldn't find anyone to officially represent the
Campus Heretics, a problem for a permanent University organization with
a transient student sponsor. The club is still on hold, and there are a
few dollars in the student-club account to keep the name, but basically
that organization no longer exists.
Thus, we began meeting in another coffee house, because the first one
had since gone out of business. The core group remained, many new people
joined us, and we changed our name once again to Boulder Heretics.
Other activities included picketing the now defunct "Promise Keepers"
when organizer and football coach Bill McCartney arranged for them to
hold their rallies at the University football stadium. We also had a
booth at the Boulder Creek Festival for two years.
Currently we are in our third coffee house and meet every month on the
Tuesday that ends in "teenth," where we discuss atheism, religion,
politics, social issues and whatever else has been in the news during
the past month, and in 2001 we decided to become a member society of
Atheist Alliance, Inc.
At times we have ended our meetings by watching a video distributed by
the Atheist Alliance, and at our June 2002 meeting we decided at each
future meeting to have one of our members give a book review,
presentation or demonstration for about 30 minutes. We now have speakers
lined up through October 2002.
Top of the Page
As Far As I'm Concerned:
CULBERSON'S CHALLENGE
Dan Culberson, Boulder Heretics
Here's what I think.
Rational thinkers need a corollary with which to counter Pascal's
Wager, which essentially is "Either God exists or doesn't exist, but if
so and I believe in God, I will go to Heaven instead of Hell after I
die; if God doesn't exist, I have lost nothing."
That's not believing; that just saying you believe.
By that reasoning, then you might as well follow the teachings of
your chosen "God." Otherwise, you are admitting that your "God" is
so weak as to be fooled by a lip-service believer and lets anyone
into Heaven just for half-hearted belief, not for good deeds. That's
not a God. That's a bored security guard.
Blaise Pascal lived from 1623 to 1662 in France, and he was a
brilliant scientist, mathematician and writer who also invented a
calculating machine at 18. In 1654 he had a "mystical experience"
and converted to Jansenism, a doctrine of the sect of Roman
Catholics in opposition to the Jesuits.
In other words, Pascal himself had doubts about what he had been
taught growing up as a Roman Catholic, and if that isn't enough to
make his so-called "wager" suspect, consider that he also wrote "Men
blaspheme what they do not know" and "Men never do evil so
completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction," both in his LETTRES PROVINCIALES [1656-1657].
So, for all you people with such weak religious belief that you take
the easy way out to literally "save your soul" or with such weak
intelligence that you cannot decide for yourselves what to believe,
here is Culberson's Challenge:
Assume there is no "God." Then, priests, cardinals, the Pope,
preachers, ministers and all other self-appointed spokespeople for
"God" are either liars or deluded into ignoring the empirical
evidence of science and mistakenly believing that God exists.
Either way, they are not to be trusted, and as the growing evidence
of widespread sexual misconduct mounts, that would seem to be the
case.
Now assume there is a God who created us and all the so-called
reality around us: the planets, the solar system, the stars, the
universe and the "world." Then we are all merely figments of God's
own imagination and therefore do not exist outside of that
imagination.
However, if we are figments of God's imagination, if we are
manufactured "real" creatures in God's own image or if we are truly
independent sentient beings with or without free will, what would
eternity in either Heaven or Hell mean? We would eventually become
used to our existence in either one and inured to the pain that
supposedly awaits us in the one and bored in the other of those
futures.
And name one other thing in nature that lasts forever without
wearing out, running down, burning up or simply dying.
Therefore, I propose that neither future of "eternity" is anything
to aspire to, and consequently believing in the existence of "God"
is of no benefit whatsoever while we are alive, just as not
believing in Santa Claus when we were children didn't change whether
we got Christmas presents from our parents.
Thus, I challenge you either to give up your belief in a supreme
being who supposedly created you and controls you and the world, or
else to continue your disbelief in such a mythology, because either
way, you lose nothing.
Of course, there are some misguided fools who will not accept this
challenge and say, "Better safe than sorry," which is merely
religious belief by slogans and sayings.
This thinking is the basis for all religious belief, and it is the
most dangerous aspect of believing in a "God," because it leads to
this sort of logic:
"There must be a God, because everybody says there is. Therefore, I
can lead my life believing in God and do anything I want to, because
if I ever do anything that God doesn't want me to do, God will stop
me. Therefore, I can do anything I want until God stops me,
including trying to convince as many other people I can that God
exists, because there is 'strength in numbers,' and the more people
who believe in God increases the chances that God does exist."
If you accept this challenge and choose to live without a belief in
God, your life on earth will be much less complicated and
frustrating and stressful, and it will be much more rewarding,
enjoyable and definitely free of self-imposed religious pressure.
"God" loses. You win.
Top of the Page
Found on the Internet:
ARAB SUICIDES
A Reasonable Explanation
Everyone seems to be wondering why the Arab terrorists are so quick to
commit suicide....
Let's see now:
No premarital sex.
No booze.
No bars.
No television.
No Internet.
No organized sports, stadiums, tailgate parties.
Actually, no tailgates.
No Hooters.
No meat from a pig.
Sand everywhere and not a dune buggy in sight.
No fishing at an oasis.
No fish at a mirage.
Rags for clothes and hats.
Eating only with your right hand, because you wipe your butt only with your left hand.
Life is complicated enough already.
Constant wailing from the guy next door, because he is sick and no doctors.
No music.
No radio.
No shaving.
No showering.
Bar-B-Q donkey cooked over burning camel dung not too appetizing.
The women have to wear baggy dresses and veils at all times.
Your spouse is picked by someone else.
Oh, but then they tell you that when you die, it all gets better!
Who wouldn't go for it?
Top of the Page
More from the Internet:
SURVEY SAYS!
How People Identify Their Religious Beliefs
from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel.htm
During 2001-FEB to APR, the Graduate Center of the City University of
New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS).
It was a massive poll, questioning 50,281 American adults about their
religious affiliations during 2001-FEB to APR. They obtained some
results that are noticeably different from the Pluralism Project's data.
The differences are mainly that they asked their poll subjects what
religion they considered themselves to be, rather than what religion
they were actually affiliated with. Results included:
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Catholic.
14.1% do not follow any organized religion.
(People, why don't you just say "atheists," I wonder)
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
Only rarely are people polled about the importance that religion plays
in their life. It is simple to identify oneself as following a
particular religion. But that term covers both the devout, sincere
believer and the nominal adherent. One source(2) described the results
of a 1993 in-depth survey of about 4,000 American adults. It concluded
that:
30% are totally secular in outlook
29% are barely or nominally religious
22% are modestly religious
19% regularly practice their religion.
(2) Thomas C. Reeves, "THE EMPTY CHURCH: Does Organized Religion Matter
Anymore?" Simon & Schuster: New York, NY (1998), page 64.
Attendance at Religious Services
In the United States: 76.5% of adults identify themselves as Christians.
There has been a drop in the percentage of American adults who attend
religious services regularly, having gone from 49% in 1991 to 36% in
1996.
Reduction in attendance is a worldwide phenomenon among industrialized
countries. The U.S. is believed to have the highest attendance rates;
Canada is at about 20%; Australia, England and the rest of Europe are
10% or less. The general trend is downward as societies become more
secular.
These numbers are almost always taken from public opinion polls, in
which people are asked how often they attended church or other religious
service during the previous month. Until recently, it was assumed that
people tell the truth when asked this type of question. A second way of
estimating these numbers is to take a small geographical area (e.g., a
county) and actually count the number of attendees.
This has been done in some counties in the U.S. and Canada. They show
church attendance at about half the above figures. It seems that people
often tell the pollsters what they think that they should be doing, not
what they actually do.
Top of the Page
On the Other Hand:
PLEASE BE SPECIFIC
Jesus: "Peter, Peter, remove these nails and take me down from the cross."
Peter: "Yes, O Lord."
Jesus: "Feet FIRST, you bastaaaaaaarrrrrrrrdd!"
(Submitted by Dave Mallinder.)
A local priest and a pastor were fishing on the side of the road. They
thoughtfully made a sign saying, "The End is Near! Turn yourself around
now before it's too late!" and showed it to each passing car.
One driver who drove by didn't appreciate the sign and shouted at them,
"Leave us alone, you religious nuts!"
All of a sudden they heard a big splash, looked at each other, and the
priest said to the pastor, "You think maybe we should have just said
'Bridge Out' instead?"
(Submitted by Richard S. Russell)
Top of the Page
Notable:
QUOTABLE
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615
Top of the Page
FROM THE ATHEIST INTERNET OUTREACH PRESIDENT
This week has brought much attention to issues affecting state/church
separation within the United States.
The Pledge of Allegiance ruling has brought much media attention to
atheists throughout the United States. In many states, local and
national atheist and state/church separation groups explained the issues
on TV, radio and in the newspapers. This has helped many atheists know
that they are not alone. Children know that there is an option of
stating the Pledge without the "under god," and many learned that until
1954 there was no "under god." Atheist organizations have seen a
significant increase in people requesting information. (The Atheist
Alliance Website has seen an almost tripling in Web traffic since the
Pledge ruling.) A second ruling in the United States on school vouchers
has added to the attention that atheist organizations now see. This is
seen as a huge step back, as tax dollars in the U.S.--which are
partially paid by atheists--will benefit religious schools.
We don't know what the outcome of the Pledge ruling will be, and it will
probably rest in the hands of the United States Supreme Court. However,
regardless of the outcome, all Americans now know that placing "under
god" in the Pledge is offensive to atheists and those who do not share
monotheistic beliefs. Regardless of the outcome of the Pledge ruling, we
have taken a huge step forward this week.
Joe Zemel
President, Atheist Internet Outreach
info@atheistalliance.org
Top of the Page
ABOUT ATHEIST OUTREACH
The primary goals of AO are to connect atheists with existing organizations nearby or to encourage them to form new Atheist Alliance member societies where there currently are none.
Our AO Officers/volunteers are:
Joe Zemel, President/Webmaster
Dan Culberson, Vice President/Newsletter-editor/writer
Dave Feroe, Atheist Alliance/Atheist Outreach Web designer
Bobbie Kirkhart, E-mail responder
With a very small staff of volunteers, we endeavor to personally answer every question or comment we receive. Our hope is that those who contact us will no longer feel, in the words of one e-mail, that "coming out as an atheist is rather lonely."
If you'd like to help start an atheist group in your area, please contact info@atheistalliance.org. There are no dues for any organization to join Atheist Alliance, and we can assist with various aspects of organizing, such as bylaws and with tips on finding potential members through the Net.
Financial support is vital, and there are various ways to support non- prophet organizations. AAI and its member societies are run by volunteers, but there are expenses involved in helping new groups get started, undertaking atheist projects, handling correspondence through postal and electronic mail and hosting a Website. Please donate to the Atheist Alliance to help support the creation of new groups. Your support is greatly appreciated.
We also encourage your membership in the Atheist Alliance. One benefit is the international magazine, Secular Nation. See http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/membership.html#individuals for membership information.
Top of the Page
ABOUT THE AIO NEWSLETTER
Unless otherwise noted, all contents of the Atheist Internet Outreach Newsletter are written by Dan Culberson (danculberson@juno.com).
AIO Newsletter is an online publication of Atheist Outreach, a member organization of Atheist Alliance, Inc. We are volunteers whose goals are to promote issues concerning separation of state and church, provide a means for atheists around the world to communicate with each other, and support the aims and purposes of the Atheist Alliance and its member societies.
Membership in Atheist Outreach is free. Simply send your name and e-mail address to atheistoutreach@atheistalliance.org. Should you prefer not to receive future issues, send "unsubscribe" to the above address.
All newsletter subscribers have permission to utilize the articles on thematically-appropriate Internet discussion groups, Websites and organizational newsletters. Please give credit to Atheist Outreach when doing so. We would appreciate your citing the Atheist Outreach Website: (http://www.atheistalliance.org/outreach/)
Submissions from any reader reflecting an atheist point of view are invited. Submissions by young atheists through high school are solicited for a "Teen Atheists" column. All other atheists college-age and up are encouraged to submit their thoughts as well. Send manuscripts to danculberson@juno.com.
Visit Atheist Outreach at http://www.atheistalliance.org
Top of the Page
ADMINISTRIVIA:
Copyright 2002 by Atheist Outreach. No part may be reproduced without written permission.
No e-mail standard exists for the Internet. E-mail programs and Internet browsers display this newsletter in the program default, font and size you have specified within your specific browser/reader. This newsletter is designed for optimal viewing with a 7-inch page width and the text in the Geneva industry standard font.
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. NOTE: Other than "fair use" quoting of approximately 50 words, to reproduce the works in this publication by copying, faxing or quoting either directly or electronically requires the express written permission of the publisher or the author.
This newsletter is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
|
|
