Daily Archives: June 4, 2021

Editors note: Kristina Lee, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication Studies at Colorado State University, wrote this for The Conversation in June 2021. Colorado State is a contributing institution to The Conversation, an independent collaboration between editors and academics that provides informed news analysis and commentary to the general public. See theentire list of contributing faculty and their articles here.

Tennessees Constitution includes a provision that bars three groups from holding office: atheists, ministers and those engaging in duels. Efforts are under way in the state legislature to remove this exclusion for ministers, but not for duelists or atheists.

In January 2021, Republican Tennessee State Senator Mark Pody proposed Senate Joint Resolution 55 to amend Article IX of the Constitution of Tennessee to rid it of a clause that states no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature. No mention is made in Podys resolution about Section 2 of the same article: No person who denies the being of God shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. Nor for that matter does the current bill mention Section 3s objection to those who participate, aid or abet a duel.

When Pody was asked why his resolution removes only the ban on ministers, his response was that it is best to clean up the constitution one simple step at a time.

Tennessee is one of seven states that has an unconstitutional ban on atheists holding public office. Although superseded by Supreme Court rulings, such bans are important. As a scholar of religious and political rhetoric who focuses on the marginalization of U.S. atheists, I believe they reflect the normalization of anti-atheism that has yet to be truly dealt with, or rarely acknowledged, in the United States.

Numerous state constitutions established laws banning both ministers and atheists when they were ratified.

The bans on ministers were framed as necessary to protect their sacred calling. The prohibitions on atheists were installed for a different reason. Atheists, it was claimed, could not be trusted to be good citizens in a democracy.

This sentiment was expressed by early enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke both of whom influenced early American politicians. Locke argued in his 1689 Letter Concerning Toleration that those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

Bans on atheists and ministers are now unconstitutional due to Supreme Court rulings in 1961 and 1978. Tennessee is the last state to maintain an unenforceable ban on ministers in their Constitutions, while seven states still have their unconstitutional bans on atheists.

Although unenforceable, the bans periodically impede atheists wanting to hold public office. In 1992, Herb Silverman, an atheist activist and math professor, was denied a position as a notary public because of a ban in South Carolina. He had to sue the state before he could hold the position.

Meanwhile in 2009, Cecil Bothwell, a local Democratic candidate, won his city counsel race in Asheville, North Carolina but had to fight critics who claimed he was ineligible on account of his atheism.

These attacks continued for years after Bothwell was elected. H.K. Edgerton, a Black Confederate activist and one of Bothwells staunchest critics, complained in 2014 that the council had placed itself above the law for two terms with Cecil Bothwell sitting there passing rules and regulations and dictating law unlawfully.

David Morgan, editor of the Asheville Tribune, claimed his criticism of Bothwell was about upholding the state constitution, arguing If you dont like it, amend it and take out that clause.

Atheists have tried to do just that. But politicians show little interest in removing the bans on atheists that exist in state constitutions. As Todd Stiefel, an atheist activist, notes: If it was on the books that Jews couldnt hold public office, or that African Americans or women couldnt vote, that would be a no-brainer. Youd have politicians falling all over themselves to try to get it repealed. Even if it was still unenforceable, it would still be disgraceful and be removed. So why are we different?

These anti-atheist clauses and the failure to remove them reflect a phenomenon I call theistnormativity, which is the normalization of the belief in God as being tied to good and moral citizenship.

To many Americans, beliefs in God and Americanism has become synonymous. A 2015 survey found that 69% of respondents thought it was important to believe in God to be truly American. And Americans are expected to embrace national slogans such as In God We Trust and one nation, under God. Politicians are regularly asked to participate in public prayers to God before official meetings. And while they can request otherwise, the default assumption is that Americans will make an oath to God when taking public office or testifying in court.

While there is no ban on being an atheist in the United States, atheists have long been framed as un-American. When Democratic Representative Louis Rabaut proposed adding under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, he argued that an atheistic American is a contradiction in terms.

Even President Barack Obama simply acknowledging the existence of nonbelievers in his 2009 inaugural address led critics to question whether the acknowledgment was offensive and could lead to dangerous misunderstandings about our true nature as a nation.

And it isnt just the political right. When Bernie Sanders was running for president in 2016, leaked emails from Democratic National Committee leadership revealed a plot to try to out him as an atheist to negatively influence perceptions of him.

This political environment makes it difficult for open atheists to gain much political power. In a 2021 survey of Congress religious identity, only one person, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, identified as religiously unaffiliated. Eighteen members replied dont know or refused to answer the question.

Polling shows 4% of Americans identify as atheists, and about 23% identify more broadly as nonreligious. While identifying as nonreligious does not necessarily mean not believing in God, research suggests that as many as 1 in 4 Americans is atheist, but that most are unwilling to reveal this, even in anonymous polls.

As such, there are likely more atheists in Congress theyre just not open about their beliefs. In fact, in 2014, the American Humanist Association claimed that 24 members of Congress privately stated they did not believe in God but would deny it if outed.

Political analysts have long wondered if an atheist could become president. It would take a brave one to try, given that polls indicate that only 60% of Americans would be willing to contemplate voting for one.

Even theist presidents get criticized if they fail to show proper homage to religion. Biden, a Catholic, was the first president to not include God in his National Day of Prayer proclamation, a move Evangelical leader Franklin Graham called dangerous.

This anti-atheism extends beyond politics. Atheists face discrimination in the workplace and hiring practices. Parents who are religious often have an advantage in custody cases. Even though atheists are no more likely to commit crimes than theists, stereotypes surrounding atheist criminality and untrustworthiness persist. In court, atheist rape victims are less likely to be believed than Christian or religiously ambiguous victims.

It is in this context that the bans on atheists although unenforceable under Supreme Court ruling must, I believe, be examined.

While these bans may seem harmless, they represent anti-atheist prejudices that are ingrained in America. They remind atheists that, despite their beliefs being protected by the first amendment, being open about not believing in God has consequences.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

See the article here:
Why it matters that 7 states still have bans on atheists holding office - Source

Seth Mahigas resignation as Secretary of Atheists in Kenya was announced on the weekend because he believes in the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Seths reason for resigning is that he has found Jesus Christ and is no longer interested in promoting atheism in Kenya, wrote president Harrison Mumia in an official statement published on Twitter.

For the past 18 months, Mahiga had been secretary for AIK. According to its site, AIK is the first officially registered non-religious organisation of its kind in the nation.

According to Statistadata from 2019, more than 85 per cent of Kenyas population identify as Christian.

Among AIKs objectives are the promotion and practice of open, rational, and scientific examination of the universe and our place in it, and to advocate that ethics and morality be meaningfully based on rational and humanistic ideals and values.

According to AIK, atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

In light of such stated aims and beliefs, Mahiga evidently found his role untenable. But Mumias statement about Mahigas resignation is gracious and warm, thanking Mahiga for his service and wishing Seth all the best in his new-found relationship with Jesus Christ.

As Mahiga himself says at a church meeting filmed by Elevate TV Kenya, and shared on Facebook by AIK he had been experiencing difficulties in life before he decided to resign as secretary. The brief video also includes the pastor with Mahiga asking the congregation to give the Lord some praise in this house, hallelujah before stating that the Bible says: Every knee shall bow '

Comments on the video include: He cracked, what a waste of good brain . all it needs is brainwashing with lie that he will believe to be true. He could not handle the truth and how much was he paid for this PR stunt?; as well as more supportive notes such as a wise decision and Jesus is the way, truth and life.

Atheists in Kenya is seeking a new secretary.

Read the original:
God Bless the USA Bible gets cancelled - Eternity News

Photo: Michael Shermer, by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

This is not your fathers creationism, says skeptic and atheist Michael Shermer in anew podcast with Stephen Meyer aboutReturn of the God Hypothesis. This is far more serious. And Shermer shows it by going two hours with Meyer, placing every objection before him that he can think of. The case in Meyers book is not creationism at all, of course, but Ill accept the compliment on Steves behalf. Shermer has my admiration in return. This is not your fathers village atheism, either. That a conversation like this is possible represents a hopeful sign for our culture. Its not a debate its a discussion between respectful, eminently thoughtful people, neither of whom is trying to win. We could all trying practicing that more with people who disagree with us.

I dont see any evidence by the end that Shermer has changed his mind (which, again, was not the intent). But when biology, physics, and cosmology are weighed together, I dont know what objection to Steve Meyers case he would hold onto. Every cosmology either has theistic implications, or ends up wrecking the basis for rational scientific investigation of nature. This may be the most interesting dialogue thatReturn of the God Hypothesishas sparked so far, and that is no small measure of praise. As a friend commented who heard it before I did, Whoa! Must listen. Whoa, indeed. Now I would like to hear a follow-up with some of the other sophisticated advocates for atheism Sam Harris, perhaps, above all.

By the way, at one point Shermer quotes extensively from the review of the book by biologist Darrel Falk (who doesnt touch the cosmological arguments at all). Meyer addresses Falks points concisely, but you can read a full response from geologist Casey Luskin and physicist Brian Miller here, here, and here. More to come on that front shortly. Miller has asked for a partial retraction from the entity, BioLogos, that published the review. No word as yet on that.

Go here to read the rest:
This Is Not Your Father's Creationism: Atheist Michael Shermer Meets Stephen Meyer - Discovery Institute

A man who served as secretary for Atheists in Kenya (AIK)resigned after finding faith in Jesus Christ.

Seth Mahiga worked for AIK for less than two years when he resigned. Mahiga could no longer work for a place that he didn't believe the message they promoted.

"Seth's reason for resigning is that he has found Jesus Christ and is no longer interested in promoting atheism in Kenya. We wish Seth all the best in his newfound relationship with Jesus Christ," AIK President Harrison Mumia wrote on Twitter.

The AIK shareda video of Mahigaat a church sharing his testimony of newfound faith.

The video garnered much excitement from the Kenyan Christian community.

"I've been going through some difficulties in life and then I decided to resign as the secretary so I'm so happy to be here," Mahiga says in the online video.

See more here:
Former Atheist leader in Kenya gives his life to Jesus - CHVN Radio

I post this article once a month, and the options have changed. Thanks for your support! The latest project Im working on involves a weekly Substack newsletter that sums up atheism-related news.

Over the past decade, what began as a personal blog has turned into a hub with several contributors and multiple posts per day. I create YouTube videos, put out a podcast each week, and have released books! More recently, I created a podcast about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In order to facilitate all of this, I have a Patreon page.

If youd like to help out, you can pledge a certain amount every month (with rewards along the way!) from as low as $3 a month.

As always, Im grateful for the kind words and support you all send my way. Its a pleasure being a source of information (and solace) for you, and I hope to continue it well into the future.

If Patreon isnt preferable for you, you can use a credit card through Venmo (My address: Mpromptu at gmail) or send mail to P.O. Box 9734 Naperville, IL 60567.

And for those who prefer to make a one-time donation only, since Patreon doesnt allow those right now, you can always give via PayPal:

Thank you!

Follow this link:
Please Support the Work I Do Through This Site - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Photo: Royal Society, entrance, by Tom Morris (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

In previous articles, Casey Luskin and I have responded to Darrel Falks review ofReturn of the God Hypothesisfor BioLogos (see here and here). Now I will address how he greatlydownplayed the dire implicationsof the 2016Royal Society meetingfor the state of evolutionary biology.

As a quick recap: the Royal Society assembled many of the leading evolutionary theorists to discuss the limitations of the standard evolutionary model (SEM) commonly known as neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis and to propose how an extended synthesis could be developed to address the explanatory deficits. Inthe opening talk, organizer Gerd Mller stated that the SEM could explain the modification or duplication of existing traits, but it could not explain such key challenges as the following (here,here):

This astonishing admission must be placed in its historical context for its implications to be fully appreciated. Since ancient times, philosophers and others have debated whether everything seen in the world was simply the product of natural processes or derived from the plans of a supreme intellect (here,here,here). The ancient form of the former belief is termed atomism, and it was motivated by the desire to discredit the commonly accepted view that the gods influenced the world. Mankind could then be fully liberated from the gods. The modern form is termed philosophical or scientific materialism.

This debate was reflected in the first-century writings of a prominent Christian leader, Paul, who authored a famous letter to the church in Rome.Early in the letter, Paul statesthat those who deny that the things that have been made reveal Gods invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature actively suppress the truth. As leading scholarCraig Keener explains, Paul was affirming the Greek philosophical schools (e.g., Stoics) who argued that the clear evidence of design in nature, particularly with the human intellect, point to a transcendent mind. At the same time, he was directly challenging the Epicurean philosophers who followed in the tradition of the atomists. One of their central beliefs was that evolution and a nascent form of natural selection justified ignoring the clear evidence for design in biology (here,here,here).

The atomist tradition receded into obscurity throughout the Middle Ages. It then reemerged during the Scientific Revolution with the success of physics and chemistry in explaining natural phenomena purely in terms of physical processes. It was further bolstered by the increasing popularity of skeptical and materialist philosophies.

The philosophy of materialism was embraced by Charles Darwin early in life. He hid this fact in his autobiography and instead portrayed himself as an honest seeker of truth. Yet his personal journals reveal that his intention from the beginning was to follow in the tradition of the atomists in purging teleology (aka design) from biology (here,here).

Toward this goal he imparted to natural selection God-like creative powers in order to replace the God of biblical tradition as the creator of life a view widely accepted at the time with a blind undirected process. This maneuver wasclearly describedby biologist Francisco Ayala:

It was Darwins greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process natural selection without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.

It allowed skeptics, like the ancient atomists, to ignore the clear evidence of design in life. This point is well articulated by atheist Richard Dawkins in his bookThe Blind Watchmaker:

The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesnt agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. (p. 4)

although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (p. 10)

But herein lies the problem. The Royal Society meeting exposed the reality, carefully hidden from the public, that leading evolutionary theorists recognize that natural selection has no real creative power. The current situation harkens back to the famous comment bygenetics pioneer Hugo de Vries:

Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

The obvious consequences of the public learning about the impotence of Darwins designer-substitute required the secular scientific establishment to engage in what public relations professionals term damage control. This process typically entails a carefully orchestrated reframing of the facts, commonly known as spin.

Darrel Falk, as one of their key ambassadors, dutifully repeated such carefully crafted statements as the following,

The point of that [Mllers] talk was not to suggest that the theory of evolution is in crisis, as I think he [Meyer] implies. On the contrary, the speaker was calling for an approach to evolutionary biology which is less gene-centric

No speaker at the meeting implied there was a hole in evolutionary theory that might require intelligent input. Quite the opposite actually there was a concern that the meetings intent might be misunderstood or misrepresented. The intent was methodological: heres how evolutionary biologists can develop a more thorough picture of how evolution works.

In all fairness, Falk and other public defenders of Darwin truly believe these statements since they interpret all discussions of evolution through the lens of scientific materialism. In other words, they assume on faith that evolution must be true, and so identify any deficiencies in the theory as representing mere unsolved problems. I also attended the conference, but I interpreted the content of the presentations within the broader scope of the history I just described. Within that context, the implications of what was said, and what was not said, reveal a much different story.

Natural selection is the only mechanism that even in principle could mimic the activity of an intelligent agent in creating anything of at least modest complexity and ingenuity. This conclusion is highlighted by the fact that speakers at the conference showcased every conceivable alternative mechanism that could potentially help fill the explanatory deficits of the SEM. But not one shred of evidence was presented that any of the extensions could perform any feat beyond such trivial tasks as increasing a plants height, changing the number of digits in an animals limb, or performing other slight modifications to preexisting traits.

The current state of evolution can be compared to the crisis astronomy would face if physicists discovered that gravity stopped operating beyond 10,000 miles past a celestial body. The loss of the only feasible mechanism that could explain the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies would result in absolute pandemonium and despair.

Most materialist biologists will not so easily come to terms with their true predicament since evolution operates not only as a scientific theory but as a sacrosanct creation narrative for secular society. Nevertheless, with natural selection off the table as a designer substitute, the only sensible interpretation that remains for the overwhelming evidence of design in biological systems is that life is the product of an actual designer (here,here).

Link:
Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting - Discovery Institute