It’s December! It’s cold, and in my part of the U.S., we’ve had some of the grossest winter weather we’ve seen in years (barring last year’s tremendous snowstorm). There are lights on houses, on trees, and in the windows.  There are way too many people at retail outlets. It’s the holiday season!

No matter what your beliefs, almost everyone can find something to celebrate in this chilly* month – even if it’s just the end of finals and the start of winter break! To fill some of the long dark hours, we’re bringing you a giant issue of the eMpirical. We’ve got thoughts on holidays, gift ideas, Student Voice interviews, and much more – so find something hot and tasty to drink and settle in for a great read!

*For those reading this from the southern hemisphere, enjoy that wonderful summer weather and know that the rest of us are fairly green with envy.

Looking for a last minute gift for the nonbeliever in your life?  Here are some great ideas, for anyone from the hardline outspoken atheist to the slightly irreverent.

Toast just too boring for you?  Add a miracle to every slice with this Toast Stamp!

 

Tired of looking at everyone else's Jesus fish?  Get your own Darwin fish, Evolve fish, Flying Spaghetti Monster and much, much more at EvolveFish.com.  




Help support the Freedom From Religion Foundation when you purchase their Slightly Irreverent 2008 Wall Calendar!
 
Need a gift for a newly outspoken atheist?  Check out the awesome selection of shirts and other items from the OUT Campaign, an affiliate of RichardDawkins.net.




The Rational Response Squad runs a shop with lots of fun shirts and more.







And, of course, show your pride as a member of the SSA!  Shirts, hats and buttons are available here.

Dr. Robert Stephens is a professor at Stanford University and co-founder of the Darwin Day Program.   He writes to the eMpirical to invite local groups to collaborate with the larger organization COPUS (Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science).  You can contact Dr. Stephens through the Darwin Day website.

 

A former preacher and children's music composer turned atheist spokesman said last week that the nationwide increase in secularism is a good thing for the country.

"A secular country allows for religion to flourish, if it wants to. A secular country allows atheism to flourish if it wants to," Dan Barker said after a lecture he gave Friday in the Geology Building. "Secular means that religion is not controlling the government. And I guess it also means that nonreligion shouldn't control it either."

During his lecture, Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, advocated the separation of church and state while talking up the increasing number of nonreligious Americans. He was invited to speak by Atheist Longhorns, a student organization founded this semester.

Barker is a former evangelical preacher who "de-converted" in 1984, he said. He is the author of the 1992 book "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist." His foundation has been behind many court cases to remove Ten Commandments monuments from public lands. The foundation may be best known for its efforts to fight President Bush's faith-based initiatives. In the 2006 Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Supreme Court case, the court overturned an earlier Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and ruled that the foundation did not have standing to sue the executive branch.

The foundation works to fight for the separation of church and state. Barker said that while the nonreligious identity is the fastest growing in the United States, politicians and scholars have "not caught up" and are appeasing the religious right.

"You can't have religious freedom if you don't have the freedom to dissent," Barker said. "In America, we're free to disagree with each other on religious matters, but we're not free to ask the government to settle the argument, so the government has to be neutral."

Barker said there is a growing percentage of nonreligious persons in the U.S. He referenced the 1990 and 2001 American Religious Identification Surveys done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. According to the surveys, adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification rose from 8 percent to 14 percent in the 11-year span. The survey says that category saw the biggest increase.

Barker also said secular groups are increasing among the student population. He said students are wanting to fight back and "stand up for reason, science and education." Secular students also want to "socialize with like-minded rationalists," he said.

"We saw a lack of groups on campus that represent atheism," said physics freshman Taylor Ratliff, vice president of Atheist Longhorns. "In a country where we have a growing number of atheists, we felt the need to represent atheism and provide a place where atheists can come together."

 

Back to the top. 

Matthew LaClair is a senior at Kearny High School in Kearny, NJ.  His work to keep religion out of his school was covered in the New York Times and the Village Voice, among others.  His work has earned him several awards, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation's Thomas Jefferson Student Activist Award. Here, he tells his story to the SSA.  This is the second part; you can read the first part here.

 

We had a viable case for violation of my civil rights. In addition to telling me indirectly that I belong in hell, Mr. Paszkiewicz said to me personally and in open class that if I was sincerely seeking I would give up my religious beliefs and “put my finger in Jesus’ side,” in reference to the apostle Thomas. Not only was he telling me that my religious beliefs were wrong, he was saying that I was insincere and so were my parents. So since we had a viable case, we hoped that the board might do something now.

The media attention from it did produce results, but not the results I was looking for. As soon as the story hit the local papers, my classmates started bullying and harassing me and defending the teacher. Students who had acknowledged to me privately that they knew Paszkiewicz was out of line were suddenly saying on TV interviews that he had done nothing wrong and that I was to blame for whatever he might have said or done.

The administration knew that I was being harassed verbally and that I was getting threats. To make things worse, Mr. Mooney, the superintendent of schools, was quoted in the Jersey Journal saying that Mr. Paszkiewicz was a wonderful teacher who had done nothing wrong and was only conducting a high level discussion in the context of American history. (I’m still not aware of dinosaurs existing during American history, or what is high-level about telling high school juniors that they belong in hell.)

On December 18th, everything changed. The New York Times ran the story, and at that point, no pun intended, all hell broke loose. The story ran in the Times in the morning, and within the next three days, I was interviewed on five different national programs. Within two days I had more than three hundred messages of support from all over the world. On January 1st, the Village Voice ran a piece. Now the issue wasn’t going away.

What finally got the Board moving however, were two events that occurred in mid-February. On Presidents’ Day, we held a well-attended press conference at the Newark offices of the ACLU. Besides the ACLU at the press conference, our attorneys from the firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, a major New York City law firm with offices all over the world, and a representative from People for the American Way, which was also lending assistance. The conference lasted more than an hour, and was covered on all the regional news channels.

The following evening, I spoke at the Board of Education meeting. Local press covered the meeting, which made the 10:00 and 11:00 news all over the metropolitan region. Mr. Paszkiewicz made his first public appearance and was promptly mobbed by cameras. Mr. Paszkiewicz, his family and his lawyer basically said that I set him up. Remember that meeting in Mr. Somma’s office on October 10th, and how I said that I could handle myself even though my parents were not allowed to be there? Well, Mr. Paszkiewicz had just written a letter, which our local newspaper published, stating that he had told the truth in that meeting. Since that implied that I was not telling the truth, I had little choice but to tell the Board that I had also recording the meeting in the principal’s office. To this day, I do not know if the Board has ever listened to the recordings.

In any case, shortly after I gave the Board of Education the recording of the meeting in the principal’s office, they began negotiating with us.  It took two months to do it, but we finally settled with them. The terms of the settlement were exactly what we had asked for in October and a little more, because more had happened since October 2006. We agreed that The Anti-Defamation League would come to Kearny High School September 25th to provide in-service training for the teachers on these issues.  We also agreed that the ADL would come to the school to educate the students on these issues.

I know that it sounds like I was coming to a close here, but no. We found out something else.

In July, we found out that the ADL could not do the student training. Now, this by itself is not terrible because we could find another way to accomplish what we wanted. However, the Board of Education did not tell us this. We found out through the ADL. Apparently, the Board attorney was told by the ADL back in February that it was highly unlikely that the ADL could do the student training. However, the Board went forward with the agreement anyway, even though they were not 100% sure that all the terms could be met. The simply never told us.

After that, we waited a little to hear something from the Board on how exactly they plan to correct this problem that they had created. They did not say a word. So I had to get to work. I was looking for a speaker or speakers that could do assemblies for the students on these subjects. I was amazed at the help I received and the time in which it was done.  Ultimately, three speakers agreed to speak at my school –  three people who are very qualified in their fields.

Dr. Kenneth Miller is a professor of Biology at Brown University. He wrote the book Finding Darwin’s God, and he co-authored multiple high school and college biology textbooks, one of which is actually used in our school. He also was the lead witness in the Dover, PA intelligent design case two years ago. He spoke at our school on October 10th.

Dr. Charles Liu is an associate at the Hayden Planetarium and a professor of Astrophysics at City University of New York. He will be speaking to the students this coming February.

The third person is Rev. Barry Lynn. He is Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. He will be speaking in late November or early December.

We proposed these names to the Board of Education and asked for an honorarium for the speakers, as offered to most speakers at our school. They refused to pay any speaker even one dollar. So I spoke with the speakers we had contacted, and all three agreed to do it for free.

Two weeks before the first assembly was to take place, I asked the principal if he had spoken to the person who would set up the projector and microphone for Dr. Miller. He had no idea what I was talking about. Nobody on the board had told the principal who would speak, when they would be speaking, or what they would speak about. This was another example of the Board putting up more roadblocks for us, but luckily I had spoken to the principal that day.

Even though there has been a lot of aggravation and struggle, I think we finally have accomplished what we wanted. We had said all along that we never wanted money from this, that our issues were preserving and defending the Constitution of the United States of America and defending the integrity of education, especially education in the sciences. It took far longer than it should have taken, but we accomplished what we set out to do.

We had the opportunity to interview Matt at the Freedom From Religion Foundation's conference this October.  You can read that interview here.

Back to the top.
 

Kelly of the Rational Response Squad is writing a year-long series to address theist talking heads in the media. Kelly is a Psychology major, co-host of the RRS Radio show, and has been featured on ABC debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.  Here, we reprint select articles with permission.
 
November 15, 2007 - Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn’t make atheism a movement, either.

One of the methods used by the religious to marginalize atheists and our increasing visibility is to accuse us of becoming that which we originally opposed, or in other words, just like them. It’s even better if they have the convenience of one experience with these so-called “secular fundamentalists” from which they can draw unfounded conclusions as to the validity of this argument and, ultimately, the character of all those who have no belief in gods, goddesses, or other mythical creatures.

This is the route taken by Michael Brendan Dougherty in the November issue of The American Conservative. His article, entitled “Secular Fundamentalists: Can atheists form a movement around shared disbelief,” uses this year’s Atheist Alliance International convention as fodder for his clumsy attempt to represent atheism as a new phenomenon comprised of the dogmatically anti-religious.

The title alone is an oxymoron—would Mr. Dougherty mind explaining the fundamentals of secularism before he starts labeling us as adherents to them? He tries to use Sam Harris’ speech about the word “atheist” and the subsequent reaction as proof of this claim, pointing out the discomfort of the audience during his speech. He goes on to assume that Sam Harris would prefer that there be no AAI conference next year, which is only true in one scenario—that in which religion is no longer a menace to society and has been effectively stripped of its power.

Of course, according to Mr. Dougherty, the only reason we get together is to tell jokes about pedophile priests and fight the morality imposed upon us by the “prudes and prigs” who surround us, it is really unnecessary since all of this can be done online anyway. As a matter of fact, most of the conference attendees or those with whom I have spoken regarding Harris’ speech, which was reprinted in The Washington Post, were pleased to see a dissenting position presented, even if some may have disagreed with that position. This is an example of the very thing that makes atheism different from religion; we’re allowed to ask questions and present our differences of opinion. There’s no excommunication from atheism. Apparently, he hung around for the Q&A, but failed to mention that in my question to Sam, I stated that I agreed conceptually but see no other way to gain any influence as a group by avoiding the one word under which we can unite. Harris agrees with that, and furthermore, I think that as atheists, we all agree that we would prefer to live in a world in which the word was not even necessary.

Dougherty goes on to the addition of Harris’ somewhat controversial affinity for meditation. He adds the jab frequently used against us, that we hate all religions, rather than just not believing in them, and goes on to misrepresent Daniel Dennett’s comment that he himself had been practicing meditation. Of course, in his mind, the audience was deeply troubled by this, despite the fact that meditation does not necessarily have a religious connotation and does have scientific evidence to show that similar contemplative practices have health benefits. Meditation may not be everybody’s cup of tea, but there were certainly some in the audience who understand this point, but mentioning that would undermine his initial claim that we are “fundamentalists.” So he chooses to be dishonest instead, proclaiming that “the leaders of unbelief are exposed as potential monks and mystics.”

At least we still have Hitchens, whom he briefly addresses by using the well-worn “he’s just angry at God” argument. He then finds it humorous that conference attendees are excited by the opportunity to meet these distinguished individuals, and points out a person that had a conversation with Hitchens and was ecstatic, claiming that this is a form of “idol worship” and a religion of its own. If that is true, then Christians are assuredly in violation of their precious commandments by idolizing their own batch of celebrities such as Rick Warren, Dinesh D’Souza, or Lee Strobel. Being happy to meet a person that you admire and respect, who has potentially influenced your life through their work, is now a religion, folks. Again, nothing other than juvenile and amateur attempts to disparage atheists and a simple restatement of that childish taunt, “I know you are but what am I?”

In an egregious violation of journalistic objectivity, he goes on to personally insult Margaret Downey, referring to her as a “dippy hostess.” Margaret has fought for the rights of atheists and gays to join the Boy Scouts, has given a presentation to the United Nations on the discrimination of atheists, and is still the UN expert on atheist discrimination in the US. She has worked tirelessly for years on end and put her own life at risk to make separation of church and state a reality, not just some words on an aged document. The fact that he would have the audacity to refer to one of the most influential women in the world of atheism as he did displays the utter lack of respect and contempt that he holds for those who do not worship his imaginary friend, yet he wonders why we feel the need to rally together, speak up, and rattle cages.

The fact that, in his opinion, holding a conference qualifies your group as a “movement” is mildly amusing. I guess that makes attendees of Star Trek conventions members of a pro-Star Trek movement. In much the same way that the aforementioned “Trekkies” are chided for having their apparel, costumes, and merchandise, Dougherty goes on to more trivial evidences of this subversive “atheist movement.”

Apparently, Dougherty finds “young men with haircuts fit for their mother’s basement” a valid point upon which to base an argument that we are nothing more than a “cranky subculture” that wants to ridicule religion much as a teenager wants to rebel against his/her parents. He interestingly notes that we did not view The Passion of the Christ and instead chose Life of Brian. I take it he didn’t consider that we atheists have no desire to watch a man brutally tortured and ultimately murdered for two and a half hours. I consider that to be a good thing, and would certainly allow my children to watch Life of Brian before that snuff film of which he apparently approves.

He comes back to the worst insult Christians have to offer, which is the conflation of atheism to a religion itself. It is about time that atheists come together at conferences and stand up for ourselves in a country dominated by irrationality. How ironic that the best argument he can muster is that we’re just like them. He claims that the conference “provides plenty of evidence” by “[resembling] an evangelical retreat weekend.” Wouldn’t any conference probably have similarities; such as there were speakers, there were meetings, and an amalgamation of people hanging out conversing? Again, if the Church of Star Trek hasn’t been founded already, it is now, whether the fans agree or not. He completely ignores the valid criticisms of religious belief and insists on using ridicule and insults to make the entire concept seem silly, much like Christianity. Is he projecting his own feelings regarding the absurdity of his own religion, maybe?

He attacks Julia Sweeney as a “D-list celebrity” eager for a second career as an atheist spokesperson. The fact that she does a monologue based on her personal experience with religion escapes him, and once again, he sardonically quips that she must be fun on dates after she recounts a story about debating evolution while out with a former romantic interest. Watch out ladies and gentlemen—we’ve entered the “no-humor” zone.

The ad hominems don’t stop there, either. His next target is Greydon Square, and Dougherty can’t stop himself from painting him as a thug with a rap sheet. We all know that getting arrested completely discredits a person despite the validity of their beliefs or lack thereof in this case. Any journalist with credibility would at least have done his research and known that Greydon was released that day—his only charge being an unpaid ticket. We can add this to the list of half-truths purposely written by Dougherty and designed to deceive the readers.

Coming full circle back to Sam Harris, he quotes Sam from The End of Faith as saying, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” Not only is this completely skewed and out of context, he presumes that nobody would contemplate this statement. If you had the ability to stop the 9/11 hijackers before they boarded the planes that eventually slammed into buildings, killing thousands, would you have? What if lethal force was the only means by which it was possible? It is certainly a delicate subject, but it is not presented accurately in Dougherty’s piece. Dougherty’s defense then consists of the absurd claim that, “The Inquisition at least allowed defendants the chance to recant—often many times.” Yes, they did, offer a choice between keeping one’s integrity and dying or lying about one’s lack of belief and remaining alive. What a stunning example of Christian generosity and kindness. Maybe we should watch two and a half hours of that at next year’s AAI conference.

Finally, we have Richard Dawkins. Even this criticism isn’t bereft of superficial personal attacks, as he refers to Prof. Dawkins as “owl-faced” and “ignorant of religious people as a species.” Apparently, a speciation event occurred that officially separates the logical from the illogical; the reason-based from the faith-based. Unfortunately, it’s not true (sorry if he got anybody’s hopes up).

He argues that Dawkins’ proposition that religious indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse and that we should refrain from labeling our children as a particular religion is reductive and tendentious. Dougherty claims that religion is not a “mere set of mental propositions” and is, in fact, a way of life started at birth. I don’t imagine that Dawkins would disagree with the latter, but the issue is one of choice and the autonomy of children. It concerns the routine obfuscation that occurs when parents lie to their children with regards to evolution, history and the value of faith as a reasonable methodology. Many who have suffered from this treatment do not possess the ability to deprogram themselves as adults, and thus logic and rationality have been suppressed for yet another generation.
If he has no problem with that concept, why is it that he aims to make Julia Sweeney look like a child abuser for telling her daughter that they don’t believe in God? If the general consensus is that pushing religion on your children is not an issue, then why is the advocacy of non-religion? Why was there such a backlash to our own Blasphemy Challenge, largely because teens were being “targeted” by the evil atheists? It is the obvious hypocrisy that is most problematic here—indoctrination from Christian parents is fine, but atheist parents need to keep their lack of belief to themselves. The hazard represented by this mode of thought is actualized in the many cases of discrimination against atheist parents in child custody cases.

This article was nothing short of a long list of intellectually inept claims peppered with personal attacks which do more to reveal the character of the author than his intended targets. Michael Brendan Dougherty should be ashamed of himself for exploiting the kindness of the atheists at the conference who spoke with him in order to purposely malign and misrepresent us. His penchant for focusing on irrelevant, superficial details, such as age, clothing or hair-style, was deftly demonstrated in this piece, which I can only describe as being a supremely dishonest polemic aimed at the continued marginalization of atheists. Hopefully, his lack of journalistic integrity will prevent him from getting a press pass at any future events.

Here is the original article.

You can read Kelly’s original blog post at RationalResponders.com.

Back to the top.

Originally for HumanistNetworkNews.org.  
 
December 5, 2007
 
Dear Sweet Reason,

I recently started a relationship with someone who is a believer, while I am not. In the past this has caused me lots of trouble, like people not wanting to go out with me after I have told them my beliefs. I really like this person, and want them to understand that it does not bother me that they are religious. I want to make it easier for them to live with my non-belief. What should I do?

Open-hearted

Dear Open,

You will also need to find out whether this person is uncomfortable with your disbelief, regardless of what you do. For example, if they are looking for a potential spouse who would agree to give children a religious upbringing, your openness might not matter that much.

Here are a few approaches you might try. Choose one that feels most comfortable to you--or let me inspire you to think of a better plan:

If you would rather not confront the topic head on, ask your friend to go out with you at a time they usually worship.

For example, you could ask a Christian to go on a day trip that starts early on Sunday morning. If they're willing to go, it is a hint that you can talk more freely. If they don't want to miss their worship service, you can explain that you don’t mind that constraint.

Hopefully, your willingness to get together at a different time would give the reassurance you want to offer. Still, you will need to ask yourself whether you truly can be comfortable handling such problems in the long term.

If you and your friend enjoy talking about current events and ideas, you can have a conversation about one of the many news articles about atheism and humanism that are available these days (like this article about atheist parenting (Re: Raising Non-Religious Children No Easy Task, reporternews.com, Nov. 15, 2007).

If they have the common misconception that all freethinkers dislike all religious people, that attitude will come out in the conversation, and you will have your chance to explain your own attitude.

You may want to be very direct.

That could be surprisingly easy if your relationship is becoming very serious, and you start having conversations about what has helped or harmed your past relationships.

Then you can simply say something like, "Some of my dates thought I disapproved of their beliefs just because I don't happen to be religious myself. I hope that never happens to us. I am happy to accept our differences." Then be sure to tell your friend what you appreciate about them.  Sometimes people can bridge these differences, and sometimes they can’t.

If this relationship doesn't work out, learn what you can from the experience, and don't blame yourself unnecessarily. Good luck!

Back to the top.

Senior Campus Organizer Alison Bates conducts this Student Voice Interview with Eric W. Frey, President of Secular Students of Miami.

If money were no issue, what is the event that your group would most like to hold?

If money were no issue, we would like to invite Sam Harris to speak at our campus.

Where does your group get its funding?  From fundraisers?  From the university?

Right now we are in the process of getting funded.  As of now all of our events have been funded from our own pockets.  And I do want to thank all of the officers for pitching in and being very good about money.  Fundraising, we feel, would be hard for a secular organization in a religious part of the country.  Let me know if you have any ideas, otherwise we are working on the school giving us money.

Back to the top.