I am a secular

With relatively little formal organization and a strong tendency toward independent thought, the nonreligious use many different labels to describe themselves. Many of us have adopted more than one label, vary our usage according to the situation, and consciously change our preferences over time. I’m certainly no exception to this pattern. Today, I would like to state that I have decided to adopt secular as my preferred personal label and to explain my reasons by comparing it to terms which I have used previously and which still accurately describe me.

atheist
+ general meaning is always understood
– precise meaning is often misunderstood (≠ certainty that gods don’t exist)
– does not communicate whether belief in absence or absence of belief
– says nothing about belief in supernatural in general
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

naturalist
+ communicates disbelief in all supernatural without emphasis on gods
– meaning is often misunderstood (≠ nudist, ≠ nature lover, ≠ scientist)
– does not communicate whether belief in absence or absence of belief
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

humanist
+ positive principles are more than rejection of supernaturalism
– positive principles are unremarkable in modern western society
– meaning is often misunderstood (≠ worship humanity, ≠ speciesist)
– often seems like an ideology rather than a simple description
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

freethinker
+ communicates an approach to claims rather than a particular belief
– used almost exclusively by atheists, so above distinction is lost
– meaning is generally not understood, requiring explanation
– says nothing about whether one is religious or spiritual

secular
+ meaning is usually understood
+ says nothing about belief or disbelief in anything
+ says that one is neither religious nor spiritual
+ greatest potential as umbrella term
– noun form is currently somewhat awkward

First, I acknowledge that whether a particular feature of a label is considered positive or negative is largely subjective, and thus I only claim to present my own opinion.

Second, I acknowledge that extending the meaning of secular from “not religious” to “neither religious nor spiritual” and using it as a noun rather than merely as an adjective are both somewhat novel, but I contend that these are reasonable extensions without obvious substitutes and that neither is unprecedented. In addition, the noun form can be avoided in most circumstances by using the adjective form instead, for example, by saying, “I’m secular,” just like someone might say, “I’m Hindu” or “I’m Buddhist.”

Third, I strongly prefer not to capitalize the term secular since it indicates the absence of an ideology and capitalizing it would suggest otherwise. Typographical conventions dictate that I nevertheless capitalize it the title, but I have chosen to ignore this rule in this instance—precisely because the title is so prominent—in order to avoid any potential confusion regarding my opinion on this matter.

Fourth, I want to distinguish a secular from a secularist: a secular is one who is neither religious nor spiritual whereas a secularist is one who believes the government should be neutral toward religion. This distinction mirrors the Christian/Christianist and Muslim/Islamist distinctions which have become increasingly familiar. In my estimation, almost all seculars are secularists, but most secularists are not seculars. In contrast, it’s almost impossible to imagine a Christianist who isn’t a Christian or a Islamist who isn’t a Muslim. This clearly speaks to the inherent fairness of secularism.

Fifth, I want to emphasize that I’m not rejecting any of the other labels on my list; I simply think calling myself a secular conveys just the right amount of relevant information when the topic of religion arises and provides me with a clear self-identity without committing me to any particular belief, principle, or ideology.

So until further notice, I am a secular first and foremost. It seems quite appropriate that I have finally landed on the same term that I chose when naming this blog over five years ago and largely for the same reasons!

The Eroding Wall of Separation

As a secular American, the Establishment Clause is my favorite part of the United States Constitution. It originally operated to prevent direct federal funding of churches and the formal establishment of any Christian denomination—or even Christianity in general—as the official national religion. With time and further legal developments, courts have come to interpret it to mean that government at all levels should remain neutral toward religion, neither promoting nor discouraging it. While over the past decade the federal judiciary has weakened the substance of this rule and especially the means to enforce it, government neutrality toward religion remains an important and accepted legal principle. But I’m happy that the Establishment Clause has existed since the beginning, for I believe that such a law could not be passed today.

If I understand history correctly, it seems that American Christians at the end of the 18th century were much more sectarian than they are now. That is, they identified rather strongly with their particular denominations and largely rejected ecumenism. They wanted the government to sanction their own denomination and opposed the government sanctioning others. I imagine that most citizens probably didn’t think the Establishment Clause would entail total neutrality, and if the federal government wouldn’t make their own church the official national church, then they were satisfied that at least no other church received this status. And since almost all states had official churches at this time, there was no need for a national church.

American Christians today are rather different. Many of them change denominations, especially within Protestantism but also to and from Catholicism, some identify as “non-denominational,” and they all generally identify much less than with their individual churches than their ancestors did. Far fewer of them have negative opinions of other denominations or even non-Christian religions, with some even having favorable opinions of all other religions, especially when contrasted with atheism. This last sentiment is sometimes expressed as, “I don’t care where you worship, as long as you go somewhere.” While this may be relatively open-minded, it’s especially dangerous for church-state separation. Another problem is that historically disfavored minority denominations such as the Baptists have almost totally forgotten their former commitment to secular government now that the threat of another denomination becoming established has long disappeared and they have become a major group themselves, especially here in the southeast.

If the Establishment Clause, with its long history and secure position—requiring a constitutional amendment to repeal—didn’t already exist, I think a law establishing general Christianity as the official national religion would be a real possibility. At the very least, it seems that most Americans would not oppose a law which allowed government to favor religion in general, as long as it didn’t discriminate between faiths. I believe the existence of faith-based initiatives for over a decade supports this view. The average American thinks religion is good and doesn’t necessarily object to the government actively promoting it as a whole. I find this disturbing.

In the absence of a constitutional amendment, major changes to the law can still come through the Supreme Court. I fear a majority of the justices will eventually agree with the popular sentiment and simply overturn the precedent requiring neutrality toward religion altogether. It’s worrisome, but all I can do is vote for presidential candidates who are less likely to appoint theocrats to the federal bench and to support organizations that promote secular government. I suggest we all do the same in order to hold up the wall of separation between church and state.

Image: vichie81 | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Secularist Fantasy

During the summer, I participated in an online United States government simulation. Many players choose to use characters with views quite distinct from their own, but my character was essentially a puppet for me. As a member of the House of Representatives, I authored and sponsored the two following pieces of legislation. The first one is about the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge Neutrality Restoration Resolution

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance contained no reference to any deity before 1954,

Whereas an increasing minority of Americans do not profess belief in any deity and an even larger number claim no association with any religion,

Whereas non-religious citizens are as much an integral part of our nation as are religious citizens,

Whereas the government exists to serve all people of the nation and should favor neither religion nor irreligion,

Whereas the pledge should unite rather than divide,

Whereas the phrase “under God” creates division by referencing a religious belief not shared by all citizens and necessarily excludes non-believers,

Whereas believers can understand how unbelievers feel by imagining the pledge saying “without God” instead of “under God,”

Whereas most American children are encouraged to recite the pledge every day at school regardless of their own beliefs,

Whereas many American adults are encouraged to recite the pledge on occasion regardless of their own beliefs,

Whereas refraining from favoring religion is distinct from favoring irreligion,

Whereas the removal of the phrase “under God” would restore the pledge's neutrality toward religion,

BE IT RESOLVED
The Pledge of Allegiance be restored to its pre-1954 formulation: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The second one is about the national motto.

Motto Neutrality Restoration Resolution

Whereas E Pluribus Unum has been a de facto motto of the United States since 1776,

Whereas In God We Trust has been the de jure motto of the United States only since 1956,

Whereas E Pluribus Unum contains no reference to any deity and In God We Trust does,

Whereas an increasing minority of Americans do not profess belief in any deity and an even larger number claim no association with any religion,

Whereas non-religious citizens are as much an integral part of our nation as are religious citizens,

Whereas the government exists to serve all people of the nation and should favor neither religion nor irreligion,

Whereas the motto should unite rather than divide,

Whereas the motto In God We Trust creates division by referencing a religious belief not shared by all citizens and necessarily excludes non-believers,

Whereas believers can understand how unbelievers feel by imagining the motto being In God We Disbelieve instead of In God We Trust,

Whereas In God We Trust is a false statement because many Americans neither believe nor trust in supernatural beings,

Whereas refraining from favoring religion is distinct from favoring irreligion,

Whereas the replacement of In God We Trust with E Pluribus Unum would restore the motto's neutrality toward religion,

BE IT RESOLVED
E Pluribus Unum be declared the official motto of the United States, and the use of In God We Trust be discontinued wherever possible, including but not limited to on United States currency and coinage.

Since the simulation is rather realistic, both of the resolutions were easily defeated in committee. But they were fun to write, so I'm sharing them here. I'd love to see something like these submitted to the real House or Senate hopper one day, but I'm not holding my breath.

Theocracy vs. Liberty

This letter by Marcia Holliday was published on December 16th under the heading, “Nativity: No respect.”

I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I turned on a program and saw a piece about Willie Nelson mocking the Nativity with a song about bringing "pot" to the baby Jesus. And what was sadder is to see that people thought it was funny to mock our Lord's birth. Why do we forget that our country was founded on a belief in God and His divine protection? Forgive us, Lord. We need you more now than ever.

Ms. Holliday has the right to express her disapproval of the broadcast, but no more than Willie Nelson has the right to sing any song he pleases or anyone else to listen to any song they please. This nation certainly wasn't founded on theism; it was founded on individual liberty! I find her prayer within the letter rather presumptuous.

Prayer at the Obama Rally

Yesterday I attended the Obama rally at Metro Park here in Jacksonville, Florida. It was the first campaign rally I've ever attended, so I didn't know exactly what to expect, but I was greatly disappointed by how it began: the very first speaker was a Christian minister who delivered a public prayer! What's more, it was explicitly Christian and partisan because he prayed “in Christ's name” and asked for blessings specifically for Obama and not the other candidates. I immediately wanted to boo to express my objection to this religious invocation at a supposedly secular political event, but I was afraid of the consequences of such vocal opposition, so I just kept my head raised, crossed my arms, frowned and looked around for others who shared my disapproval. I found some who didn't seem to be participating, and later a friend of mine told me she also had problems with the prayer. I know we weren't alone in our discomfort with it. Perhaps I will contact the Obama campaign today to register a complaint.

For me, the prayer put a damper on the entire event, though not enough to ruin the full experience. I got see and hear Obama in person as well as Senator Bill Nelson and few other political figures. The rally was certainly a success in terms of turnout: there were approximately twelve thousand people in attendance and another eight thousand who were turned away because there was no more room in the park! I just wish the Democratic Party would stick to the issues rather than pandering to the religious and sacrificing their commitment to secularism.

Florida Supreme Court to the Rescue

In my last entry, I discussed a pair of destructive amendments to the state constitution on the November ballot here in Florida. This morning I heard some good news: the Florida Supreme Court has removed three education-related amendments to the state constitution, including one that I mentioned! Amendments 5, 7 and 9 have been removed because the texts on the ballot weren't clear enough for the voters to properly understand. Amendment 5 concerned property taxes and school funding, amendment 7 would have allowed the state to distribute money to religious institutions – including schools – and amendment 9 would have directly reversed a legal precedent against vouchers. It's good to see these issues off the table for now. I only wish they could remove amendment 2, which would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, on the same grounds, but the language of its text is unfortunately crystal-clear.

The Florida Supreme Court is an admirable group of judges. Remember that if their decision hadn't been overturned by the federal Supreme Court, the recount in 2000 would have continued, Gore would have become president and the world would have been spared eight years of Bush!

Religion on the Ballot

My home state of Florida has earned a very negative reputation, some of it completely warranted, for electoral ineptitude. Most of the country is only aware of the issues in presidential elections, but there's a more serious problem with the general electorate and the amendments to the state constitution we vote on as ballot initiatives. Florida has passed the highest percentage of ballot initiatives of any state in the union. It seems the residents of the state are even less skeptical than even the average American and will approve almost any measure that doesn't immediately appear like a bad idea. The majority of initiatives concern taxation issues because the state legislature doesn't want to risk passing an unpopular measure which will hurt their constituents' wallets, and they have learned that Floridians foolishly tend to vote yes by default when they don't understand a proposal rather than demanding a clear explanation before they change the state's supreme law. The problem has become so bad that in 2006 we passed an amendment that requires a sixty-percent majority for all future amendments, ironically with only a 57.8% majority. I'm afraid that even this new threshold won't prevent two very destructive amendments on this year's ballot from passing.

Amendment 2 would explicitly ban same-sex marriage and civil unions:

Inasmuch as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Florida already has a statute against same-sex marriage, but proponents apparently want to make it even more difficult for homosexuals to be granted equal rights. Although there are indeed secular arguments against same-sex marriage, this is undoubtedly a religious issue. The secular arguments hold almost no sway among the nonreligious, primarily only among those who want rationalize their opposition based on either faith or simple bigotry. Every poll I've seen shows that the nonreligious support same-sex marriage by overwhelming margins.

Amendment 7 would repeal the constitutional prohibition on granting money to religious institutions:

An individual or entity may not be barred from participating in any public program because of religion and to delete the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

I don't really know what the first clause entails, but it must sound good to most voters, so it may only be there to distract them from the main issue: school vouchers. This amendment was created after an earlier voucher program was thwarted in state court precisely on account of this law. Perhaps proponents even have in mind a state “faith-based initiative” program like the federal program. Whatever the case, it's very clear this is a step in the wrong direction.

With taxation amendments, the problem is that voters don't understand the meaning of the text and vote for them anyway. With these two amendments, citizens will have little difficulty understanding. It's their failure to appreciate the importance of church-state separation that will be the problem. I predict that both will pass in November, but I hope I'm proven wrong. Wherever you live, take the time to vote and make your voice heard!

Why I Joined the Green Party

UPDATE: I re-registered as a Democrat on 15 May. I decided to accept the reality of the two-party system and make my liberal voice heard within the big tent of a major party. In addition, Florida has closed primaries and I want to vote as often as possible.

My trek across the political spectrum has been as radical as that across the religious spectrum, and for much the same reasons. Within a few weeks of turning eighteen years old, I registered to vote for the first time. Since I was religious and conservative, I chose to affiliate with the Republican Party. Several years later I became so frustrated with the Republicans for not being conservative enough that I almost registered with the reactionary Constitution Party. I acquired a new voter registration form, filled it out, but then decided not to mail it in for whatever reason. After my deconversion during my mid-twenties, without the influence of religion, my politics quickly changed. I had been taught my entire life to listen to ecclesiastical authority instead of thinking for myself and now, having thought for myself by investigating my doubts about the faith, I had very explicitly rejected that authority. So I carefully examined my political positions, which had mostly been based on dogma and ignorance, not on reason and wisdom. As a result, many of them changed radically; some remained the same. In the end, however, I came to identify myself as a liberal. I wasn't in a hurry to change my party affiliation, but I did switch to the Democratic Party before the next major election. That's where I remained until yesterday, when I mailed off a new registration form in order to switch to the Green Party.

My departure from the Democratic Party is primarily the result of the party's failure to represent my voice. The single largest issue is the Iraq war. The newly elected Democratic majority in Congress has failed to bring any troops home and there's still a real possibility that the superdelegates will award the party's nomination to someone who voted to authorize the war in the first place and who has shown utter contempt for the democratic process throughout her campaign. If Obama wins the nomination, I still intend to vote for him in the general election. If Hillary wins, I absolutely refuse to vote for her and will most likely cast my ballot for the Green Party nominee. Other issues are the party's connections to corporate interests, its pandering to the religious, and its lack of support for democratic reform of our electoral system. I acknowledge that my joining the Green Party is mostly a symbolic gesture of protest against the Democrats and in support of the Greens, but it feels good and I'm glad I've done it.

When I examined the Green Party's 2004 platform, I found a number of my own views in it which the Democratic Party's 2004 platform lacked:

• unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war
• reduction of military spending
• repeal of the Patriot Act
• establishment of single-payer universal healthcare
• abolition of the death penalty
• full support for gay marriage
• support for proportional representation, preferential voting, and neutral redistricting
• abolition of the electoral college
• support for statehood for the District of Columbia
• support for stringent environmental standards (naturally)

There was even one section entitled “Religious Freedom and Secular Equality” which I would like to present in full:

The United States Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion. We affirm the right of each individual to the exercise of conscience and religion, while maintaining the constitutionally mandated separation of government and religion. We believe that federal, state, and local governments must remain neutral regarding religion. We call for:

a. Ending discriminatory federal, state, and local laws against particular religious beliefs, and nonbelief. The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. This requirement should apply to oaths (or affirmations) for holding public office at any level, employment at all government levels, oaths for witnesses in courts, oaths for jury membership, and the oath for citizenship.

b. Prosecution of hate crimes based on religious affiliation or practice.

c. Elimination of displays of religious symbols, monuments, or statements on government buildings, property, websites, money, or documents.

d. Restoration of the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version, eliminating the politically motivated addition of “under God.”

e. Ending faith-based initiatives and charitable choice programs, whereby public funds are used to support religious organizations that do not adhere to specified guidelines and standards, including anti-discrimination laws.

f. Ending school vouchers whereby public money pays for students in religious schools.

g. Ending governmental use of the doctrines of specific religions to define the nature of family, marriage, and the type and character of personal relationships between consenting adults.

h. Ending religiously-based curricula in government-funded public schools.

i. Ending the use of religion as a justification to deny children necessary medical care or subject them to physical and emotional abuse.

j. Ending the use of religion by government to define the role and rights of women in our society.

k. Revocation of the Congressional charter of the Boy Scouts of America. Any private organization that practices bigotry against certain religious beliefs and classes of people should not have a Congressional endorsement or access to public property and funds.

Of course, I can't say that I agree with everything in the platform, but it certainly reflects my views much more closely than that of any other party. I'm glad to be a Green. I don't know whether my political journey has ended, but it has certainly been a wild ride so far. I might be the only person in the country to have voted for both Alan Keyes and Barack Obama in presidential primaries. I can only claim mental illness in the first case.

Obama for President

In my initial entry almost two years ago I stated an intention to discuss a variety of topics in addition to religion and irreligion, but until now I had never done so. Today I would like to talk politics and announce my endorsement of Barack Obama for president of the United States. I already cast my vote for Obama in the Florida primary earlier this week and I would like to publicly discuss my support.

My favorite candidate entering the primaries was in fact Dennis Kucinich because of his thoroughly progressive stances on the issues, but he never had a chance to win the nomination and he had even withdrawn his name before election day in Florida. I liked John Edwards about the same as I like Obama, but the latter's viability made it an easy choice to support him. I don't like Hillary Clinton because she voted to initiate the Iraq war, because she seems to be little more than a political opportunist, and because the Republicans would be able to easily incite their voter base into a frenzy against her. Obama, on the other hand, can excite the Democratic base and bring people to the polls who had never voted previously. I think he has a much better chance of winning a general election, especially by electrifying the black vote in the otherwise deep red south.

Obama is the most progressive of the remaining candidates and in particular I believe that he is the best choice to preserve the separation of church and state in this country. When I read his book The Audacity of Hope, I noted that whenever he discussed the issue of religious freedom, he always explicitly mentioned the rights of nonbelievers along with everyone else. He is a committed Christian and his faith has certainly influenced his life, but he appears to appreciate the importance of secular government and the necessity of justifying government policy without any reference to religion. Perhaps his diverse familial and personal religious background helps him understand the necessity of building coalitions based on principles which appeal to citizens of various beliefs. In the United States, we need someone to bring us together and I think Barack Obama is the best choice for our nation and the world.

The Concept of Neutrality

Many people fail to understand the concept of neutrality in church-state relations and I suspect most of these have never given any thought to comparing the various theoretical possibilities which clearly demonstrate it. They seem to believe that anything that fails to support their opinion automatically supports someone else's opinion and I think this is at least partially because they never stop to ponder the situation if the roles were reversed.

Let's examine the case of the motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency and coinage. When the issue of removing it arises, they see only two options:

(1) Keep the religious motto
(2) Remove the religious motto (and possibly replace it with a secular one)

They view the first option as favoring belief and the second as favoring disbelief. They don't see a neutral option and since there are more believers than non-believers, they argue that the majority should win. The problem is that they don't realize there's a third major option because it receives no support:

(3) Use an anti-religious motto such as “There are no gods”

With the full spectrum under consideration, they can see that the first option favors belief, the third option favors disbelief, but that the second option is truly neutral. It neither supports nor opposes any religious position. That the third option is never presented as a viable possibility doesn't negate its usefulness in demonstrating government neutrality.

The same principle can be shown with the issue of public prayer such as that at football games and city council meetings. The third option in this case would be to open or close the events by saying something like, “Since there are no gods, we have to rely on ourselves.” While I wholeheartedly agree with it, I don't think it would be appropriate to make this kind of statement in an official capacity at a public gathering.

Of course, many people who support government promotion of their religion have no interest in neutrality, but I honestly believe that at least some people who oppose removing religious mottos and public prayers simply need to be educated about the concept of neutrality.

Prayer in Public Venues

This month The Florida-Times Union has published two articles, two editorials and numerous letters to the editor on the issue of prayer at public high school football games and other public venues. The original article which sparked the debate was about a high school football coach in nearby St. Johns County who regularly leads his team in prayer.

• 1 October — original article by Tiffany Pakkala of The St. Augustine Record, “St. Johns coach under fire for team prayers”
• 2 October — editorial by Ron Littlepage, columnist for The Florida Times-Union, “Christian prayers inappropriate at government events”
• 3 October — letter by Marcia Greer, “Public schools: Prayer is not allowed”
• 3 October — letter by Paul B. Schaeffer, “Football games: Prayer is not mandatory.”
• 4 October — letter by Bobbie O'Connor, “Public prayer: Guidelines are offered.”
• 8 October — letter by Chris Tidball, “Religious intolerance is blatant.”
• 8 October — letter by Carolyn Henley, “Postgame Prayer: Coach is to be praised.”
• 8 October — letter by Jim Reape, “Postgame Prayer: Coach is doing a fine job”
• 9 October — editorial by Sam Borden, sports columnist for The Florida Times-Union, “Public school coaches should not preach”
• 10 October — letter by David Schwam Baird, “Public Prayer: Infringing on freedom”
• 11 October — letter by Richard Kusnierek, “Majority rule not always proper”
• 13 October — letter by Sonja Harpe, “Church, State: Going too far”
• 13 October — letter by Harry Parrott, Jr., “Time out on football and prayer”
• 15 October — letter by Brad Howald, “Prayers at Events: No prohibition”
• 16 October — letter by Steven Eddy, “First Amendment: Coach has a right”
• 17 October — letter by Charles Collins, “Religion: Coach should be supported”
• 18 October — article by Wayne Ezell, reader advocate for The Florida Times-Union, “When prayer is controversial”
• 22 October — letter by Bryan Price, “Religion: Coach is the government”
  

I will continue to post updates until this issue passes.

Equality & Secularism

Is it truly possible for a devout believer to treat outsiders with complete equality? If a person honestly believes that their god will forever torture anyone who doesn't follow their religion, then it seems unrealistic to expect that person to treat them with any more respect or fairness than the deity they worship. If a person honestly believes that their god has specially chosen their ethnic group to receive special favors, then it again seems unrealistic to expect them to treat members of other groups with the same level of compassion as their own.

Social animals always treat outsiders differently than members of their own group and humans have more criteria than other animal upon which to mark divisions. Religion is one of those criteria along with location, ethnicity, language and culture, but it's unique among these in that it's irrational and, to a certain extent, can be moderated by education and social security. In order to build a more egalitarian society, the influence of religion must be diminished through these two means.

Religious Exemption to City Ordinance

Early last week I watched a news story on the local news about American Atheists suing the City of Jacksonville again. I haven't been able to find any more information, despite visiting the website of the station and even writing to the webmaster about the story, so I will have to summarize it from memory.

At some point in the past, the city passed an ordinance which made it illegal to give food to the homeless without a permit, to ensure that they were not given anything unsanitary. Either last year or earlier this year, a religious group complained that this ordinance interfered with their right to practice their religion which commanded them to help the poor. The city then revised this ordinance by granting exceptions for anyone motivated by “bona fide religious faith.” American Atheists subsequently sued the city for violation of the separation of church and state by granting this religious exemption. The story didn't say what happened because the case was not yet closed.

I have several complaints about the exemption. First, it gives preference to religion by waiving the application fee for the permit for religious groups. Second, it provides no basis for distinguishing “bona fide” faith from any other variety of faith. Third, it's impossible to determine motivation for charitable acts at all. The city should either revoke the exemption or repeal the ordinance altogether.

Mayor Peyton's Insult to Atheists

Today I learned of this quote by the John Peyton, mayor of Jacksonville, regarding the city's “Day of Faith” in August 2006 and the subsequent lawsuit filed by American Atheists which resulted in the city having to pay $5,000 in lawyer's fees to the organization and to issue a new directive to avoid such violations in the future:

I think I’m doing pretty well in politics if the atheists sue me, especially in Jacksonville.

First, he would be doing pretty well if he solved the murder problem. Perhaps he could have spent $101,000 on increasing police presence throughout the city instead of wasting it on an ineffective prayer rally. Second, he would be doing pretty well if he fulfilled his oath to protect the constitution instead of shredding it to win him some more votes from believers by creating the illusion that he was actually doing something to address the issue of crime. Finally, the insensitivity of this quote cannot be fully appreciated, even by me, without substituting the word atheists with another minority:

• I’m doing pretty well in politics if the blacks sue me.
• I’m doing pretty well in politics if the Hispanics sue me.
• I’m doing pretty well in politics if the Jews sue me.
• I’m doing pretty well in politics if the Muslims sue me.
• I’m doing pretty well in politics if the Mormons sue me.
• I’m doing pretty well in politics if the homosexuals sue me.
• I’m doing pretty well in politics if the senior citizens sue me.
• I’m doing pretty well in politics if the handicapped sue me.

It's a sad day when you hear your elected officials say it's a good sign that their constituents successfully sue them for violating the constitution.

Blaming Everything on “Sin”

Today we find a confusing letter blaming the Virginia Tech massacre on sin. This letter by Bill Van Duyn was published today under the heading, “Society: Address the problem of sin.”

The horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech is yet another example of what this country and our world have come to, and it is going to get worse. The news media need to start helping our country wake up to what's going on. It is sin. Say it: S-I-N! How long has it been since you heard anyone say it out loud? It's politically incorrect.

Our sin burden is huge and growing. It effectively negates the benefits of advances in knowledge and technology. It is civilization in reverse. Think about how various things were when you were a child and how they are now, especially in the areas of security, trust and respect.

When I was a boy in Florida in the late 1940s and early 1950s, we had low taxes and no welfare system, yet society was pretty well off in the ways that count most. Much of our tax burden now goes to pay for our sin burden in so many ways. Our sin burden explains why it takes two or three jobs to keep a family going.

In Mandarin in 1949, my brother and I could flag down the Greyhound bus in the morning and take it to downtown by ourselves. We would see a movie and get our hair cut for 60 cents at Crowd's barber shop on Bay Street. We would walk all over town wherever our fancy would take us, then catch the evening Greyhound bus home again. When I was a young man, you could walk into any church at any time through an unlocked front door. I remember the day in the late 1970s when the doors of our church in Orange Park had to be locked for the first time.

It's not too late. But, if we won't address our sin problem, there's no need to bother ourselves with problems like global warming.

First, the author lacks geographical and historical perspective. School violence has occurred in such countries as Canada, Australia, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Russia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Israel, Lebanon, Yemen, Argentina, Thailand, China and Japan. They have also occurred for many decades. The worst incident occurred in 1927, long before all of the events mentioned in the letter.

Second, the reason that mentioning sin in public fora is “politically incorrect” is that we live in modern, multicultural and largely secular society. Many of us don't believe that sin, defined as an offense against a supernatural deity, even exists and there is no list of actions which theists can agree are sinful. It varies from religion to religion, from sect to sect, from person to person.

Third, the author seems to equate sin with crime. If he doesn't feel safe going downtown alone or leaving his doors unlocked, that is because he fears crime, not sin in general. He is afraid of muggers and murderers, not fornicators or religious skeptics.

Forth, what exactly is a “sin burden”? Assuming this means the costs of crime, I really doubt whether crime rates are the reason for major financial difficulties. Violent crime is at all-time historical lows. It just receives a lot of coverage in the press. If the author felt safer when he was younger, that's because the city was much smaller and smaller cities usually have less crime.

Fifth, the belief that “sin” poses a greater threat to human civilization than global warming depresses me. People have always believed that society was crumbling and that everything was better when they were younger. The ancient Greeks complained about their youth not respecting their elders and not caring about their traditions, yet somehow Greek civilization is still alive and well more than two millennia later. Global warming, on the other hand, is the result of industrialization and is a real threat to our way of life. And it's not as though we can only be concerned about only one issue.

Finally, the author completely fails to mention any specific proposals to “address our sin problem.” Does he think we should force people to pray or attend religious services? Teach the Bible in schools? Fund churches? I have two words for you, buddy: establishment clause.

Water Tower Cross Removed in Starke

Today I was surprised to read an article on the front page of The Florida Times-Union reporting that a federal judge in Jacksonville has ruled that the nearby city of Starke is prohibited from displaying a ten-foot cross on its municipal water tower. The cross, which had been there since the 1970s, was recently removed and this judgement ensures that it will not be replaced. I applaud Senior U.S. District Judge John H. Moore II for this decision.

The most interesting part of the story was that the city argued the cross was a lower-case T for “Tornadoes” – the mascot for Bradford High School. I literally laughed out loud when I read this absurdity.

Religious Monument in Dixie County

Today we find a letter to the editor about the construction of a Ten Commandments monument in front of the Dixie County courthouse in tiny Cross City. This letter by Curtis Wolf was published today under the heading, “Religion: Separate church and state.”

There is one thing that you can say about those in the "let's turn America into a theocracy" crowd. They are a persistent bunch. Either that or they are deaf. No matter how many times the U.S. Constitution says that the government is not in the religion business, they do not seem to hear it.

Now, the Dixie County Commission has joined the Ten Commandments love fest by placing a 5-foot, 6-ton granite ode to "God's top 10 list" in front of the county courthouse in Cross City. They felt no need to hide their intentions by surrounding the Ten Commandments with other historical documents. The monument even has a message on it that states in bold letters "Love God And Keep His Commandments." Wow, I thought the cross on the city-owned water tower in Starke and Jacksonville's "Day of Faith" were bad enough. But, the Dixie County Commission is even more contemptuous of the First Amendment than both of them combined.

Why is it so hard for religion to remain a private matter? It seems that everyone wants the government to do what should be done by private organizations. There are more than enough churches in Florida to get Christianity's message out. Christianity does not need to drag everyone along for the ride, regardless of his beliefs, whenever it feels the need to thump its chest and declare itself to be king of the hill.

I was somewhat surprised to find this letter in the Florida Times-Union given that Dixie County is outside of the local area, but I was pleased to see another letter in favor of the separation of church and state. I don't have anything more to say about the inappropriateness of government promotion of religion that hasn't already been said.

The Source of Christian Tolerance

Today the discussion of a recent syndicated column continues with another letter to editor. This letter by Dottie Stalter was published under the heading, “God's message: ‘Peaceful compromise.’”

This is in response to the letter titled "Christians: Hypocrites are everywhere."

I agree that it is wrong and hypocritical to speak to anyone in a way that is unkind and derogatory. People can go to the extreme, hence not walking in the light of peace.

Always a freethinker, proud of my rational beliefs, but driven and enamored to critical inquiry of the Bible, I soon discovered that God did get it right the first time. Being "born again" is to appreciate and understand God's grace and love.

Knowing this as Christians, we should all be humble as we walk in his light. God's message is all about peaceful compromise. I don't agree that a Christian school should remove a Christian symbol - the cross - permanently from its chapel as Gene Nichol, president of William and Mary College, recently did.

Removing it temporarily to accommodate other religious events was an example of peaceful compromise. I agree with columnist Shaunti Feldhahn that removing it permanently is an insult to most Christians. This is what prompted Feldhahn's recent column.

There should be no shame in embracing and celebrating our Founding Fathers' principles, whom, I might add, were freethinkers and proud of their rational beliefs.

My response to this letter is mixed. There is nothing I find really objectionable about it, but the author rambles somewhat and relies on muddled logic to support her conclusions.

While I generally support peaceful compromise in civic discourse, I grow weary of hearing people claim to know the message of an ineffable deity, especially when it flatly contradicts the source documents and historical interpretation of the position it purports to represent.

First, there is almost no talk of compromise in the Old Testament. Joshua didn't compromise as he supposedly conquered Canaan, by God's own order, burning town after town, slaughtering man, woman, child and beast. The primary purpose of law of Moses was to maintain a strong distinction between the chosen people and the gentiles. Again and again the prophets railed against compromises and accommodations made by the Jews and consistently blamed Israel's defeats and the Babylonian captivity on lack of zealotry in maintaining their own identity. Where was there any compromise?

Second, there is little talk of compromise in the New Testament. There are indeed certain passages about rendering unto Caesar and such, but there are also passages about hating one's own family, selling all of one's possessions, and about shaking the dust off of one's feet when a town doesn't welcome you. And of course Jesus himself was the absolute antithesis of tolerant toward anyone who didn't accept him as absolute master. Rather he condemned all of those to the eternal fires of hell. Where was the message of compromise?

Third, Christendom wasn't especially tolerant until recent centuries, not coincidentally precisely when it ceased to be Christendom. There were persecutions of Jews and of Christian heretics, bloody wars between Christian sects, and multiple crusades against the infidel Muslims. There was slavery and the subjugation of women. Where was there any compromise? Eventually moral values became more tolerant, but it wasn't because of any message from God.

Let me make myself very clear: It's very good that most Christians are quite tolerant today of most people different from themselves. (If only Islam would undergo such an enlightenment!) I simply object to the claim that their religion makes them tolerant when the truth is the reverse: with their tolerant values, they have changed their religion to make it more tolerant. They are reluctant to acknowledge that their moral standards have changed for the better over time, in accordance to the moral Zeitgeist, because it invalidates their claim to have an immutable message from God and thus their hope for an afterlife.

Let us treat each other with compassion and respect. Let us do it not because an invisible being supposedly said so, but because it's the right thing to do.

Insulting Freethinkers

Occasionally the Florida Times-Union prints a syndicated feature in which two columnists, Shaunti Feldhahn and Diane Glass, defend opposing stances toward a particular issue posed as a question. A couple of weeks ago, the pair addressed the issue of whether symbols of specific religions should be displayed on public property. Today we find a letter to the editor in response to Feldhahn's arguments. This letter by George Starkes was published today under the heading, “Christians: Hypocrites are everywhere.”

This is in regard to the column titled "Why is it all right to insult Christians?" by Shaunti Feldhahn.

The blatant hypocrisy of individuals like Feldhahn never ceases to amaze me. They are so quick to denigrate anyone who dares to criticize the Christian belief system, but they remain totally silent when members of their faith insult, attack and vilify those of other non-Christian beliefs.

Just as African-Americans, women, gays and other groups discovered long ago, people have to defend their rights. Most powerful religionists will not merrily grant rights to historically oppressed religious minorities or secular freethinkers. Moreover, no one can win his rights by hiding and trembling in the closet. Human beings can only make progress through courageous agitation.

Hardly a day or night goes by that I don't hear a right-wing radio talk-show host referring to atheists and minority religionists as scum, fools, vermin and many other derogatory terms. Yet, not one Christian has ever called in to tell the host to knock off the bashing, insults and their overt bigotry toward people of other beliefs.

When secular symbols and even minority religious symbols are placed in the public square, the extremist right-wing Christian fundamentalists are quick to remove them, protest them, or harass and threaten those who represent other non-Christian beliefs. It is the typical double standard over and over.

Those of us who are freethinkers are proud of our rational beliefs. We are fed up with the perpetual insults we endure on a regular basis. There should be no shame in embracing and celebrating reason, critical inquiry, philosophical naturalism and the scientific methods of investigation.

As for me, I don't need to be "born again," since I got it right the first time. I suggest that Feldhahn and her cohorts learn to practice what they preach.

I don't really have much to say regarding this letter. The original piece by Feldhahn focused almost entirely on removing a cross from a private university before mentioning the Mount Soledad cross, which is on public land, almost as an afterthought. There's no real substance to discuss. This letter to the editor is somewhat rambling, doesn't address Feldhahn's points, and paints with too broad of a brush in parts for me to give my support. I do wholeheartedly agree with the author, however, that we freethinkers must stand up for our rights and make ourselves visible as a group to demand fair and equal treatment in society and in the law.

UPDATE: A reader has corrected my knowledge by informing me that the university in question, The College of William & Mary, is in fact a public institution. This makes the permanent removal of the cross from the chapel a governmental issue.

Mayor Should Learn Law about Church and State

For today's second letter to the editor about Jacksonville's “Day of Faith”, I am reverting to my usual style because my comments are fewer as I agree with its basic position. This letter by Harry B. Parrott, Jr., president of the Clay County chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was published today under the heading, “Day of Faith: Taxpayers carry burden.”

I respectfully urge Mayor John Peyton and his legal staff to take a basic course in matters regarding separation of church and state. The taxpayers of Jacksonville might well have saved $106,000 just in the last six months.

The event under scrutiny was clearly a Christian event. Indeed, the designation "Day of Faith" should have read "Day of Christian Faith." Preacher after preacher focused on Jesus as the answer to the terrible problem of street violence. Gospel choirs provided the background. Yes, there was one Jewish and one Muslim speaker, but Jesus was center stage.

In many ways, it was a powerful occasion. I certainly hope it was helpful and effective in its aim of curbing violence. But the bottom line remains: Taxpayers should not be paying for this Christian evangelistic event. It was a flagrant constitutional violation just waiting to be challenged, and it was. So, now the taxpayers are out an additional $5,000, and Peyton must admit that both he and his legal staff were asleep at the wheel.

Absolutely basic to the principle of church and state separation is the understanding that government should not be promoting or funding sectarian religion. It's a principle clearly understood by millions of Americans. It is a principle that has served our nation well since our founding. I urge Peyton and his legal staff to get back to these basics.

While the particular religion promoted is irrelevant to the legality of the event, the heavy focus on Christianity does bring the issue into stronger contrast. Fundamentalist Christians are not known for being especially tolerant of other religions such as Judaism or Islam, but they certainly show their adherents more respect than they show to atheists whom, as we saw yesterday, they may castigate as liars without any consequences. Casting it as favoring Christianity in a special manner will find a more sympathetic audience.

For those outside of the area, Clay County is a neighboring county of Jacksonville, so the letter writer probably does not pay property taxes in the city. Many Clay County residents, however, including me, work and shop in Jacksonville and pay a fair amount of sales tax there. In fact, all Americans should be concerned about the erosion of the wall of separation of church and state in our country.