I also think that more humor is appropriate to soften our image – let’s face it, the legacy of Madeline Murray-O’Hare still leaves a bitter taste in people’s mouths. We should have a cartoon contest.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060503-1334-bn03cross2.html

Unsurprisingly, it has given many Christians here an even dimmer view of atheists. But if you look at it the other way around, a cross on public land is a daily affront to non-Christians, so it should at least be mutual, shouldn’t it?

As this is the public action blog, I wonder if anyone else can report on any public action taken?

“Two-thirds of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students (ages 13-20) report having been verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation, a new study shows. More than a third have suffered anti-gay physical harassment.”

I haven’t heard much about that kind of thing as applied to atheists. But then again, atheists aren’t so easily identified as gays – outside of the Pledge of Allegiance at school, that is. Sadly, there, abstaining students often receive similar treatment.

Curiously, I had never made any request at all about removing the Pledge from school or taking out “under god”. But the movement through the Christian grapevine had mistakenly characterized it. I spoke towards the end, so I wasn’t able to correct the misconceptions, but it was quite astounding to listen to. I should point out that I never mentioned to anyone my personal belief as this was an inquiry into providing for students who feel the need to abstain from the pledge, for whatever reason (ie, 1st Amendment issues, idolotry, boredom, etc.)

Where you can run into danger is when you put a name to the anonymous atheist. When the meeting was reported in the news, I had the pleasure of receiving a nasty anonymous Xmas card (if you can imagine) and a phone call from a man who wanted to tell me how wrong I was (I’m now unlisted). Interesting that the only thing I found the need to debate with this guy, though, was government, not religious truth as he wanted to.

In fact, if there is any advice I can offer when involved in a situation like this, it is not to defend atheism, or attack religion. Instead, state the case for secular government – because that is usually were the interface is between “us” and “them”. In fact, if anyone ever has to ask about a person’s religion in order to decide a matter of public policy (schools, communities, government, electability), it is a sign that the discussion is inappropriate.

Again, I have to emphasize that the number one priorty for Christians is keeping “under god” in the Pledge. Not for fear of god’s wrath. But because it validates, on a daily basis, the whole claim to Christian theocracy. In school, it works as a relentless hook into the next generation as the default view. My kids have never once said the Pldege at school, but, if you ask them, they can recite it. That is power and scary!

But back to the main point, I would say most atheists have no interest in expressing their views to others, either in public or private – except as others try to shove their views down our throats, i.e., family and government. Thus the outrage in our tone when we are driven to defend ourselves.

It may serve to look to what other minorities who just wanted to be left alone and live like everyone else have done to advance their standing as full citizens. A few commonalities run through these approaches.

1) Taking it to the courts – requires that the nation be answerable to the protections of the Constitution. As the laws have changed, blacks, gays, the handicapped, even women have seen quantum leaps in acceptance. Most important here is that these laws do as much to protect religions from other religions as it does to make the country safe for atheists.

2) Reclaiming the derogatory labels – disarms the knee-jerk prejudice. I pulled a quote from the typical strategy of gays.

“We consciously use the word “queer” to refer inclusively to our entire community (gays, lesbians, baklas, transgenders, MSMs, bisexuals, etc.) Within the past decade, more and more LGBT people have been using the term “queer” in order to refer to themselves. I guess its our way of telling society that their name calling and derogatory remarks cannot harm us. We reclaim the derogatory term into one of empowerment and consciousness. You will find that the term is more commonly used among younger generations. So actually, the term “queer” does not undermine our objectives. Rather, it advances our mission of creating a place where all people, regardless of what term they use to identify themselves, can feel respected and affirmed.”

3) Sometimes you have to mix it up. Tim Gordinier of IHS had this to say about his recent debate with a right-wing Christian, “Don’t we run the risk of becoming cultural hermits if we don’t mix it up on occasion?”

I couldn’t find a way to e-mail you directly, so I’ll just post my request here.

I’ve written a leaflet that I’m planning to distribute in my local area, and I’d like to list your blog as a one of several web sites for those seeking a community of ex-believers.

Is it OK if I list agnosticmom.com in the leaflet? The document does not insinuate in any way that you are an author or sponsor, so there should be no legal issues. I’m happy to discuss this further if necessary. Please e-mail me at the address I left in the “required” field if you need more information.

As your readers can attest, your blog is very unique and valuable to those who are questioning — or have already abandoned — their faith. I’d greatly appreciate your permission to reference.

Best regards,
Trey

What is it with car dealerships? Yet another evangelical one is sponsoring a school in the Midlands.
Not convinced by the arguments, apparently ‘atheism is on the run‘.
Via National Secular Society e-newsletter.
Agnostic Mom has a bril…

I have to say I am shocked. I had no idea that atheism and agnosticism are met with such hatred in your country. Globally – and especially in the eastern world – the perception is that the US is the embodiment of individual freedom, so I find it hard to believe that what is essentially a personal choice should be met with so much disrespect and mistrust.

From an outsider perspective, I agree with Noell that handing out porn and anti-christian literature is not the best way to deal with the problem. To my mind, you’re simply feeding their mistrust and helping them to prove their point — which is that atheists jeopardize morality.

I agree 100% with Gregg’s view that our behaviors have and will evolve in whatever way is necessary to sustain ourselves as a species. Evidently, we’ve found that living in a societal group is more beneficial to the species than not. Morality is simply the oil that lubricates the social structure and makes it possible for us to live together as a “pack” or “herd” — thereby ensuring our continued survival.

Of course President Bush is helping our publicity in a sort of backhanded way. He’s perceived as very, very religious, yet according to polls:

“More than half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy, and a decisive plurality consider him less trustworthy than his predecessor, Bill Clinton — a figure still attacked by conservative zealots as ‘Slick Willie.’”

I got that quote from this interesting article in Rolling Stone.

The human species has developed a bad habit of creating dichotomies and that causes unnecessary problems. For example, there are those that would claim the basis for moral decisions can either be relativistic or objective (or even absolutist). I would claim that the right answer is probably one that recognizes a continuum that spans the range between those two extremes. We can probably identify some set of principles that are at least almost universal, some that are usually valid but may incur exceptions more frequently and some that are closer to the relativistic end to reflect the variations in a very pluralistic society.

I recently read Stephen Jay Gould’s last book “The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister’s Pox” in which he states that “The facts of nature simply cannot dictate correct moral behavior or spiritual meaning.” He reinforces his position by further stating that, “…our yearning and quest for morality and meaning belong to the different domains of the humanities, the arts, philosophy and theology – and cannot be adjudicated by the findings of science.” Up until now he has been one of my favorite authors but we part ways with those statements. I remain convinced that a set of principles derived from scientific analysis of behaviors that contribute to successful continuation and advancement of the intelligence/wisdom of a species will be an integral part of any moral code. I am also convinced that certain beneficial behaviors are the result of the unique design and construction of the brain that has evolved to support those behaviors. The very fact that we have the moderating influence of the frontal cortex is a simple example.

I fully recognize that E. O. Wilson badly stubbed his toe on this subject when he tried to translate some of the genetically based social actions of ants to the human species and was soundly chastised by the scientific community but recent evolutionary psychology is making progress to support my position.

There have been policies practiced in the past (ie: blacks not being able to hold the priesthood until 1978 and the lamanite issue) that have been inheritly rasist but the church has modernized their idealology and are trying to lay those issues to rest.

Jack: Hey dear, you know that guy down the street?
He’s an atheist, but, get this, he doesn’t run
around stabbing people.
Jill: What?! He’s an atheist.
Jack: Yes.
Jill: But, he doesn’t run around stabbing people.
Jack: Yes!
Jill: How… I’m confused…
Jack: Maybe…
Jill: what?
Jack: Maybe atheists don’t run around stabbing people?
Jill: No way! What’s stopping them?
Jack: Could it be that atheists don’t run around stabbing
people? And … it just occurred to me:
Maybe atheists have morals.
Jack: gasp
Jill: gasp

This kind of conversation is NOT going to spontaneously occur all over the country, solving the image problem, and helping atheists/agnostics/free-thinkers make gains in public policy. So what should we do? I don’t know.

Anyway, how was the recent War on Easter an “outrageous assault”? I didn’t agree with it, because it was in bad taste and, like you said, payback is not a good motivation. But they just left some DVDs around. No one was assaulted or even confronted and no property was damaged. Am I missing something?

Atheism/agnosticsm doesn’t assert any set of morals. Maybe that’s what humanism is for? Your overview of morality looks good so far. Looking forward to your discussion in future posts.

I was a closet atheist and still am to a degree. I’ve opened up to certain family and close friends and did so surprisingly with confidence because I felt that I’ve already gained their trust over the years through my ACTIONS and wasn’t afraid of any backlash. In fact opening up to my roommate helped him realize he wasn’t so christian after all and he’s now trying to find a relationship with god on his own terms.

As far as putting a positive face on atheism/agnostics yea I agree we need to do that and should continue to support those that are already out there whenever possible. But I’ll continue to be frustrated with religion and in defense I will say this: if being bitter and not believing in Christ/Allah are my only two “sins” then I can live with that because for me I know that’s as far as it will ever go. I will not kill, cheat, lie, hurt or terrorize anyone to justify my non-religious beliefs. Rationality, science, the law of averages, and a little bit of common sense has shown me a better way to live a good healthy life than any book or faith. So I say go ahead and be angry. Just be responsible about it.

We also need to be realistic about the fact that not all religious people are completely ignorant. I know many, many religious people who are extremely bright, extremely educated. I even know a good number of certified geniuses who are also devout in in their religions. We’re fooling ourselves to ingore these people.