The SSA only exists because of your support. Please donate today. Secular shorts: Stuart Bechman, president of Atheists United of Los Angeles, California, was unanimously elected as the next president of the Atheist Alliance International at the annual board meeting held on Friday, September 26, 2008 in Long Beach, California. His term begins immediately. Read More... The New York Times reported Saturday, Oct 18 that the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel has just posted a memo on the DOJ Web site saying "faith-based" agencies can collect government funds and still discriminate in hiring on religious grounds even if Congress has specifically banned such bias in the program in question. Read More... The sides of some of London's red buses will soon carry ads asserting there is "probably no God," as nonbelievers fight what they say is the preferential treatment given to religion in British society. Organizers of a campaign to raise funds for the ads said Wednesday they received more than $113,000 in donations, almost seven times their target, in the hours since they launched the project on a charity Web site. Supporters include Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, who donated $9,000. Read More... Visit the donation site. Breaking News: Webster Cook Impeachment Overturned! You will remember that Webster Cook is the young man who was involved in the first part of the Crackergate Event, the result of which involved two separate kinds of legalistic charges against him at his school, one by a more general disciplinary board, and the other by the student government (Webster was an elected school officer). The first one was thrown out, but the second was not, and Cook was impeached. Greg Laden reports that Webster Cook's impeachment was overturned. Read More... Check out SkepticBlog for a healthy dose of text from the likes of Phil Plait, Brian Dunning, Kirsten Sanford, Mark Edward, Yau-Man Chan, Ryan Johnson, Michael Shermer, and Steven Novella. The End of the Infidel Guy? After nearly a decade, popular web show, The Infidel Guy, may be calling it quits due to lack of financial support from listeners. Read More... Say hello to the new editor! Bjorn Watland, a Systems Administrator in Saint Paul, MN, has stepped in to edit the eMpirical. He lives with his wife, Jeannette and two cats. He is the web editor for Minnesota Atheists, and serves on the board of MNA and Camp Quest of Minnesota. He is also an unapologetic fan of Weird Al Yankovic. A big thanks is deserved for Lyz for easing the transition! Has your student group renewed its affiliation with the SSA? Contact Lyz if you're having trouble! Recent SSA Grant Awards
The SSA offers grants to student groups to support operations and projects. Here are some projects that groups are using these grants for! Find more information and apply here. Gator Freethought University of Florida Michael Shermer and Douglas Jacoby evolution debate Date: 11/9/08 Amount awarded: $400 Bradley Skeptic Society Bradley University Paul Harrison presentation and live webchat. Date: TBA Amount awarded: $100 Contact us! Call us toll free at 1-877-842-9474. You can also email us at ssa@secularstudents.org. We are always happy to hear from you and answer any questions or concerns! What do you think? This is your eNewsletter and we are always updating and changing to fit your needs, so please let us know what you think of our new format! Email enews@secularstudents.org with any suggestions, ideas, or comments. eMpirical Team
Editor-in-Chief: Bjorn Watland
Editors: Elizabeth R.A. Liddell, August E. Brunsman IV, Hemant Mehta, Jacquie Kuzma, Brian Gelletly
| Introduction 
For many students in the US, there is a crisp smell of fallen leaves in the air, and political advertisements in their ears. That can mean one thing, the closing of a two year election cycle. Go vote! As a side effect of the election season, preachers called on their flocks to pull the lever for the right guy. We have some great organizations on our side, like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to keep an eye on things. All over the world people are raising awareness for the importance of keeping religion and government in their own corners. You can help spread awareness too, by attending a fun secular event, or picking up some Secular Swag and showing off.
By Ashley Carter After hours of searching downtown Chicago for reasonable parking (and finally breaking down to pay $31 for about two hours worth), twelve members of the Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign finally made it to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's conference at the Chicago Hyatt on Oct 10-12. The first evening of the conference included presentations by Kay Staley and Jeremy Hall, which we unfortunately missed due to our parking predicament, but were reportedly great speeches. After a Q&A session, the attendees enjoyed some mingling and delicious deserts. We found that our group had by far the most students in attendance, as young people in general were quite scarce at the conference in comparison to others we have attended. This turned out to be an advantage for us, however, because it meant our presence was especially appreciated. We had the opportunity to chat with Lyz, the new SSA Senior Campus Organizer; for a while and we even absorbed some straggler students who decided to come out to dinner with us. Saturday's events included various speeches throughout the day. Webster Cook, of "Crackergate" fame, spoke about his experience and his continued efforts to ensure that student fees are being utilized legally at UCF. Next, Jim McCollum spoke about McCollum v. Board of Education - the Supreme Court case filed on his behalf as a child. He explained the events leading up to the case, the discrimination he faced, and the resulting Supreme Court decision that declared religious instruction in schools unconstitutional. Finally, Jeff Sharlet gave a fascinating background to his new book about The Family, a secretive influential ministry which currently holds the national prayer breakfast and which has disturbingly infiltrated even the highest levels of government. Then, there was a break for lunch, which gave us the chance to do a little exploring. We walked down Michigan Avenue and had lunch at the Big Bowl Chinese/Thai restaurant, which was delicious and almost painfully filling.
Upon returning to the hotel, we heard a moving talk from Eleanor Clift about her most recent book, "Two Weeks of Life: Reflections on Religion and Politics." It addresses end of life issues in this country by juxtaposing the dignified death of her own husband against the media circus that surrounded the Terri Schiavo case. The next speech was from the famed Daniel Dennett. He gave a wide-ranging speech touching on issues including where he sees the future of religion going, the atheist public relations problem, his TEDtalk review of the Purpose-Driven Life, and other interesting stories. Afterwards there was a book signing, and Dennett was nice enough to take a picture with our entire group. His wise words of advice for student groups like ours is to get out there and do more volunteering, which was particularly fitting for us because we got to tell him about our recent s pring break service trip to New Orleans. After the banquet dinner we heard from Scott Dikkers, who gave probably the most hilarious speech you’ll ever hear at an atheist conference. He spoke about the history and progression of The Onion, more about atheism's PR problems, and gave some insider information on a few specific articles. As he spoke, headlines from The Onion flashed on a screen behind him - inevitably causing uproarious laughter in the crowd. (Incidentally, a guest sitting in front of us who had enjoyed one too many glasses of wine at the banquet proved even more amusing.) After his speech, there was another book signing and the conference began to wind down. We mingled a bit more, spoke with Dan Barker, and ran into Margaret Downey on the way out! Overall, the conference was a great time, but maybe the best part was that our school funded almost the entire trip! We would love to see more young people there in the future, seeing as how all the students we were able to meet were awesome and we will hopefully be able to maintain contact with them and perhaps even work together in the future.  Ashley Carter was an SSA intern during the summer of 2008. She is a senior at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign where she is majoring in Philosophy and Political Science. She is also the current president of Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers there. Upon graduation, she hopes to pursue a joint degree in law and public policy. Back to Top. This story by Hemant Mehta is reprinted with permission from friendlyatheist.com.
The Boise State Secular Student Alliance were manning a booth for their group during a recent Parent and Family Weekend. Lloyd Lowe, the president of the group, set up the table and walked away for a while. When he returned, his found that the banner he had put up was no longer visible to the public: Upon returning, he found his banner taped upside down. While trying to reposition it, he was approached by Brian MacDonald, director of New Student and Family Programs. MacDonald told him to speak with Director of Student Activities Kelly Stevens. “This was an event for parents and families to come and just relax and enjoy family weekend, not engage in dialogue about religion and spirituality,” MacDonald said. “Something that is a very sensitive topic to some people, we thought that the poster should be taken down.” Stevens informed Lowe that she had received complaints regarding the banner and that he must replace the banner or leave…
What is on the banner that got everyone so worked up? You can see it on the front page of the university’s student newspaper (PDF):  The banner reads: “Outgrown Your Imaginary Friend?” That’s it. Everyone was up in arms over the harmless question. It’s not inflammatory at all. Yes, Lowe is calling God imaginary. As we all should. I would guess that most religious students on campus believe the same thing about all the other gods people believe in except their own. So why is the atheist group getting punished for saying what everyone else is thinking? The Boise State campus group is calling censorship. Lowe writes the following in a letter to the editor: Our banner, which appealed to reason, offended the superstitious beliefs of some people on campus. Just as their superstitious beliefs offend our sensibility and reason. When the non-religious complain about the blatant acts of proselytizing on campus they are dismissed. But when we attempt to promote critical thinking our views are suppressed. There is something wrong with this. Why is religion allowed a free pass at criticizing other beliefs (and non-beliefs) and yet immune from criticism itself? Looking at this only in terms of religion masks a larger issue about the role of skepticism in general. We never referred to any one imaginary friend in particular. There are many and they are normally associated with childhood, like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. But there are many false beliefs held by adults who should know better. Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, ghosts, guardian angels, numerology, psychics, and this paper even has horoscopes! So the message I’m getting is that reason and critical thought are out, but millennia old superstitions are in. If god really didn’t want us out there asking questions I’m sure he could have handled the situation. Even Thor could have mustered a little lightning bolt. The BSU administration really didn’t have to get involved. We are a group of students who embrace rational reasoning and empirical evidence over superstition, which we find to be just plain silly in this enlightened era. Please don’t take us back to medieval times, where the majority religion quashed and silenced other religious practices.
Perhaps it is exaggerating to say the banner takedown is a throwback to medieval times. But it is bad precendence for the school to follow. Let’s use some common sense. The banner was asking a question designed to get people thinking. A university, of all places, ought to encourage that. On a side note, a poll on the newspaper website asks: “Do you believe the Secular Student Alliance had a right to display their banner?” One option reads “They have a right to display their banner at any event they’re invited to on campus.” That option is currently ahead (with 76% of the vote as I write this). You can help make sure it stays that way. Back to Top.
Do you want to show your Secular Student Pride? Want an easy way to get T-shirts  and other gear for your grou p? The SSA can help! We're betting you didn't know that we had a Cafepress store. Even we've kinda forgotten about it...until now! We've updated the products, added some new stuff, and got rid of stuff that no one wants. Check it out: http://www.cafepress.com/secularstudents. The logo that we use is the same Secular Student Alliance logo that many student groups use as their own. So, if your group uses that logo and needs some buttons or t-shirts, now it's easy! Even if your group has its own logo and t-shirts, there's still plenty of things that you might want to take a look at. For example, who doesn't need an atheist BBQ apron? Plus, we'll be adding items as we think of them or you request them, so keep checking back and let us know what you want to see!
Back to Top.  By Andrew Cederdahl “Project Fair Play Initiative” Sparks Rather Interesting Response from Minister COLUMBIA, SC - It’s no secret that my state loves Jesus. In fact, they know him quite well. They know him so well that sometimes they know how he would vote if he were alive today, or even what license plate he would have on his car ( see the “I Believe” SC license plate controversy). It’s also no secret that Jesus holds a huge stake in our elections, not just in South Carolina, but also in all of America. With the huge evangelical voting bloc, Jesus maintains his grasp on us thousands of years later through his workhorse – the religious institutions of America. These institutions have the power to sculpt the minds of millions on a weekly basis. Great majorities of each congregation play close attention to what each religious leader has to say. Their words are backed with divine inspiration, and even their convictions and political persuasions are warranted by God. Cognizant of these dangers, I knew it was necessary to do my part to ensure that our religious leaders did not endorse a candidate from the pulpit in this election, despite recent challenges to the IRS law from right wing groups like the Alliance Defense Fund. The IRS tax laws barring the endorsement of candidates from religious leaders at the pulpit remains one the most sacred vestiges of the secular character of our government. Without them, we would be one step closer to an American theocracy. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has the perfect tool for working to uphold the just position of pulpit neutrality. It’s called the “Project Fair Play Initiative.” A great resource for any secular student group, the AU initiative includes a letter from Rev. Barry Lynn decrying illegal pulpit activity, a FAQ in which religious leaders can consult on the issue, and most important, a way to report violations so that they can be dealt with professionally. I organized a Project Fair Play Initiative in my community of Columbia with the help of my secular student group, the Pastafarians at the University of South Carolina. We worked on a group statement together and combined it with a statement from the local AU Columbia Chapter President. We included our statements with the FAQ and sent 65 letters to all of our local religious leaders with stamps donated by all the members. In addition to being a fun meeting activity, it was a great way to let religious leaders know that we care and that we are watching. I wish I could say that this was a happy ending, but one reply I received startled me, reminding me that our continued efforts are needed. One religious leader informed me that I was “promoting propaganda,” that our efforts were a “misguided and misinformed attempt to re-write history,” and that the First Amendment “does not mandate a ‘separation between church and state.’” Furthermore, he said that Thomas Jefferson’s words regarding separation were just “commentary” and “it does not matter what Jefferson said about the constitution.” Here is the scary part – He gives the AU Columbia Chapter President some “words of advice,” since he is also a local Unitarian minister. He said, “You have the right to your opinions of course. Now here is mine - your comments about ministers staying neutral is an impossibility if a minister is going to stand true to God and His Word.” If this is not evidence of the work that needs to be done, I don’t know what is! I want to encourage all SSA affiliates to participate in a Project Fair Play Initiative of their own. It’s not too late to tell our religious leaders that we will not stand for politicking from the pulpit. Where secular group leaders can go to do this - They can go to Americans United for Separation of Church and State's website: www.au.org or go to projectfairplay.org to get the resources I used in our initiative. Secular groups are also encouraged to collaborate with any local or state AU chapters in their efforts. Andrew Cederdahl is a political science major at the University of South Carolina and President of Pastafarians at the USC. He would like to go to law school after undergrad to pursue his J.D. and then work with secular groups to keep church and state separate. I represent secular students in USC's Presidential Multicultural Council and through Pastafarians at USC. He also works with other progressive groups for women's rights and is currently helping to organize USC’s annual Student Leadership and Diversity Conference.  This is the second of a three-part series by Alex DiBranco. Read part one here.
Time Out: What is Atheism? Most simplistically, atheism is defined as disbelief in God. Which explains very little. Some nonreligious students consider their beliefs to derive in large part from their “feelings” about doing wrong. Others don’t “believe in ‘being good for good’s sake,’” and are not convinced of universal morality, rather seeing morality as stemming from evolution and “necessary for a stable human coexistence.” Ben identified as a Quaker Atheist, and along with some friends constructed a morality that shared some of their tenets, and was largely based on utilitarian principles and Rousseau’s rules of society. He listed “treating others as intrinsically equal,” pacifism, and “living simply” amongst his core beliefs. As with theist religions, many forms of atheism exist. From secular humanism to existential atheism to utilitarianism to skeptical atheism and more, there are a variety of belief systems an atheist can ascribe to. Some atheists even consider themselves somehow spiritual or consider the idea of an afterlife or mystic occurrences, simply ones not stemming from a god, although this is much more rare. And then there’s what atheism is: a religion or a non-religion. To some people, atheism is just another religion. “Being a religion major,” Catholic junior Peter stated, “I see atheism as just another kind of religious belief structure.” He elaborated, “I suppose most people would find it anti-religious because their idea of religion is seen solely from a western Christian lens.” On the other hand, Bart, a senior religion major, was less certain, indicating that “there are many definition of religion,” with the most common involving the supernatural or superhuman. However, he indicated that if religion is simply defined as a belief system, then atheism would be included—“It’s at least an ideology.” To yet others students, atheism is purely a non-religion. Many atheists believe the term “atheist” shouldn’t even be required, any more than a rational person who does not believe in UFOs would need a special term to describe that disbelief. My beliefs derive from existential, or ethical, atheism, which I consider to be described well by Albert Camus’ basic principle that the world is absurd but as members of humanity we must do our best to help others. I don’t really see atheism as a belief system per se, except that it’s important for me to live my life as if it’s the only life available, and appeals to an otherworldly force are futile and should be replaced with human action. On the other hand, I also consider myself a secular humanist, which offers nonreligious persons a more structured set of beliefs derived from a rational ethical basis. These principles, codified in “A Secular Humanist Agenda” issued in 1980 by what is now the Council for Secular Humanism, include such tenets as supporting liberty, free inquiry, separation of church and state, toleration, evidence-based moral and universal education, and commitment to reason and the benefits of science and technology. The line that most resonates with me: “As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now.” The Arrogant Atheist Beside being seen as immoral, the most widespread negative characterization of atheists is that they are arrogant. Becca, an Anglican/Jewish student, complained that, “what bothers me most about atheists is that they act as if it is some terrific feat of logic and intellect to deny the existence of God.” She went on to say, “There might be humble atheists, but I have never encountered one.” Another nominally Jewish student stated, “claiming to be sure something intangible such as god does not exist strikes me as a little arrogant.” Where does this perception of atheists come from? It’s helpful to look at the definitions of atheism students provided to see how their very concept of what an atheist is biases them toward seeing atheists as arrogant. The nominally Jewish respondent quoted above defined atheism as “adamantly believing that god does not exist.” When presented with the simple definition that atheism is “the belief that there is no God,” Becca said she assumes that if pressed, “any person who called themselves an atheist...would cite the lack of proof for God’s existence as proof for God’s non-existence,” and thus still play the role of arrogant intellectual. Furthermore, she would not vote for an atheist for president because “atheism, in my mind, cannot be tolerant of faith by definition.” Agnosticism is generally viewed more favorably by religious persons as an acceptable neutral stance (although some see it as a “wishy-washy” cop-out). Atheists are distinct from agnostics because, while they still admit human fallibility and thus don’t claim that they can absolutely know there is no God (or gods, but for the sake of ease of language and understanding, and since we live in a country that mainly thinks of the supernatural as the Judeo-Christian God with a capital G), their personal belief is that there is not one, and they structure their lives in accordance with that belief. Most atheist respondents defined atheism along the lines of the belief that there is no God; occasionally, they left out mention of God and citied something else as the core value, such as belief in human agency. Atheists are distinct from other groups like agnostics because, while they admit human fallibility and thus don’t claim that they can absolutely know there is no God (or gods), their personal belief is that there is not one, and they structure their lives in accordance with that belief. Some atheists prefer not to mention God in defining their beliefs and cite something else as the core value of atheism, such as belief in human agency. However, my survey indicated that many religious people think atheism is defined as “adamantly” refusing to believe in God, or “rejecting” God. This misunderstanding of what atheism is feeds a lot of the negative reaction to it. In reality, atheists do not “reject” God, because if you don’t believe that a god or gods exist in the first place, then you aren’t rejecting him/her/them. While I understand that it might seem arrogant to state something so vast and powerful does not exist if you believe in it, for an atheist not believing in God is no more arrogant than not believing in Santa Claus. This comparison might be taken as offensive, but it’s the best way I can think of to illustrate that atheism is not a question of arrogance but rather a simple an absence of belief. It is certainly no less arrogant to believe that there is a God and that your religion, out of all the religions present, former, and future, is the true one that knows what God wants from us; that you know what God wants of you; that you know better than what scientific evidence points to; that God will answer your prayers above someone else’s; or that you are one of the chosen people who God actually created specifically to be one of the lucky ones who gets to be a part of his true religion; or that you are going to be saved while everybody else is tormented in Hell. On the whole, I personally don’t think this is how religious people view their belief in God (except for those televangelists that request money and condemn all unbelievers to hellfire while they’re certain they’re going to be raptured), but I don’t think it would be difficult to conceptualize religion, and particularly the Judeo-Christian belief system, along most of those lines. While plenty of arrogant people exist, and both atheists and religious persons number amongst them, most of the negative perspectives of atheists as arrogant seem to stem more from a given religious person’s conceptualization of what “atheist” means, and a difficulty or unwillingness to view the belief, or disbelief, in God from an atheist’s perspective.
Alex DiBranco is a senior at Dartmouth College studying Creative Writing and Government. She is the editor-in-chief of the progressive campus paper the Dartmouth Free Press , vice president of the Dartmouth Coalition for Progress, and just finished an internship with the progressive think tank Political Research Associates. Atheism and feminism are a couple of her favorite topics of conversation, and she hopes to work for a progressive non-profit or publication after graduation.
Back to Top.  Our affiliate groups hold dozens – if not hundreds – of events every semester. Most of these events are open to the public, and often feature speakers, debates, or other fun and interesting material. At the SSA, we hear about a lot of these events, but oftentimes we’re too far away to attend.
However, even if we can’t make it to everything ourselves, we can at least let everyone know about these great events! We’ve put together a public calendar of events using Google’s Calendar application. You can search the calendar for events in your area, add them to your own calendar, share them with your group, and get involved. New events are added daily, so check back often, or add the Secular Student Campus Events Calendar to your own collection of Google Calendars.
If the embedded calendar doesn't work, or you want to access the calendar directly, click on Secular Student Campus Events Calendar. Or you can search Google Calendars for "Secular Students Events," and we're one of the top hits. Plus (we're making it easy to find!), we have it permanently listed at the top of our Upcoming Events page. If you have an upcoming event that you’d like to have added to the calendar, email details to organizer(AT)secularstudents(DOT)org. We’re especially interested in events hosted by our affiliates, but if you know of an amazing opportunity (open to students) hosted by a local off-campus group, we’ll be happy to add that to our calendar as well!  By Bjorn Watland Youth Against World Youth Day organized and executed an effective protest of Pope Benedict XVI's recent visit to Melbourne, Australia on July 13. Jason Ball, President of the University of Melbourne Secular Society and a Youth Against World Youth Day Spokesperson expressed several concerns about the Pope's visit, including the government's endorsement of Catholicism, harmful Catholic policies, and shocking new laws which limit speech. "We're frustrated by the taxpayer funded nature of the event, to the tune of $150 million (122 million USD)." Mr. Ball said in an interview. For reference, article 116 of the Australian Constitution states, "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." The language sounds very familiar to the establishment clause of the US Constitution. So, there should be no surprise to the reactions of citizens of Melbourne. This is clearly an endorsement of Catholicism by the state. However, this is only one reason why a protest was organized. The New South Wales government passed "annoyance laws" which are active during July, during the Pope's visit. The laws, which prohibited annoying behavior, imposed a $5,500 (4,500USD ) fine for any behavior deemed annoying by police or volunteers. In protest, organizers marched in front of the Parliament House with shirts which read "Pope is Wrong, Put A Condom On!" and "This Shirt is Annoying (followed by NSW cabinet ministers)." Mr. Ball noted that shirts with messages like these, and "Blasphemy is Not a Crime," would be considered annoying by most Catholics. Joining the Youth Against World Youth Day protesters were victims of sexual abuse by priests. A moment of silence was observed for those to died as a result of suicide, drug or alcohol use after being abused by a priest. Condoms were passed out to youth who made the pilgrimage to see the Pope for World Youth Day as a response to HIV infections rising 41 percent in the last four years in Australia. Youth Against World Youth Day opposes the treatment of women, homosexuals and scientific research by the Catholic Church. As an example, the Catholic Church runs 21 public hospitals in Australia. They refuse rape counseling in those hospitals, because the women may choose to have an abortion. The Catholic Church actively campaigns against the use of contraceptives in Africa to prevent HIV/AIDS, preaches against the use of embryonic stem cell research, and the Pope views homosexuality as an "intrinsic moral-evil." The government supporting a religion is bad judgment enough, but to support a religion which preaches such ignorance is harmful. The key message to take away from this event is how to use publicity to your advantage. When the media and public are focused on an event which is not of your own creation, for example, a papal visit, it is key to organize and hold your own events when necessary. Also, it is important to find allies to make your collective voice louder. For this event, Youth Against World Youth Day partnered with groups such as victims of priest sexual abuse. They took advantage of the situation to the fullest, resulting in much more media coverage on their cause. You can read some of the positive coverage they received at their website: http://youthagainstwyd.org/.
The University of Melbourne Secular Society is a proud member of the Secular Student Alliance. Their actions should inspire everyone to do their part to stand up for the rights of non-believers, including separating church and state for the benefit of both, and others who face discrimination in the face of religious intolerance, such as women and homosexuals.
Back to Top.  Dan Barker continues his article on how to talk to a fundamentalist with the bible and morality. Read part one here. It's a good idea to familiarize yourself with a handful of biblical contradictions and history. Fundamentalists like to argue about the source of morality. How do you fight that? Convince them you are happy and ethical. Who better to teach you about fundamentalists then Dan Barker? The bible  Unless you have time to waste (in which case you are truly ready for your upcoming exams), I would suggest you avoid all those interesting side discussions and go on the offensive, hitting the jugular—the bible. It is the bible, after all, upon which all of fundamentalism rests. If the bible is true, they have a case. If not, their whole house of cards falls. I would have been very impressed if you had said something like, “You might have a point if the bible were reliable. I would be happy to believe what you believe, but I when I study the bible, as you recommend, I come away concluding that it cannot be the basis for any truth, and here is why...” If you would have pointed out some contradictions in the bible, using chapter and verse, that would have impressed me immensely. I would not have converted immediately to atheism (ha!), but my momentum would have been slowed. After all, bible reading is what fundamentalists are urging you to do, and if you tell them “Been there, done that,” with specific examples, then they can’t pretend that your problem is due to ignoring their “Good Book.”
If you had quoted the bible to me, I would not have admitted that I was impressed. I would have fought back, claiming that you are taking things out of context or reading a bad translation or failing to see the big picture, wondering how in the world someone could read the bible and not fall in love with it. But the important thing is that you would have me on the defensive. I would know that you know that if the bible falls, my whole fundamentalist world view crumbles. I would also know that you have taken me seriously. You went right to my source and looked at it for yourself. I could not complain that you are afraid to look at “the facts.” I am not recommending that you become a bible scholar. Just familiarize yourself with some of the basics of bible contradictions, scientific and historical errors. After all, as much as they trumpet the bible, few of them actually read it carefully. “Bible study,” to a fundamentalist does not mean what it means to a scholar—it means “reading the words of God in order to feed on his wisdom.” Bible study, to them, does not mean examining the manuscripts on which translations were based, or the fluctuating historical context in which those words were written in order to assess the reliability and worth of the claims that were written, or noticing the parallels with other religious texts, or noticing the evolution of the text (insertions, deletions, replacements, scribal mistakes), and so on. The fundamentalist takes the authenticity of the bible as a given, as a starting point. Then they read from it, often flitting from verse to unconnected verse, like a bee looking for nectar. (They are not all that sloppy, of course, but they all treat the text as “holy.”) Bible “study,” to a fundamentalist, is not study—it is worship. In my new book, Godless, as well as my 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith, I detail a handful of useful bible contradictions (some discussed in great depth), which you might use as an easy starting point, if you are not too familiar with the “Word of God.” I also lay out the arguments that weaken the likelihood of a historical Jesus, and the case against the resurrection of Jesus (a very important issue to fundamentalists). Morality Fundamentalists are extremely fixated on the “sin” issues. They imagine, as the bible teaches, that the only way to be truly good is to follow God’s laws. We humans are born with an innate tendency to evil—“original sin”—and only Jesus can cure that. The world’s problems are due to disobedience and selfishness and an unwillingness to submit to the rules that our loving Father has laid down for us. Most fundamentalists also believe in a literal Satan who tempts us away from the holiness of the family of God. Homosexuality, abortion, free love, adultery, drug use, cheating on tests, crime, and dozens of other “sins” are a direct result of our godless selfishness and arrogant waywardness. But if you are “born again,” you become an entirely “new creature,” and are now one of the good people, the “in crowd” of brothers and sisters of Jesus. Your life now has real love. It is more moral, more compassionate, and less “sinful” than the lives of nonbelievers. That’s what I used to preach, with no empirical support. It is a powerful insider’s belief, a glue that separates “us” from “them.” After all, don’t you want to be a good person? Don’t you want to be saved from sin? Don’t you need real love in your life (as opposed to mere carnal, human love)? Wouldn’t any good person desire to go to heaven? You nonbelievers are outsiders, nonparticipants, unsaved, still trapped in your evil human nature, needing a make-over, a regeneration, a new birth. So on that issue, here is something else you could have said to me that would have had an impact. It would not have changed my mind on the spot, but it would have been excruciatingly relevant. “You born-again Christians preach that faith in Jesus helps you to live better lives, but in fact, you are not more moral than nonChristians. Your lives do not have more happiness or meaning. As a group, you are not healthier. You have no fewer financial problems. You commit just as many crimes, take just as many drugs for depression, watch just as many X-rated movies, report no greater satisfaction in life, and actually have a higher divorce rate than nonChristians. You contribute less to charity.” (If they ask for documentation, point them to such studies as conducted by the honest born-again sociologist George Barna, who concludes in his book The Second Coming of the Church that “We [born-again Christians] think and behave no differently from anyone else.”) Show the fundamentalist that, as a nonbeliever, you are happy and ethical. If you contribute to charity or do volunteer work for a good cause, let them know it. Since even Jesus agreed that those who are not sick don’t need the doctor (Matthew 9:12), you can simply say you are healthy, thank you. If salvation is the “cure,” then atheism is the “prevention.” Also, point out that for all their talk about the need for moral absolutes, Christians do not agree on what those absolutes are. Take any current moral issue with which society is struggling, and you will find praying, bible-believing, devout church-going Christians on both sides of those issues. This is true of abortion rights, gay rights, stem-cell research, the war in Iraq, birth control, gun control, the death penalty, doctor-assisted suicide, the teaching of evolution, animal rights, environmental protection, state/church separation, and so on. Where is the “absolute moral guidance” they talk about? Why do bible believers not agree? You don’t need to get sucked into a long philosophical argument about moral absolutes or ethical relativism. Atheists and agnostics disagree about these things, and so do theists among themselves. You can just point out that even if they are right about the need for moral absolutes (they are not, but that is beside the point), there is no empirical support for their claim that Christians are better people. - - - - - There are other issues that may be more relevant to other types of Christians, but if you want to talk the language of a fundamentalist, then concentrate on the bible and morality. Don’t let them think they have the upper hand. Don’t allow them to pretend that you are the one with the problem. You don’t have to talk with them, of course, and in many cases it is probably best to just ignore them. But if you think there is a chance the fundamentalist knows how to listen (and not just preach), then remind them that a true dialogue is a two-way street and that you are happy to listen to them if they will also listen to you. Otherwise, get back to studying for that math exam. Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, America’s largest organization of atheists and agnostics. His newest book is Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists (Ulysses Press, 2008). The Secular Student Alliance and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are partnering in sending Dan to SSA groups. If you are interested in having Dan speak or do a debate on your campus, contact the SSA.
Back to Top.
The 2008 Great American God-Out will be held on November 15. The event is meant to be fun and educational, encouraging religious believers to hypothetically consider a world without a god. The official celebration will be held in San Francisco, CA, and features guest speaker Mikey Weinstein. Learn more at www.godout.org.by Lydia HartunianThe idea behind the Great American God-Out! came to me as I was writing an article about godlessness. I was trying to think of things people could actually do, as opposed to just say, to get others to understand life without theism. It started as a joke, namely, a day modeled after the Great American Smokeout (wherein people are asked to give up something unhealthy for just one day.) But it quickly turned in to a movement via positive feedback from the Dawkin's social network and responses from various other rationalist groups around the USA and the world! With absolutely zero technical skills, I embarked on making a website designed primarily to get people to “Play the Game!” on the designated day (the date was aligned with The American Cancer Society’s Smokeout). The game is designed to demonstrate that morality exists independently of theology – a major goal of the God-Out! You can find the game at http://www.godout.org/2008/03/play-game.html. Another goal of the God-Out is to call for a day wherein people are asked to reflect about the meaning of the "establishment clause," and what life would be like should it truly be upheld in all areas of public life. The day is meant to be celebratory, fun and educational. In no way is the day meant to call upon people to deride religion or ask people to actually be non-religious on that day. Rather, the day is only meant to ask people to think through a hypothetical scenario. What if there is no god? How will life be different for believers, and how can non-believers help others envision this world? Ideally, the target audience for people who would participate are theistic believers: people who can at least appreciate the need for separation of separation of church and state. But, naturally, many non-believers support the day as well. The Great American God-Out! official celebration will be held on November 15th in San Francisco, CA. Tickets are now being sold for the presentation of the dynamic and amazing speaker, Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Student groups are encouraged to hold their own God-Out! events. Ideas include setting up a God-Out! table on campus, presenting at a religious club’s meeting, holding a God-Out! party and more. Ideas and information for individual events can be found at http://www.godout.org/2008/09/participate.html. For a press kit and flyers, contact Lydia at 319-400-5328. For more details check out the following press and most definitely feel free to contact us with any questions. We really need the rational to come out in droves for this event – we're here, we're rational – together we can help make REASON a REALITY. PRESS ROOM: * " Event Calls for Day without God" - The Institute for Humanist Studies (10/17/07) * Joey Reynolds interview with Michael Shermer and Lydia Hartunian - The Joey Reynolds Show (11/14/07) * " Losing our Religion" - Time Out New York Article (11/15/07) * " Saluting Darwin" - The Daily Iowan (2/17/08) Lydia Hartunian holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Graduate Center of CUNY in NYC, specializing in philosophy of mind and all things rational. She is the advisor of an SSA affiliate group in Iowa and is the President of Atheists United for a Rational America. She is also and the founder and director of the Great American God-Out! (And she likes cats a lot!)
Back to Top.  By Edwin KaginLast night, October 22, 2008, in Northern Kentucky, a rather remarkable thing happened. At Northern Kentucky University, within the shadow of the Creation Museum, in a mock trial, a jury of the entire audience overwhelmingly voted on the side of Evolution and against the teaching of Intelligent Design in the public schools.
Some had opined that it was foolish to hold such an event—that the vote would be overwhelmed by the fundangelicals, that Evolution would lose, and that this would be harmful for the future of education in Kentucky.
Well, that did not happen. The opposite happened.
The issue for the pretend trial was the case of a ninth grade teacher in the Kentucky public schools who had been fired for teaching Intelligent Design in a Kentucky classroom. She sued, alleging she had a right to teach such mythology and to get her job back. Leading trial lawyers in the Northern Kentucky area represented the parties, a real retired judge presided, and the former dean of the law school moderated a discussion.
A creation scientist testified for the teacher. Edwin Kagin, National Legal Director for American Atheists, and identified as such, testified as to his opinion that Intelligent Design is a religious, not a scientific, view and that the teaching of this religious view is prohibited by the Constitutions of the United States and of Kentucky.
The result from the clickers of the audience:
38% said the teacher should not be restored to her job.
28% said the teacher should get her job back, and be permitted to discuss Intelligent Design, but only if she agrees to made it clear that most scientists reject Intelligent Design.
31% said the teacher should get her job back without conditions.
The clear result was that a large majority accepted the teaching of Evolution over Intelligent Design and did not see Intelligent Design as a scientific view. The audience accepted the position of the Atheist witness over that of the expert who held the religious view that life was created by magic.
This victory should be noted by those who are afraid to challenge the forces of darkness in public dialogue.
Edwin Kagin is a constitutional attorney and founder/director of Camp Quest, a nonreligious residential secular summer camp for children of Atheists and other nonbelievers. He also serves on the Advisory Board for the Secular Student Alliance and as the National Legal Director for American Atheists. Back to Top. Ian Bushfield, president of the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics, reviews Bill Maher's new documentary: Religulous. His review originally appeared in The Edger, which is at least as awesome as Religulous: check it out at theedger.org.
It’s not often that, in one week as a campus club leader, you author an editorial slamming your schools religious convocation, host a pastafarian themed Talk-Like-A-Pirate-Day party, attend a rally for a Canadian opposition party leader, see your club’s banner get vandalized (I will write an Edger feature on this soon), get on local TV news covering the story and then get to see Religulous. All-in-all it’s been quite a busy week (I should add that I’ve also been campaigning for a local candidate in the upcoming Canadian federal election).  And yes you read it right, I have seen Religulous, and now I’m going to tell you what I think about it (I may have some spoilers, but it is a mockumentary).
Want the short version with no spoilers? It’s the comedy version of Richard Dawkins’ “Root of All Evil” (or The God Delusion’s video companion). It has roughly the same arguments against religion, uses many of the same locations, and ends with the same conclusion. In short: if you can laugh about religion, you will love this movie. We already know the premise behind Bill Maher’s new documentary. Basically, he sets out to expose extremist religion in humorous fashion. But what I hadn’t realized is that he pushes a message to all extremist religious people: Grow up, or die
Now, Bill isn’t threatening that atheists (he never calls himself an atheist in the movie) will kill religious people - his argument is that unless people start injecting doubt and thought into their ideologies, that these people are going to end up killing each other, and potentially the entire world. But the entire movie isn’t all doom-and-gloom. We see Bill meet the founder of the Church of Kantheism in Amsterdam. This church doesn’t have much dogma, but knows it can reach the divine through marijuana. After a few tokes, Bill tells the pothead priest that his hair’s on fire (it’s not) and the priest freaks out for a bit. Bill interviews Dr. Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project) and exposes a double standard in Dr. Collins beliefs about evidence in that the same level of evidence isn’t necessary for Jesus and the resurrection. Dr. Collins even goes as far to defend his faith through the New Testament as “first hand accountants” to which Bill decries that they are at least several decades detached. Bill gets kicked out of the Vatican (he wanted to interview the Pope), off of a Mormon churchyard in Utah, out of the biblical theme park in Florida, and a number of people end the interview abruptly when they figure out what’s going on. Where Mathis and Expelled held interviews that didn’t seem out of line (and were under false pretences), it became quickly obvious what Maher’s intentions were as soon as he opened his mouth. The cutting of many interviews was quite obvious, and you could tell Maher wanted to push comedy over allowing his interview subjects the chance to fully speak their mind. Finally, I have to say, I really liked Bill’s approach. He never claimed to have the answers. He often said “I don’t know”, and even shows an interview between him and his mother - who also doesn’t know what they believe anymore. Bill preaches the word of doubt and rational thought. Overall, the movie was awesome. I can tell a lot of people won’t like Religulous, but if you’re reading articles on Edger, this movie is probably perfectly suited for you. Back to Top. |
