Openly Secular

Richard Dawkins and Robyn Blumer, from Time.com:

It took the threat of a lawsuit before the Air Force agreed on Wednesday to allow airmen to omit the phrase “So help me God” as part of a required oath. Until then, they claimed an airman stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada was ineligible to reenlist after he crossed out the phrase on his reenlistment form.

This controversy will rile up many people of good will—not against the military, but against the airman. Why make a big deal out of words that the majority of Americans believe in? Just cross your fingers if you must, and say the words. Why rock the boat?

Here’s why: The incident betrays a subtext of intolerance and hostility toward secular people that is embedded in American culture and public institutions. The Air Force was ready to end a man’s military career because he would not submit to its religious demands.

To secular Americans, requiring an oath to God is like asking a Jewish airman to swear, “So help me Jesus” or a Christian to say, “So help me Allah.”

The objection to forcing the oath on nonbelievers should be obvious. It’s not.

And slapping "In God We Trust" on the County Council wall?  Yea, I object to that too.

And now some numbers:

Secular Americans make up a huge and growing stratum of society. Atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and the nonreligious make up 20 percent of Americans overall and fully a third of Millennials under 30 years old. But until secular people come forward and introduce themselves, the misconceptions marginalizing them will persist.

The polls are pretty startling. A Pew poll this year found that nearly half of Americans say it’s necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. Another recent poll found Americans would rather vote for an adulterous or pot-smoking candidate for President than one who is an atheist.

Yea, cause we're Godless and all that.

And so:

But a new campaign is hoping to change all that. Openly Secular launching today, is a new coalition of more than two dozen secular groups—one of the largest of its kind—coming together with the goal of raising awareness of the numbers of nonreligious people in the country. We include not only atheists and agnostics, but our allied organizations include religious people of many denominations who cherish the Founding Fathers’ ideal of church-state separation.

Hello, I'm David. I'm an agnostic and I am openly secular.

Tracking Teh Crazie - WND

From the head birther at birther-central (World Net Daily) we read this stunning display of religious tolerance.

It a piece called "Why atheists can't be real Americans."

Farah begins by taking a step further than Pastor John Hagee (how on Earth can anyone take something a step further than a nut case like Hagee?)  By the way, that's not my characterization.  It's Joey's.

Take a look:

Pastor John Hagee, senior pastor of San Antonio’s Cornerstone Church, is making People for the America Way very angry with some comments about atheists.

Here’s what he said in a talk captured on YouTube by the group: “This nation was not built for atheists or by atheists. It was built by Christian people who believed in the Word of God. To the atheists watching this telecast, if our belief in God offends you, move. There are planes leaving every hour on the hour, going every place on planet earth. Get on one, we don’t want you and we won’t miss you, I promise you.”

That may sound harsh, coming from a Christian minister of a mega-church with 20,000 members.

But let me take what Hagee said a step further.

See?

And what's the extra step from the birther-king?

Atheists can’t be real Americans in the truest sense of the word – and People for the American Way should be renamed People for the un-American Way.

So from Hagee, we learn that atheists should leave Amurika and from Farah, that we're not "real Americans" anyway.

Huh.  Upon what does Farah place this puffery?

America was founded on a creedal statement. It can be found in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;...

And so on.

Too bad The Declaration, amazing document that it is, is not the law of the land.

The Constitution is.  And the Constitution has nothing to say about this being a "Christian Nation."  In fact Article VI, has this in it:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added.]

And do I really need to quote the 1st Amendment at yinz?

I'll give the final word to the Supreme Court, circa 1943 (when the World was at war):

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

So who's being un-American?  The folks who believe that all citizens are equal citizens or the religious zealots who want everyone that disagrees with them to just leave?

Atheism Update

Duquesne University's Student Government Association's decision barring the official creation of a "secular society" there is getting some local press.

From Kaitlynn Riely and Ann Rodgers, of the P-G:

Holding signs that said "We don't bite" and "Support reason," about 20 students from three universities gathered Thursday in Uptown to protest Duquesne University's refusal to recognize a proposed secular student group.

Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pittsburgh have secular, or atheist, student organizations. Last month, Duquesne senior Nick Shadowen petitioned his student government to create a similar society.

"I think it's important to have a secular group at any university, religious or not," he said. "Anyone who has been paying attention to current events or the news recognizes that religion is a serious topic, and I think it's the job of any university to allow open debate about serious issues, and to have a real debate you need two sides."

Rick Wills of the Trib goes a bit broader:

An atheist student at Catholic-run Duquesne University is upset the school won't recognize the Duquesne Secular Society, a group for nonbelievers he helped form.

"I know Duquesne is a Catholic school," said Nick Shadowen, 21, a senior philosophy major who grew up in Harrisburg. "I did not think that meant my opinions, my lack of belief in God, would be censored. They advertise the fact that they are a diverse and international university with all kinds of people studying and working there."

Duquesne's student government oversight committee this month rejected Shadowen's request for the school to give formal recognition to the atheist group, and university officials backed that decision. Shadowen and other nonreligious students from area universities protested outside Duquesne on Thursday.

Looks like the good folks at Duquense see the DSS differently from how the DSS sees itself.  From the Trib:

Shadowen insists the secular society's mission is not contrary to the school's.

"Our group is not meant to spread atheist propaganda or undermine the mission of the school," he said.

One purpose of the group would be to dispel stereotypes about atheists, said society member Colin Stragar-Rice, 20, of New Castle, a junior at Duquesne.

"The group would allow a lot of students to come into contact with a different point of view. We also want to remove the stigma nontheistic people face," he said.

This seems to be somewhat in conflict from what Duquesne spokeswoman, Bridget Fare:

"All students are certainly welcome here. But formally recognizing a student group whose main purpose is opposition to belief in God is not aligned with our mission. The purpose of those other groups is not in direct opposition to belief in God," Fare said.

I guess that all depends on how you define the word "welcome."

As I wrote a few days ago, you'd would think that a religious university would want to encourage dialog between the believers and non-believers in its community - if only to give the believers ample opportunity to convince the sad, naive apostates of the error of their atheistic ways.  You'd think that a University founded by the Spiritans, a religious organization that was itself founded according to the Catholic Enclopedia:

...for the purpose of preparing missionaries for the most abandoned souls, whether in Christian or pagan countries.

...would jump at the opportunity for that sort of dialog.

I Guess There Are Some Limits To "Diversity"

Yesterday, an astute reader emailed in this story from the Duquesne Duke:

A Nov. 6 Student Government Association committee decision barred the official creation of a student secular society, an organization that wants to open discussion between religious and nontheistic students about the existence of God.

The proposed Duquesne Secular Society is the brainchild of Nick Shadowen, a senior philosophy major, and Colin Stragar-Rice, a junior philosophy and political science major. The DSS was proposed as a group for students who don't believe in God, such as atheists and agnostics, as well as for religious students.

The reason for the barring? Take a look:

The six to eight senators who made up the group unanimously voted Sunday night not to bring the DSS's approval to a vote in front of the general SGA Senate, according to SGA President Zach Ziegler.

Zeigler said the DSS was denied mainly because it does not comply with Duquesne's Mission Statement.

"This organization has a non-faith-based agenda," Ziegler said. "We never got a real idea what was behind this organization."

Ah now we're getting somewhere. What is Duquesne's Mission Statement? Here it is:

Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit is a Catholic University, founded by members of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, the Spiritans, and sustained through a partnership of laity and religious. Duquesne serves God by serving students – through commitment to excellence in liberal and professional education, through profound concern for moral and spiritual values, through the maintenance of an ecumenical atmosphere open to diversity, and through service to the Church, the community, the nation, and the world.

I guess there are limits to how "open to diversity" the Student Government is and I surmise SGA President Zach gives one one criteria for the limits when he says that the DSS "has a non-faith-based agenda."  And then we have:

The Rev. James McCloskey, vice president for Mission and Identity, agreed with Ziegler that the DSS is not a viable student organization for Duquesne.

"They [the DSS] assume positions that are antithetical to belief in God, and belief in God is at the core of our enterprise at Duquesnse," McCloskey said.

Funny thing, though. When you take a look at the other organizations the SGA has approved, you might think that those same rules might not apply.  Again, The Duke:

Duquesne allowed the creation of other student organizations that do not adhere to Christian doctrine. The Muslim Student Association and Jewish Student Organization are viable funded student groups under Spiritan Campus Ministry. Duquesne also allowed the organization of Lambda Gay-Straight Alliance in 2005, even though at the time some Catholic students protested that the organization contradicted the University mission statement because the Catholic Church does not support homosexual relationships.

I am not (NOT) saying that those organizations (or any of the others on Duquesne's list of approved multicultural organizations) aren't fine organizations or that they should not get the full support of the SGA.

I am sure they are and I am sure they should.

What I am saying is that an organization, such as the DSS, whose Constitution says that its intent is to:

...provide a platform for honest and open debate on the merits of secularism and its role in different areas on human society. The DSS encourages respectful relations between non-theistic … and theistic students and through these relationships hopes to alleviate the various stigmas attached to nonbelievers. [emphasis added]

Is probably something that should be encouraged on a college campus - yes even on a religious college campus.  Clamping down on an idea rather than discussing it is no way for an enlightened community to act.

If it's an "open and honest debate" then what's the problem?  Isn't that what a university education is all about?