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.

Florida's “Imagine” License Plate

Florida has many specialty license plates for universities, professional sports teams, environmental causes and various charities. Today I saw this license plate:

If the image doesn't load, it's an “Imagine” license plate with that word at the top and John Lennon's drawing of himself in the center. According to the state's website, the extra yearly fee of $25 for this plate is donated to the Florida Association of Food Banks. Although the primary purpose is thus to relieve hunger, it strikes me as a good plate for a freethinker.

Imagine there's no heaven...

Chocolate Jesus

Although there has been much discussion of the Sweet Jesus sculpture by Cosimo Cavallaro, I have only chosen to address the topic as part of my newspaper monitoring policy. This letter by Richard Bohler was published on 7 April under the heading, “Jesus Christ: Sculpture is blasphemous.”

Could someone please explain why we all bow down and worship in the name of "art"? Granted, until the advent of the new art terrorism brought to us by liberal iconoclasts, art had stood in the camp of the noble and the beautiful. But, see now the depths to which it has sunk.

If the blasphemous depiction of the "anatomically correct" depiction of Jesus Christ sculpted in chocolate is any indication of what is in vogue among "artsy" folk, then perhaps a review of public funding for the brothels masquerading as art museums is in order.

Are we so complacent that we're willing to be mocked with our own tax dollars just so we can grovel at the altar of "art"? And, mocked we are. When St. Paul was knocked off his high horse, he heard the words: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Jesus was saying that persecuting his church was the same as persecuting him. Conversely, when people mock him, they mock all Christians. Jesus is not diminished by these juvenile attacks on his person, but he weeps for the souls of those who shake their fists at their God.

First, no one is worshiping in the name of art. Second, art museums are not brothels. If you want to reconsider public funding, talk to your representatives. Third, a piece of chocolate isn't persecution; burning people at the stake is persecution.

There have been death threats from supposedly loving Christians over this piece of chocolate. It's deliciously ironic.

Flurry of Letters about Islam

At the beginning of the year, I adopted a policy of monitoring each opinion piece regarding religion and secularism appearing in the Florida Times-Union. Recently I have fallen behind in face of a flurry of articles and letters on the topic of Islam in response to the Secular Islam Summit. Instead of responding to each piece individually and in full, I will catalogue them, summarize them, and respond only to selected quotes. I will add more letters to this list until this episode is complete.

22 March — Pro & Con: Reforming Islam

The pro section was the exact text of the St. Petersburg Declaration from the Secular Islam Summit. The con section by Dr. Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic relations, criticized the signers for being outsiders, failing to be specific, ignoring existent reform, and for promoting “Islamaphobia.”


22 March — Muslims: Universal Principles

This piece praises the Secular Islam Summit and praises the United States' policy toward Muslims.


25 March — Secular Muslims: Does Islam need reformation?

This letter says that Muslims will not assimilate into western culture and implies that the west may eventually become Muslim. There is one section I would like to quote:

These self-proclaimed secularists represent only a small minority of Muslims. The majority of Muslims, not only in the United States but worldwide, have different opinions. Yet, the media, governments and neoconservative pundits pay more attention to the secular minority.

There must be a perception bias somewhere. I find far more new stories about radical Muslims protesting in the streets than about secular Muslims publishing documents. The protests, however, generally occur in the Middle East and Europe, not in the United States.


27 March — Muslims: Face reality

This letter is a response to the previous one. It says that although the west is accused of imposing its culture on the Muslim world, the original letter writer clearly states his desire for the Muslim world to impose its culture on the west. The author claims we are in a cultural war.


1 April — Islam: Clash of cultures is in progress

This letter is another response to the same letter as above. It lists some of the details of Sharia, which the original author would like to see adopted in the west, and explains how these principles are in conflict with the western values.


3 April — Muslims: No criticism of radicals

This letter is yet another response to the same letter as above. It discusses the clash between Islamic and western values.


4 April — Religion: Aspects of our society aren't good

This letter is a response to the previous group of letters. The author agrees with their negative assessment of Islamic culture but reminds them that Christian culture used to be just as barbaric and has only become more enlightened relatively recently.


6 April — Islam: Radicals are the problem

This letter says that moderate Muslims do not pose a threat. It provides a link to a website, which I cannot seem to load, of a moderate group and lists some of their positions.


7 April — Islam: Religion is misunderstood

This letter claims that women are equal to men under Sharia. This is demonstrably false.


9 April — Islam: Muslims can live in harmony

This letter claims that Sharia is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This is demonstrably false. It also discusses Muslim assimilation, persecution by Christians, and a recent poll of American Muslims.


10 April — Muslims: Women guaranteed rights

This letter discusses the supposed rights of Muslim women under Sharia.


11 April — America: Democracy is not secularistic

This letter claims that democracy is not linked to secularism. This is only partially true. While there is no inherent connection between secularism and democratic values, there is a strong correlation in actual practice. Almost every threat to freedom today comes from a religious source, such as censorship and denial of civil rights to homosexuals.


18 April - America: Peaceful Muslims are welcome

This letter discusses Muslim terrorism in India and Spain, the incompatibility of the US Constitution and Sharia, and the willingness of the the United States to accept peaceful Muslims as immigrants.

Catholicism and Guilt

The relationship between religion and guilt is rather complex. Religion both manufactures and eliminates guilt and the more dominant aspect varies according to an individual's disposition and personal experiences. I would like to examine these two elements in detail. Since I was a Catholic for many years, I will speak about Catholicism in particular, but some of what I will say is relevant to Christianity in general and, to a lesser extent, religion in general.

Catholicism manufactures guilt in several distinct ways. First, the Church teaches that, because of the actions of Adam and Eve, we are all born sinners with the stain of original sin on our souls. This includes exclusion from heaven unless we are baptized and an insurmountable tendency to sin ourselves regardless. Second, the Church's liturgy constantly reminds us of our worthlessness and our sinfulness, especially in contrast to a perfect God. Third, and most important, the Church almost uniformly condemns as sinful a completely natural and normal aspect of human existence: sexuality. The Church teaches that every single sexual act except intercourse between a married man and woman without contraception is a mortal sin, meaning that it can cause that person to be damned to hell. This includes not only homosexuality and fornication, but masturbation, viewing pornography, mentally indulging in sexual fantasies, and even sex between a husband and wife who simply want to avoid having more children. It thus excludes from sexual activity every person who isn't currently ready to have another child with their legal spouse, i.e., the vast majority of the planet, and tells them that if you do anything sexually, you are an enemy of God who should burn forever in a lake of fire. Sexuality is an absolutely integral aspect of life and to attach extreme guilt to a basic human need is terrible. Sex is a serious affair and requires responsibility, maturity and respect, but condemning with hellfire every single sexual act except one is absurd. It's similar to teaching that if you eat any food other than organic vegetables, you are evil. Perhaps that is why dietary regulations are also common among religions; they create guilt and give power to the leaders of religion who alone can magically absolve that guilt.

Catholicism also eliminates guilt, primarily through confession, or as it is known today, reconciliation. Psychologically, it's probably helpful to admit one's faults to another person and to hear someone say that the sins are forgiven. The requirement of confession, however, on the balance probably creates more guilt than it relieves. Most penitents feel anxiety before and during the confession and many often avoid confessing for that reason. Others feel anxiety because they are afraid that they forgot something or that something made their confession invalid. Since receiving communion in a state of mortal sin is another mortal sin, worries arise every week at Mass. Adding anxiety to guilt is a recipe for much anguish. For some people, however, confession frees them of their guilt and tells them everything is all right.

Atheism, by contrast, neither manufactures nor eliminates guilt. Atheists have no one to make them feel guilty except their own consciences. Actions can be judged from a human level without fear of offending a perfect deity, violating an arbitrary regulation, or incurring eternal punishment. In addition, atheists are not tied to a holy book which must either be reinterpreted or discarded in order for their moral values to progress. But atheists also have no one to make them feel less guilty. They may occasionally and informally confess their failings to friends and family, but they have no deity to instantly make everything better. They have to take responsibility for their actions and realize that if they hurt someone, no one but them will make it right again. All of this echoes the theme I propounded in a recent entry, that a major aspect of atheism is maturity.

Before I finish, there is one more related topic to address. Theists sometimes claim that atheists really do believe but just want to sin without guilt. While this may be true of a small number of self-identifying atheists, the vast majority of atheists with whom I interact are quite sincere in the disbelief in the supernatural and exhibit no greater tendency to sin than theists, excluding actions such as not attending church and not praying which could only be considered wrong within the context of religion. They don't lie, steal, cheat, or hurt other people more often than the average theist. On the contrary, atheists are statistically much less likely to commit crimes than theists. The evil atheist who does whatever he wants because there is no divine police officer watching is nothing more than a caricature.

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.

Believers without Faith

Although I was raised a practicing Catholic and became very devout for about ten years before my deconversion, I never really had faith in the sense of belief without sufficient evidence. To the extent to which I justified my beliefs, it was always through reason. Perhaps this is why I have difficulty relating to people who justify theirs through faith.

Before junior high school, I never gave much thought to religion. I went to Mass with my family and attended religious education classes, but like most children, I didn't pay much attention to it. My first real interest in religion developed when my family starting receiving EWTN on cable. A few years later I became interested in apologetics and it was then that I first examined my reasons for believing. At that time I adopted what I now call the rationalistic faith paradigm, discussed in more detail in my lengthy essay justifying my apostasy. I believed that the arguments for God's existence were valid and that the miracles of the Catholic Church objectively proved that it was the true, infallible church. I had faith in the sense that I accepted the truth of the dogmas of the church without direct evidence for them, but I thought that I had perfectly valid reasons for trusting the church. From my perspective, it had nothing to do with feelings or blind trust; it was all rational and logical.

It was that claim to rationality that later made my belief susceptible to inquiry and investigation. If the arguments for God's existence were invalid and the evidence for the supposed miracles of the Catholic Church were called into question, then my rationalistic faith could and in fact did crumble. My anchoring of my mind to reason led me to my current position.

There was for me no “having faith” in God to justify my belief in God himself. One cannot trust a being to establish the existence of that very being! It is circular and invalid. One is simply trusting himself and his own faculties. It's such a simple point, but the vast majority of believers fail to realize that their supposed faith in God is nothing more than faith in their own unjustified personal opinions. There are certainly, however, other believers who claim to base their beliefs entirely on objective evidence and it is these people, if they are unafraid or at least willing to face their fears, who are the most open to rational argumentation against religion.

Beliefs of Historical Figures

Today we find a letter to the editor in response to one last week which claimed that many abolitionist leaders were not Christians. This letter by Gary Pudimat was published today under the heading, “Famous men: Most were Christians.”

A recent letter writer extolled the anti-slavery views of several historical figures and the fact that they were either atheists, deists or free-thinkers. When you research these men, you find that most were, in fact, committed Christians.

Abraham Lincoln stated: "That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scripture." Upon receiving a Bible as a gift, he stated, "In regard to this great book ... it is the best gift God has given to men."

George Washington stated in 1796, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1778, "Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." He also wrote, "A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district ... are the principal support of virtue, morality and civil liberty."

Even the great abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was a Christian. His problem was the fact that the church where he lived would not take a strong stand against slavery and so was denounced by the people of the church. In several biographies written about Garrison, it was stated that "the central fact of Garrison's life was his religious faith. The Bible was the only book he ever really read." Garrison "demanded that all who called themselves Christian act like Christ."

To try to label these men as anything but Christian is wrong.

I find discussing the religious beliefs of historical figures quite tedious and mostly irrelevant. One could easily produce quotes by Lincoln, Washington and Franklin which support the position that they were deists and freethinkers, but I simply have no interest in doing so. My beliefs are unrelated to the historical accidents of who held similar beliefs. Let us discuss the objective evidence for and against religion, not engage in quote mining.

Despair and Hope

When I was a Catholic, I viewed atheism as the pinnacle of despair. Atheists have no hope for an afterlife; consciousness ends with bodily death. Atheists have no hope for ultimate justice; good deeds often go unrewarded and evil deeds often go unpunished. Atheists have no hope for final vindication of their beliefs; if they are indeed correct, the vast majority of the world will never know that their religious beliefs were mistaken. Atheism, from the outside, thus appears to be desolate of hope. It was partially this bleak appearance which kept me from investigating my doubts about religion for seven years after they first arose in my mind.

Now that I am an atheist, I no longer view atheism as gloomy and dreary. While I willingly admit that each individual claim above about hope is completely valid, I feel no despair and no sadness. I simply realize that I can only accept that, with atheism, all things come to an end. I would like to examine the two sides of that coin.

First, all bad things come to an end. No one suffers eternally and everyone will eventually be released from even the most protracted and intense agony. Many theists, by contrast, grapple with the idea that their closest family and friends may be tormented or may already be tormented eternally in hell and of course also grapple with the possibility that they themselves may be tormented with absolutely zero chance of ever escaping even for the briefest moment. Fear of being endlessly tortured filled my own life with considerable sorrow for several years; simple annihilation of my personality upon death is quite pleasant and even poetic in comparison.

Second, all good things come to an end. This is the difficult aspect and there really is little I can say to make it any easier. We would all like to live in paradise, to see our loved ones again, to learn every mystery, to enjoy every delight, to celebrate love and friendship with every person without any anger, fear or jealousy. Unfortunately, wishing cannot make it so. Some atheists find it useful, however, to realize that they continue to live, in a sense, through the people they have affected, especially their children and grandchildren, and then through the people they affect and so on. Some also believe that they would grow bored in an eternal paradise, and that it is not so tragic that our lives end after only several decades. I cannot say that death is not tragic, only that the associated pain is not necessarily unbearable without religion.

Atheism to me now represents maturity and honesty in the face of reality. Atheists must accept the cold truth that there is no one to make everything all better in the end, no one to give our lives purpose and meaning, and no one to tell us what to do or what to think. We must take ultimate responsibility for our lives and for ourselves. While it's comforting to believe the promises of religion, without evidence to support them, we must discard them as childhood fantasies and embrace our future as mature adults.

Abolitionist Atheists

Today we find two letters to the editor in response to a guest column by Los Angeles Times contributor Joseph Loconte published last week in The Florida Times-Union. In his piece, Loconte rightfully extols the abolitionist activities of William Wilberforce in Great Britain, but makes the demonstrably false claim that atheists did not help lead the campaign against slavery.

The first letter by Jay Mooney was published under the heading, “History: Human bondage was not right.”

Joseph Loconte's Feb. 23 Point of View column titled "Religious faith ended slavery" is an example of turning history on its head.

Loconte, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, extols the leadership of people with "deep Christian convictions" in ending slavery. But, he conveniently forgets that many other Christians used biblical Scriptures to justify slavery. Indeed the Bible - both the Old Testament and New Testament - is rife with language that clearly and unequivocally states that slavery was a positive thing.

Loconte says that it was Christians, not atheists, who led the effort against the slave trade. Perhaps he forgets that slavery was abolished in France in 1791, not by the church, but by the atheistic founders of the revolution. In the United States, the early critics of slavery - Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams - were all either atheists or deists. Later, the abolitionist cause was taken up by Ralph Waldo Emerson, a Unitarian minister turned atheist; William Lloyd Garrison, an atheist; and Robert Ingersoll, the "Great Agnostic." Indeed, the "Great Emancipator" himself, Abraham Lincoln, never acknowledged being a Christian and was (at the very least) thought to be a freethinker in matters of religion. In England, atheists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were leading abolitionists.

Atheists and freethinkers of all stripes worked closely with progressive Christians to abolish slavery and to fully extend voting and civil rights to African-Americans. To suggest otherwise is an affront to the rich history of free thought in America.

Like Loconte, I look forward to seeing Amazing Grace, a new biographical film about William Wilberforce, a Christian activist and member of the British Parliament. Indeed, he was a great leader in the worldwide anti-slavery movement.

I realize there is a nonliteral way to read Scripture that provided people like Wilberforce a way to attack slavery from their religious perspective. But, let's be fair. It does not take reading Scripture to know that human bondage was not right. That just took common sense and a commitment to human rights, something that most of us freethinkers have in abundance.

This is a good letter. It directly counters the false claim that atheists didn't contribute to the abolitionist movement. It also discusses the traditional acceptance of slavery by the religious.

The second letter by Hugo Borreson was published under the heading, “History: Churches owned slaves.”

A lot of historians will be surprised to read the Point of View column titled "Religious faith ended slavery."

Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches owned slaves; Baptist churches owned the most. Christians obeyed the 10th commandment that forbids coveting a neighbor's "manservant" and "maidservant" (slaves). In the Civil War, some 250,000 Southern men died defending states' rights and slavery.

Atheists could not lead the effort to end slavery because they had no political power. Just as today, they have little chance to be elected to public office. Christians have accepted slavery for centuries. William Wilberforce did, indeed, end slavery in Great Britain by the end of his life. He overcame the policies of an empire that relied on slaves.

But, he also voted in favor of the corn laws, which taxed corn. Corn was the basic food of poor people in England. He wanted their main food taxed.

This letter is somewhat disappointing. Perhaps due to ignorance, the author doesn't correct Loconte's assertion that atheists weren't involved in the abolitionist movement, and the statements about a corn tax seem irrelevant to the discussion at hand. At least it does attempt to respond to the ideas of the original piece.

Loconte's piece is a perfect example of the rewriting of history. Slavery is explicitly approved in the Old Testament and implicitly approved in New Testament. The international slave trade arose and thrived during a religious era. Many abolititionists were religious, but so were many of those supporting slavery who cited the Bible to justify their practices. Today now that all of society agrees that slavery was wrong, someone like Loconte comes along to claim that religion “ended” slavery. The same is true of the civil rights movement. There were religious people on both sides of the issue, yet some claim that religion “ended” segregation. Today our society struggles with homosexual rights, with the religious on both sides of the issue. In several decades, when homosexuality has become completely acceptable, I predict the religious will claim that religion “ended” homophobia.

It's just like prayer. God gets all of the credit and none of the blame.

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.

Divine Land Grant

Today we find a letter which reminds us how dangerous mixing religion and politics can be. This letter by Harvey Weinshenker was published today under the heading, “Israel: Lack of research noted.”

A letter writer's opinion about Israel and the United States was well taken. However, a little research on his part would be in order.

In 1948, the U.S. government introduced and voted in favor of the U.N. resolution establishing the current state of Israel.

But even many thousands of years before that event, a higher authority (God) established the geographic boundaries of Israel. He is still the landlord and holds the deed. Read the Bible.

Although I am far too ignorant of the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to adopt even a general stance toward it, I am confident in saying that such an opinion is the paragon of superstition and tribalism which has fueled the mutual antagonism in this region for millennia. It's sad enough to realize that anyone in the modern world believes that an invisible perfect being has given a certain tract of land to a certain ethnic group in perpetuity, but then one realizes that he expects this claim to be respected merely because it's written down on a piece of paper. He doesn't seem to understand that the vast majority of the world, i.e., everyone who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, does not accept the validity of this divine land grant.

Perhaps the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn should ask her to grant them the islands of Hawaii as their homeland.

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.

Happy Darwin Day!

Today is the 198th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Let us celebrate the man whose scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has provided a satisfactory explanation of how complex life arose from simpler life without any reference to the supernatural and who thus provided a secular response to the question of life and apparent design. Here's to you, Mr. Darwin!

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.

Theocracy via Democracy

For today's first letter to the editor about Jacksonville's “Day of Faith”, I am adopting a new style of response whereby I insert my comments between the text rather than place it all at the end. The letter by Rev. Marcius O. King was published today under the heading, “Day of Faith: Event was clearly defined.”

As a taxpayer, I am appalled at the city of Jacksonville giving in to a group of atheists. Although the amount of money seems small, it is the principle. We are allowing a small group to prevail in a city where the majority of its citizens are God-fearing people. It was stated that the city has agreed to pay the cost of mediation. This will take more taxpayers' money. Is it still a valid statement to say: In a democratic society, the majority rules?

Yes, one principle of democracy is majority rule. There are, however, other principles such as minority rights and rule of law which this event violated.

The atheists' argument is that the event was called "A Day of Faith." I wonder if there would have been a problem if the event (the rally) had been called "A Day of Concern" or "A Unity Day Against Crime"?

If it had had a secular name and secular nature, then there would have been no problem. It did not and that was precisely the point of the lawsuit.

Mayor John Peyton's repeated statements that the word "faith" denoted faith not just in God, but in our community as well, in my opinion, clearly defines the major intent of the event.

Such concessions were mere lip service to secular interests, and they don't negate the fact that this event was an ecumenical church service funded by local tax dollars. The government cannot promote religious faith, regardless whether other types of faith are also promoted.

It is sad that the offense of any group takes precedence over the issue at hand, which is the homicide rate.

Yes, rule of law indeed takes precedence over a rally whose only apparent affect was to create the illusion that the mayor's office was doing something special to decrease violence.

If this group is offended by this rally and the word "prayer," why not sue the federal government and the president of the United States when he calls on America for a "National Day of Prayer"?

There are probably lawsuits regarding that.

People who believe in a supreme being are also taxpayers.

People who believe in Xenu are taxpayers as well, but we don't spend tax money on Scientology rallies, do we? No, we maintain neutrality in government regarding religion, not fund the services of the largest group.

If we, as a people, believe in a higher power, then we believe we have someone to call on and have at least the possibility of having problems solved. If we fail to believe in a higher power, then we fail to believe that anything can be done.

You, “as a people,” can use any of the hundreds or thousands of churches throughout the city to do exactly that without spending a dime from public funds. The mayor can even come to your church and speak without costing the city anything. The worst part is that you actually believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god has been letting scores of innocent people be murdered and would continue to do so unless you ask him to stop it. That sort of theology only makes sense for an imperfect, selfish deity, not the God you claim to worship.

A Visit to a Unitarian Universalist Service

This morning I visited the Buckman Bridge Unitarian Universalist Society, one of the two Unitarian Universalist congregations here in Jacksonville, for the first time. Although I have been aware of UUism for a couple years and have read about it online more than once, yesterday I decided almost on a whim to check out a service and see what it was like. BBUUS is closer to my home than the other congregation and I was also attracted to their lay leadership, which I presume results in a greater variety of speakers and thus viewpoints.

The Sunday service begins at 10:30am, but not knowing how long it would take to drive there, I arrived not long after 10:00am. Although I should have gone inside immediately, I felt somewhat nervous and sat in my car in the parking lot until almost 10:20am. The congregation doesn't own their own building at present, so they rent a small community center which resembles a church from the outside and a theater from the inside. I later learned that they own a property on the opposite side of the river upon which they have long-term plans to construct their own building. Immediately upon entering I was greeted by a woman designated to greet members as they arrived. I was encouraged to make a name tag for myself and sign their guest book, which I did gladly. All of the regular members of the congregation have computer-printed name tags which they put on inside the building and which are kept on a large board on a table. Not all of those in attendance wore their name tags for whatever reason, and it initially seemed slightly corny, but it was helpful for me as newcomer. The original greeter introduced me to several other members and I picked up some materials before sitting down in my chair near the back of the seating area, where I glanced through the program for the day and the hymnal. The main area consists of perhaps one hundred chairs arranged in rows facing the front with an aisle down the center where at the far end is a podium with table upon which is a candle and metal ring resembling the UU logo. While I was sitting there I encountered a young woman I had met online over a year ago whom I knew was a member of this congregation and then a former coworker whom I did not. Two other women sitting nearby also introduced themselves to me. There were about eighty people in attendance when the time arrived to begin.

The service was lead by a lay woman who said a few opening words before asking visitors to stand and introduce themselves. I introduced myself with a few words after two other visitors on the opposite side of the room had done the same. Then the lay leader “lit” the candle in front of the podium, which consisted in turning on what I then saw was an electric candle. It seemed somewhat odd to use an artificial candle, but perhaps there is a good reason for this. Next there was something called the “call to worship” which consisted of a four-line poem recited by the congregation. Afterward there was a “story for all ages”, which was a short children's book read by the lay leader, presumably for the children right before they left for their separate religious instruction in another room or maybe even building. Then it was time for a few quick announcements. Next was something called “sharing of personal joys and concerns” during which members of the congregation came forward to present personal news. As they did this, they symbolically took a small polished stone from a container and placed it in a big bowl in front of the candle. There were about five or six people who came forward and afterward the lay leader placed “silent stones” for other people who raised their hands before placing one additional stone for everything else. Next came the offering plate to which I contributed a small amount. Then everyone sang a hymn from the hymnal which I didn't know and which I tried my best to sight-read. After that it was time for the speaker, an Iranian member of the Baha’i religion who discussed the common foundations of all religions. As an atheist, I don't believe the common foundations of religion are divine but rather purely human, but I enjoyed his sermon and it served the purpose of getting me to think about this topic. Afterward there was a comment and question session during which I asked why, if they all come from the same “source”, were claims to exclusivity so common among world religions. His answer was in agreement with everything else he said and plausible within that context. I don't accept the premise that a deity exists, an idea which he asked the non-theists in attendance to entertain for the sake of argument, but his discussion was interesting and worth listening to. It was refreshing to be able present one's comments and questions during the official service in a democratic manner. The service ended with another unfamiliar hymn and a few closing words by the lay leader.

After the service I spoke with several more members of the congregation who asked me about my background and what brought me to their service today. I also got some apple juice and a chocolate-frosted doughnut decorated to resemble a football. After about fifteen minutes talking to several different people, I said that I would return the following week and then drove home.

The experience was quite positive. The organization and many individual members went out of their way to welcome me and make me feel comfortable. Unitarian Universalists hold a wide variety of beliefs regarding religion. A fair number of them are atheists and agnostics, a majority even identify themselves as humanists, and this particular congregation even had the Happy Human on the program with assorted religious symbols, so I felt fully comfortable saying that I was a Humanist. From what I had read online about other locations, I was afraid that the congregation would be made up mostly of older people with whom I would have less in common, but there were people of all ages including some young adults around my age and perhaps ten or fifteen young children with their parents. The service was positive with only the most innocuous references to the divine, no prayers, no mention of sin or anything else that would have made me feel uncomfortable. I enjoyed it and intend to attend again next week.

I am quite firm in my atheism and I am not seeking a god whom I don't believe exists. Rather I am seeking a sense of community among a group of people with similar values and, if not similar beliefs, at least similar outlooks on the formation of beliefs. I am seeking to expand my social circle and meet new people. I am seeking to hear new ideas and to share my own ideas with others in a friendly, welcoming environment. This Unitarian Universalist congregation seems like an excellent place to do this seeking.

An Alternate Christian Opinion on Gay Marriage

Several months ago I had a brief but interesting conversation with my younger sister on the topic of gay marriage. Along with the rest of my family, she is a practicing Catholic who accepts the teachings of the Church, to the best of my knowledge, on all topics. She mentioned, however, that there was a petition after Mass about making gay marriage explicitly illegal in Florida which she declined to sign and my mother, who was with her, asked her why. She said that it was none of her business who anyone else wanted to marry because it didn't affect her at all. That particular sentiment is fairly common among moderate and liberal Christians, but what she said next was more novel. She said that pre-martial sex is considered just as sinful as homosexual sex, but no one was trying to make fornication illegal. She understands that you can't legally prohibit something if it doesn't hurt anyone just because you think it is sinful. If only more Christians in the United States shared her simple appreciation for separation of church and state.

Atheists Lie about Faith?

Today we find an editorial response to the news item discussed in my last entry about Jacksonville's “Day of Faith. This letter by Linn W. Howard was published today under the heading, “Religion: All are people of faith.”

As a former resident of Jacksonville and now a Presbyterian minister serving in Pittsburgh, Pa., I was sad to see that the city of Jacksonville paid $5,000 to American Atheists, Inc. The city of Jacksonville and our nation would be better served if we would recognize that all of us are people of faith.

The nonbeliever and the believer both make faith decisions about the multitude of unknowns in our world as they establish a framework for living their lives. The scientific community is full of men and women of faith. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, has written a fascinating book, The Language of God, in which he outlines his journey from being an atheist scientist to a scientist of faith. Even if you disagree with his faith decision after reading this book, you will more fully understand that all people are "people of faith."

I commend Mayor John Peyton and the leaders of the city of Jacksonville for their intellectual, social, civil and community integrity for calling together the whole community, with people of all faiths, in order to respond to the growing homicide rate in the city.

It is time that we call the bluff of those who are atheists and refuse to give in to their claim that they are people of "no faith." This is a simple lie they are using for their advantage over every other citizen in the United States.

Ms. Howard presents the tired argument that atheists have faith, but her attempts to justify this claim are particularly feeble. Instead of showing how an atheist might have faith, she shows that some scientists are not atheists! She says that the scientific community is full of people of faith, which is partially true. At the lower levels, it's not much different from society in general in levels of religiosity, but the higher and more distinguished a level you examine, the less faith you find. Citing one famous scientist's faith proves nothing. I haven't read Collins' book, but I read in a review that it was the sight of a waterfall that convinced him of the truth of the Christianity. That is indeed faith and of no interest to those of us who seek reasons for our beliefs. In the end, Ms. Howard has nothing but an unsupported argument.

The final paragraph is particularly infuriating. First, Ms. Howard accuses atheists of being liars. This professed Christian isn't even charitable enough to give atheists the benefit of the doubt and say we are mistaken. Rather she presumes to know our minds and our moral choices. There is no other group in the United States which it is acceptable to publicly insult in this manner without considerable backlash. Second, Ms. Howard states that atheists have some advantage by claiming not to believe, but this is absurd. She doesn't support her claim at all and the previous insult itself demonstrates the considerable disadvantages we face in living in bigoted American society.

Jacksonville's “Day of Faith”

On August 12th, 2006, the city of Jacksonville conducted and financed an anti-violence rally in the Jacksonville Veterans' Memorial Arena named “Day of Faith: Arming Our Prayer Warriors” which featured several Christian ministers and choirs, one Jewish leader and one Muslim leader. Although legal action was taken to stop the event before it happened because of church-state separation issues, the challenges were rejected and the event proceeded as planned. Last Friday, on January 19th, 2007, however, the city agreed to pay $5,000 for lawyer fees in a settlement with American Atheists, which was suing the city to return the $101,000 it spent on the event to the taxpayers of Jacksonville, and to issue a new directive to avoid such violations in the future. As an out-of-court settlement, it doesn't set legal precedent but it remains a victory for church-state separation in the Bible Belt. You can read more about the event and lawsuit in this Associated Press article which appeared in today's edition of the Florida-Times Union.

My reaction to this news is somewhat mixed. I am generally rather pleased that this violation of church-state separation was acknowledged and partially rectified, but I am also slightly concerned about the image of atheists as detractors from a program intended to fight violence, an undoubtedly admirable cause. This is a lamentable yet necessary evil, however, in the fight to preserve secularism in government, especially with such a large sum of money involved.

In addition to the legal issues, I also object to making the rally religious on pragmatic grounds. It essentially excluded not only non-believers, but those who don't take religion seriously and even those who simply don't want to mix faith with civic action. It's difficult to measure the effect of a large gathering of people focusing on one issue, but I doubt few would say that the rally would have been less effective if more people had attended.

As a final note, it seems ironic that an anti-violence rally would refer to its participants as “prayer warriors.”

Religious Opposition to Violence

Today we find the first letter to the editor of the year about religion, after a flurry of letters about freethought. This letter by John Gallo, was published today under the heading, “Religion: Oppose violence in any form.”

I get quite amused when I read about the struggle some Episcopal leaders are having in allowing their homosexual brothers and sisters full participation in the church.

Most American believers aren't really concerned about boys kissing boys. They worry much more about existential matters of faith. Examples are the immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, the failure of our health care system, the absurd Medicare drug plan, the genocide of young black males, the oppression of the poor, and the total corruption of our political system by money and corporations.

Somehow these Anglican defenders of the faith suffer from amnesia in failing to remember Jesus' inclusive ministry to the excluded and marginalized, and his harsh condemnation of the religious and social structures that perpetuated injustice and violence against individuals and groups. Frankly, the biblical writers had no scientific concept of human sexuality and all its complexity. What Scripture does condemn is the misuse and abuse of all of God's good gifts.

All of us should heed the pope's words that urged religious leaders to oppose violence in any form. Whether it be the persecution of people because of their God-given sexual orientation or the slaughter of the innocents in Iraq, our calling is to be the peacemakers and agents of God's reconciling love.

Although Gallo's signature indicated that he is a pastor, it didn't indicate of which church. An online search returned several relevant pages, but I couldn't find his association listed anywhere, even in a newspaper article explicitly about him and another local pastor! It's not really important to the above discussion, but I wanted to provide my readers with as much information as possible before I begin my critique.

As a condemnation of violence, hatred and moral apathy, I agree with the major sentiments of this message and I am glad to see it published. There are a number of points, however, with which I disagree or upon which I would otherwise like comment.

First, although the issues listed as examples in the second paragraph are very important, none of them are matters of faith and none are existential. Perhaps the author meant to say that they should be of concern to people of faith, but they have nothing to do with religion itself and nothing to do with the philosophy of existentialism, so he should be more careful with his words.

Second, I object to some of the labels used to describe the issues. Violence among young black men is certainly a major problem in the United States, but characterizing it as a genocide is simply an abuse of the word. I wouldn't label it genocide because it's not large-scale, it's not organized, it's mostly perpetrated by members of the community itself, and it's mostly committed on an individual basis rather than according to the victim's race. It doesn't resemble a true genocide like the Rwandan genocide in which almost one million victims died in about three months during a well-organized extermination by militias of one ethnic group by another. I also object to the use of oppression of the poor because it sounds like an active conspiracy rather than culpable neglect and total corruption because corruption in the United States is actually rather low compared to most of the rest of the world.

Third, characterizing Jesus' ministry, as portrayed in the Gospels, as “inclusive” is at the best incomplete and at the worst inaccurate. Jesus repeatedly condemned to the eternal fires of hell everyone who failed to believe in him and his message. This could not be less tolerant and compassionate. And while Jesus reached out to everyone within Jewish society, he also repeatedly stated that he came to save only the children of Israel, not the Gentiles. This is hardly any more inclusive. It was only after his death, and thus after his own ministry had ended, that his message was adapted and brought to the rest of the world.

Fourth, Jesus did repeatedly condemn the religious leaders of his time, but he failed even to address two major unjust institutions of his time: slavery and the subjugation of women. In fact, by approving of the entire Old Testament and by failing to select any women as apostles, Jesus gave tacit approval to both of these social systems. A human revolutionary could be forgiven for moral shortsightedness, but a supposedly divine revolutionary has no excuse.

Fifth, I wholeheartedly agree that the authors of the Bible had no scientific concept of human sexuality and all its complexities, but their ignorance is more extensive than is suggested by this humble comment. They also had no scientific understanding about the origins of the universe, the origins of mankind, the connection between body and mind, the inefficacy of prayer, the impossibility of miracles and the very definition of God himself. One can't ignore the parts of scripture which one doesn't like on the grounds that they're unscientific unless one is willing to apply this principle consistently and examine the Bible thoroughly until all we have is a collection of occasionally interesting stories.

It's good to see someone in favor of social justice but disappointing to see them clinging to ancient superstitions as primary justification for purely human compassion.

My Freethought Library

The following is a list of works in my personal freethought library. In truth, there are a few books here which I don't own but which I instead checked out from the library, but I included them for completeness. I will provide a link to this post on the main page and update this list whenever I add a new work to the library. If you would like to recommend something, leave me a comment.

Philosophy

• Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
• Atheist Universe by David Mills
• Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
• The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin
• Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist by Stephen Batchelor
• Critiques of God by Peter A. Angeles
• Fifty Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison
• Meditations for the Humanist by A.C. Grayling
• Natural Atheism by David Eller
• Not the Impossible Faith by Richard Carrier
  
• The Philosophy of Humanism by Corliss Lamont
• Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier
• Why Atheism? by George H. Smith
• Why I Am Not a Christian by Richard Carrier
• Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell
• Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq

Science

• Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett
• The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan
• Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes by Daniel Everett
• God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger
• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
• The God Virus: How Religion Affects Our Lives and Culture by Darrel W. Ray
• How We Believe by Michael Shermer
• Looking for a Miracle by Joe Nickell
• The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
• The New Atheism by Victor Stenger
• Relics of the Christ by Joe Nickell
• The Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan

History

• Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht
• Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby
• Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers by Brooke Allen

Politics

• The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• The End of Faith by Sam Harris
• God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
• Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg
• Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
• The Secular Conscience by Austin Dacey
• Why Are You Atheists So Angry? by Greta Christina

Quotations

• The Atheist's Bible by Joan Konner
• The Quotable Atheist by Jack Huberman

Biography

• Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• Godless by Dan Barker

Fiction

• Big Domino in the Sky by Michael Martin
• The Book Against God by James Wood
• Candide by Voltaire

Humor

• The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs

Miscellaneous

• The Atheist's Guide to Christmas

Magazines

• Free Inquiry — regular reader since November 2006

Secular Ethics

In addition to the editorial on the benefits of worship, today we find yet another letter about atheism and Humanism. This letter by Carrie Renwick, president of the First Coast Freethought Society, was published today under the heading, “Secular Humanism: Ethics derived from within.”

Thumbs up to the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism for his defense of secular humanism! As the voice of secular humanism on the First Coast, the First Coast Freethought Society applauds his contention that secular humanists are just as moral, brave and patriotic as religious people.

Churches demonize secular humanists in the pulpit, but look around. I am your neighbor. I am your co-worker in the cubicle next to yours. I am your doctor. I am a member of your family. Unless I tell you that I am a secular humanist, you will think that I am good, joyful, moral and happy because of God or religion.

Humanists affirm that ethics are derived from the application of reason and from within, not from religious scripture like the Bible. We reject the supernatural. We affirm science as the best way to understand the natural world and our place within it. We believe that this Earth is the only home we have. Therefore, we must treat it with care for the benefit of future generations. We affirm that life in this world is the only life we have, so we should live it to the fullest and be as kind to each other as possible.

If you agree with these affirmations, you could find a home in our group. You can find out more about us at firstcoastfreethoughtsociety.org.

There is not much to comment upon with the text itself, but I am pleased to see more positive exposure for Humanism within the local press, especially from a local resident!

Due to conflicts with my work schedule, I have only been able to attend one monthly meeting of the First Coast Freethought Society in the past two years, but it was a positive experience and I wish that I could attend more often. Almost every member was at least twice and in some cases three times my age, and it would be better if organization had more members from every age group, so I regret that I cannot currently help diversify the membership by my own attendance. If you are a local reader, please consider visiting their website.