Category Archives: Atheism

The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.

by Father Leslie Lett

It should be clear to everyone that a democracy must inevitably be secular. Not surprisingly then, democratic Barbados is a secular society, albeit one with a long foundational history of Christian influence. And we should not deny this history, but continue to celebrate it, as we do in our National Anthem.

To be a secular society simply means that the Christian church must accept the legitimate autonomy of the secular, and that while it is free to evangelise it cannot impose its doctrines on the nation, and further, it must compete, like every other institution, in the marketplace of ideas, beliefs and actions.

And in a democracy the majority wins. Otherwise its not a democracy. However, for a democracy to work smoothly the majority must, at the very least, respect the opinions and views of minority groups, and accommodate them where possible.

It is in this requirement to accommodate that the elected government has the difficult, and often thankless, job of making the final decision. Now, it is very important that we make a distinction between secular and secularism. Unlike the secular, secularism is a total rejection of God.

In other words, it is the total victory of the ideology of an autocratic atheism. The old Soviet Union is a good example of this, before it collapsed. Mr Peter Wickham, in his assertion that the Disestablishment of the Anglican Church in 1969 was a clear intention towards secularism, is clearly totally wrong.

Disestablishment had nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. It simply meant that the Anglican diocese no longer had a preferred status and could no longer expect special treatment by the government. It should therefore function like every other registered religious denomination.

In an article published under the title Wickham: Whats God got to do with it, Mr Wickham indulges in an absurd bit of logic. He argues that to replace the British monarch with a Barbadian head of state is a rejection of God, so too is the move to Republican status; that Christianity should be rejected as it has been used by many to justify all sorts off evil, like capital punishment, homophobia, and of course slavery.

He forgets that a great many scientists, academics and politicians, especially in the Eighteenth Century, also publicly promoted the innate inferiority of Black people who, they claimed , were best suited for slavery, and even went so far as to prove it by claiming that Blacks had smaller skulls, smaller brains and blood vessels, and have a natural tendency to indolence and barbarism.

Does this mean that, along with the church, we should reject science, as well as academic and political institutions? There is a wise and true saying: The abuse of a thing does not destroy its proper use.

Christians do not claim that a Godless society is valueless. The problem is not the lack of values but the type of values it promotes. Its about the State functioning as though it is the author of values and human rights, rather than the protector of these values and rights that are inherent in the human person made in the image of God. And we have some frightening historical examples where what the State giveth it can taketh away!

For the Christian, the God who by creating time and space, and who must therefore logically exist before and beyond both (which Mr Wickham denies), entered his own creation in Jesus Christ in whom we have redemption and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church (Col. 1:14-18).

Christians believe that the God who created, and still sustains, everything that exists, is head of the church! This is why God has everything to do with Barbados becoming a Republic and also why all Christians should quite naturally be concerned about every facet and area of human existence, even the small matter of Barbados becoming a Republic.

Father Leslie Lett is an educator and social commentator. This column was offered as a Letter to the Editor.

Read our ePaper. Fast. Factual. Free.

Sign up and stay up to date with Barbados' FREE latest news.

See the original post:
#BTColumn The importance of being secular - Barbados Today

The Secular Association of Skeptical Students is a religious group that promotes education, cooperation and action within a community for students who hold secular beliefs. Their mission is to have an outlet for people of non-religious views to add to the interfaith discussion and to help alleviate the stigma against non-theists that exist in society, according to the clubs GetInvolved page.

The group is led by two first-years: Paul Schulze, a mathematics concentrator from Austin, Texas, and Rachel Plasky, from Philadelphia, Pa., who is undecided as to her concentration. They stepped into their leadership positions when asked if anyone wanted to volunteer, as most of the clubs members graduated in the class of 2021. Both Schulze and Plasky are committed to growing the already vibrant religious community at Colgate and making space for conversations that secular students can have with one another, as well as students with various religious beliefs.

Theres always an issue with people not actively identifying as atheists at this school. People might not be religious, but they dont claim the atheist identity, Plasky said.

Schulze and Plasky were in agreement about the religious climate at Colgate, especially as it relates to the stigma around atheism.

When I really wanted to recruit people for the club, I would ask my friends if they believed in God. I got more nos than yeses, but it seems like people have this kind of ambivalence towards religion. When you look at all of the clubs in the chapel, theyre not super huge, Schulze said.

Ellie Pitkowsky, an educational studies and psychology concentrator from Short Hills, N.J., agrees that there seems to be a stigma surrounding atheism both on our campus and in this country as well.

I dont think it is stigmatized to not believe in a god, but I definitely think it is stigmatized to not observe major holidays, especially because our calendar revolves around it, Pitkowsky said.

Although the Colgate religious community is small, it is vibrant.

I will say, though, Im super impressed with the religious communities here. They are all really welcoming places, Plasky said.

We dont always get to choose what religious views we are raised with, which makes religion interesting. Schulze and Plasky were not raised as atheists, but the Secular Association of Skeptical Students has allowed both of them to develop their atheist identities.

I was raised Lutheran, which means I was effectively raised secular, except I went to church twice a year. My family was never deeply religious, and my parents have been questioning their religious beliefs for a while. My mom calls herself a recovering Christian, Schulze said.

Schulzes curiosity about religion started in high school, which allowed him to independently learn about atheist traditions.

I started getting more into the philosophy of religion and how to be moral and have a sense of community and get all the things that religion provides without actually having a belief in God, he explained.

Plasky, on the other hand, was raised Jewish.

My family is Jewish, but no one is too into it. I went to Hebrew school for four years, but I didnt believe anything was happening. It was more of a non-religious experience for me, I guess. Ive always identified as atheist and Jewish, she said.

For Schulze and Plasky, coming to Colgate opened the door to religious exploration.

Coming here, I wanted to engage more with [my] atheist side. No one from my hometown actively identifies as atheist, Plasky said.

During their meetings, Schulze and Plasky lead thought-provoking discussions, providing resources and information from a variety of sources.

Last meeting our topic was about spiritual needs. We examined this document by this group called The Sacred Design Lab that talks about how to foster a sense of belonging and a sense of purpose and how to achieve those things from an atheist perspective. We talked about which of those needs we think are actual needs and which of those are needs for religious people, Schulze explained.

Not only do the members of the group discuss their own religious views, but they also think about atheism in the context of the broader United States.

During our first meeting, we spoke about how when you look at religious affiliation in America in the past 20 years, you see a huge spike in people who are unaffiliated. We talked about what was causing that, why that was happening and what it meant, Schulze said.

Plasky and Schulze have the rest of their Colgate careers to grow this club into an even more vibrant community than it already is, and they have many plans for doing so.

We plan on having events at certain points and having things open more to the community here, Plasky said.

Learning from Schulze and Plasky about the Secular Association of Skeptical Students and atheism in general can allow students to question their own beliefs and the religious practices they were raised with.

I wasnt aware of this club at all. Its probably a great resource and support system for people [who] identify as atheist. I feel like the reason so many people still dont know about it is because it is becoming less and less popular to be involved in religious groups in general. If more people knew about it, though, attendance would rise for sure, Pitkowsky added.

Perhaps if more students knew about this club, the stigma against atheism both on this campus and in other communities would diminish. Schulze and Plasky are working to uplift religious voices that are often not heard. The future of the atheist community at Colgate looks bright in the hands of these two driven, intelligent first-years.

Read more here:
Alleviating the Stigma of Atheism on Colgate's Campus - The Colgate Maroon-News

It looks like The Secular Outpost blog will be retired in December.

My understanding is that previously published posts on The Secular Outpost will be archived and available through The Secular Web after this blog is retired.

However, a new site for multiple skeptical/secular blogs might be created by the Internet Infidels in 2022, so another skeptical/secular blog might be created to replace The Secular Outpost.

If you are interested in contributing posts to a new skeptical/secular blog that might be created to replace The Secular Outpost, then please send me an email (to: bbowen737@msn.com) with answers to the following questions:

What topics would you be likely to write about? (select all that apply)

__atheism__agnosticism__naturalism__secularism__supernaturalism__theism/God__humanism__critical thinking/rationality__religion__Christianity__Islam__Judaism__Hinduism__Buddhism__life after death__faith__philosophy of religion__ethics__science vs. religion__current events__other topics (please specify)

How often do you think you would write a post in 2022 if you become a contributor to a new skeptical/secular blog?

__ times per week

OR

__times per month

OR

__times per year

What sort of approach(es) would you generally take in your blog posts? (select all that apply)

__scientific or empirical facts and evidence for atheism/naturalism/skepticism/secularism

__philosophical/logical arguments for atheism/naturalism/skepticism/secularism

__scientific or empirical facts and evidence against theism/religion/supernaturalism

__philosophical/logical arguments against theism/religion/supernaturalism

__critique of scientific or empirical facts and evidence against atheism/naturalism/skepticism/secularism

__critique of scientific or empirical facts and evidence for theism/religion/supernaturalism

__ some other approach (please provide a brief description)

What education and/or experience do you have thinking and writing about the topics that you would be likely to blog about?

[Just write a paragraph or two responding to this question].

Excerpt from:
Interested in Blogging? | Bradley Bowen - Patheos

Subjective view

There was a gentleman, who in a recent Record-Eagle article, said prayer in a board of commissioners is not helpful. This gentleman says he was an atheist. The issue of whether prayer in a board of commissioners meeting, whether in a Leelanau County meeting, or other board meetings, is a Constitutional right to do so. On May 5, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that Christian prayers did not violate the Constitutional prohibition against government establishment of religion; the justices cited history and tradition.

Even Aristotle, who was not a Christian, recognized that there had to be a prime mover. Some atheists say that gravity is the cause of creation. We dont even fully understand what gravity is in the known universe. Or are there other universes?

Science works off of logic, and what is more logical than Aristotles argument? Atheism is illogical and merely a persons subjective view.

Ed Hahnenberg

Lake Leelanau

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Continued here:
Letter: Hahnenberg | Letters To The Editor - Traverse City Record Eagle

Ho Chi Minh City (Agenzia Fides) - On November 24, the universal Church celebrates in the liturgical calendar the feast of Andre Dung Lac and the Vietnamese martyrs: their example and heroic stories are vividly relived in the churches of the 26 dioceses of Vietnam which solemnly celebrated the liturgical feast yesterday with the Vietnamese parishes of the faithful of the diaspora in the world. On this important day, the faithful sang songs of praise to the martyrs and the churches rang the bells with pride and joy. Vietnamese Catholics love to dedicate noble sentiments and prayers to martyrs, recognized as faithful intimately united to the heart of the Son of God, who despised death and worldly interests and, faced with death, were not afraid to choose God. The 117 martyrs canonized by St. John Paul II in 1988 are only a very small number compared to the more than 100,000 people who were imprisoned and painfully died in Vietnam under the Nguyen dynasty during fierce persecutions between the 17th and 19th centuries. They were Vietnamese and foreign bishops, priests, religious and parishioners. They did not want to be commemorated by the world, nor to be honored by posterity: blessed with divine grace, they found happiness and victory in God himself. They died in the heat of genuine faith. "The mystery of martyrdom is a testimony of God, martyrdom does not mean the opposition between atheism and theism, nor a conflict between different religions. Martyrdom is understood simply as a testimony of the noble values of the Gospel, a testimony of the saving love of Jesus", said Archbishop Joseph Nguyen Nang, of the Archdiocese of Ho Chi Minh City, yesterday, November 24, during the liturgical celebration of the Vietnamese martyrs. "Martyrdom is not only a mystery, but also a grace. The martyrs presented themselves before the high officials as a firm witness to the faith and love of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit. The martyrs were ordinary people, even ignorant peasants but, in front of the king and the high imperial officials, they reacted in a very wise, judicious and confident manner. This was a grace of God, not the work of man. They too were human beings in flesh and blood, as weak as us. If they could endure all the lashes, the chains and the cruel tortures, it was truly the grace of God and his power, which dwelled in them, that made it possible". The Prelate concluded: "The spirit of martyrdom is still necessary in today's civilized world where there are forms of persecution: at times it is an external violence or an internal psychological pressure. That is why everyone must witness to God in today's society by always choosing the right values of the Gospel, by living according to the Word of God, by not letting bad events shake our faith and separate us from the love of Jesus. The attractions of worldly life are flattering, but we must say categorically "no", and not compromise with evil. The martyrs remind us to always be faithful to the law of God: today we are called to follow their example and the courageous witness of faith, for which they suffered pain, in order to obtain eternal life". Martyr Andre Dung Lac was a Vietnamese priest who was executed by beheading in 1839. On his way to the place of execution, he prayed in silence and sang aloud words of praise to God. Before the execution, the executioner approached him and told him: "We do not know what crime you committed, but we are only carrying out the order, please understand". With a big smile on his face, Father Lac replied: "The commander has ordered, so do it". And before giving his head to the executor's knife, he asked for the last few minutes of quiet to pray. "Your Majesty, I have served for over 30 years under three different kings and am always faithful to you as a citizen and patriot with all my heart; but today I will accept any punishment from you for not betraying my faith in Jesus Christ, as long as I am faithful to him", said Michael Ho Dinh Hy, one of the Vietnamese martyrs who held a high position in the imperial court. He did not give up his faith for worldly prestige, but preferred to remain faithful to God even if it cost him his life, as it did in 1857. Despite the king's temptations, he remained steadfast in his faith and tried to live like Jesus Christ, refusing all the material privileges and glories given by kings. Martyrs such as John Thophane Vnard of the Society of Foreign Missions of Paris (MEP), when arrested and tried in court, were invited to stand on the cross to be acquitted, but they categorically refused. John Theoane Venard answered unequivocally: "I adore the Cross and have preached for all of my life the Cross, the way of love, how could I irreverently trample on the Cross now? My life would not be worthy of my faith in God if I denied this belief". He was martyred in Tonkin in 1861. (AD-PA) (Agenzia Fides, 25/11/2021)

Read more from the original source:
ASIA/VIETNAM - The celebration of the Vietnamese martyrs and the example of martyrdom, alive and necessary today - Agenzia Fides

The idea that Christianity is simply wish-fulfillment is a common line of attack among skeptics. It just seems too good to be true, I could imagine someone saying. Sure, we all want purpose and meaning in this life and a reason why things happen. But its just wishful thinking. Were tricking ourselves. We need to face reality. A cold reality, but reality all the same. Not things we believe just to make us feel better.

When faced with such a challenge, we must not succumb to panic but first realize a crucial fact: This, and this type of wishful thinking argument in general, attempts to suggest Christianity is false by explaining why Christianity is false. In other words, it assumes Christianity is false from the very beginning. This is no argument at all; it fails before it gets started.

One should also note that the skeptic is being inconsistent. While affirming there is no such thing as meaning or purpose, the skeptic is only telling you Christianity is wish-fulfillment because he believes truth is important, and we should follow reason and logic. But if the whole show, ourselves and everything about us included, is utterly meaningless and without true purpose, why do we have any obligation to believe what is true, let alone try to convince others to believe the truth and suggest they have an objective moral obligation to follow the evidence? In arguing against meaning, they assume and affirm meaning. And thus their argument and atheism as a whole collapses. I have written about this before, so I will not belabor the point.

We have good grounds to dismiss the charge of wishful thinking already, but lets go deeper. The skeptic assumes Christianity is immensely preferable to atheism, the latter of which provides them little reason to be biased in its favor. This is wrong-headed. When someone begins to wonder whether God exists, they often think that if they just knew God existed then all would be well and they would immediately worship Him enthusiastically. But the nearer they get, the more that idea proves totally false. The intellectual doubts are done away with. They have no reason to deny Him now. But they will still not follow His commands.

Why not? Its simple: It runs up against their desires. This leads one to quite a shocking realization: Their opposition to Christianity was not so much about intellectual qualms as it is a desire to follow practically anything thats not the Creator. It is one thing to believe in a god that gives you some vague feeling of meaning but is very much like you. It is quite another to believe in One who is not like you, who is holy and just and good and therefore must punish your transgressions, rebellion and sin. All of them.

Thats why we find Jesus words so frightening: Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops (Luke 12:2-3). Its scary because we know we are not good. Even our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment (Isaiah 64:6). And so, we stand helplessly guilty before Him, having committed the most egregious crime imaginable: rebelling and spitting in the face of the Lord Almighty. Nothing we do, no great thing we could ever hope to accomplish, can pay for such an unspeakable crime. We are like Macbeth: All great Neptunes oceans [cannot] wash this blood clean from [our hands], for the punishment for sins is not x hours of community service or good works but death and condemnation. This reality seems anything but wishful thinking.

Indeed, atheism seems far more likely to be wishful thinking along this line of reasoning. Sure, we want a God that helps us when we want, but we dont want Him telling us what to do (who does He think He is?). We want to do what we want, when we want and how we want. But more than that, we know our sins. We cannot bear the thought of having our friends and family (let alone God) see our thoughts and our search history or what weve said and done behind others backs. How much, then, would we love if there was not a judgment, not a final reckoning, none to tell us what were doing is wrong and heinous and black? We want to define how we should live. We want to be our own god. So, when God says our hearts are evil and we love evil and we will face a judgment for it, we naturally desire to stifle this voice in our minds. The natural man loves sin, which God hates. Thats why he will not obey Him and desires to rid himself of any reminder of Him.

But what of salvation? Is that not wishful thinking? It would be if the Christian were merely [presuming] on the riches of [Gods] kindness (Romans 2:4), thinking God will simply sweep our sins under the rug. It would be, too, if we said our works could save us. All attempts to save ourselves crumble into dust before Gods Throne. But we see the God-Man, Jesus, who came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). We see His wounds, His body through which he bore our sins on the tree (1 Peter 2:24) and once for all time (Hebrews 9:12) paid in full the sins of His people. His death, His resurrection and His ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3) prove to all generations that the Christians salvation is not wishful thinking but reality. As one hymn puts it:

Here we have a firm foundation,

here the refuge of the lost;

Christs the Rock of our salvation,

his the name of which we boast.

Lamb of God, for sinners wounded,

sacrifice to cancel guilt!

None shall ever be confounded

who on him their hope have built.

Andrew Sveda is a junior at Notre Dame from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, majoring in political science with a supplementary major in theology. In his free time, he enjoys writing (obviously), reading and playing the piano. He can be reached at [emailprotected] or @SvedaAndrew on Twitter.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Read this article:
Wishful thinking and reality - Observer Online

Asylum seekers are getting tattoos of crucifixes and Jesus to prove they have converted to Christianity and cannot be returned to the Middle East, the Telegraph can reveal.

Analysis of immigration appeal judgments shows tattoos connected to Christianity, atheism and homosexuality have been cited more than 20 times in the last five years by those fighting to stay in the UK.

The body art has been used to argue they risk persecution if returned to Muslim countries, where relinquishing the Islamic faith or being gay can be a crime.

Last week, the Church was forced to defend its conversion processes after Emad al-Swealmeen, 32, blew himself up in Liverpool after converting to Christianity to bolster his asylum application.

After the bomb attack Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, criticised how the merry-go-round asylum process was being exploited by the legal services using legal aid.

While asylum seekers who get such tattoos repeatedly secure the right to remain, one judge sitting in Bradford in 2018 condemned a 25-year-old Iranian man who obtained religious tattoos.

The ruling found that his tattoo did not represent a genuine reflection of the appellants faith. It said he should be returned to Iran because the tattoo could be removed, covered up or that he could tell Iranian authorities the truth - namely that he had pretended converting to Christianity in order to bolster his claim for international protection.

In contrast, a Birmingham hearing in 2018 allowed an Iranian man with amateur tattoos of a crucifix, Jesus and the Virgin Mary to remain. This was despite an earlier hearing concluding that his conversion was false and images obtained for the sole purpose of enhancing his chances of securing his asylum.

He was allowed to stay on human rights grounds, because he cannot be expected to removeor cover upthe tattoo to avoid persecution.

In February this year, an appeal against deportation was allowed after a Kurdish Iranian abandoned his Islamic faith to become an atheist rapper.

The 30-year-old man showed the tribunal his American Atheist tattoo, an atomic swirl denoting a rejection of all religious beliefs and a reliance on scientific analysis.

After he arrived in the UK, Mrs Patel rejected his claims to be an atheist or rapper whose anti-Iranian songs had been posted on social media.

But the judge, sitting in London, concluded the appellants tattoo signposts his atheist leanings and he cannot be expected to lie about what it is, or why he has it. He was allowed to remain in the UK.

Last year, a 26-year-old Iranian man who said he converted to Christianity and fled to the UK was allowed to stay because the judge sitting in Manchester found he has a mark of faith, a large tattoo.

The case, in which a clergywoman told how she was satisfied his conversion was authentic, illustrates how some churches have enjoyed a boost to congregation numbers due to the numbers of asylum seekers looking to convert.

The tribunal heard how more than 130 people from 37 countries attended special services, with at least 70 of them being Iranian.

Link:
Migrants use tattoos of Jesus and crucifixes to aid asylum claims - Telegraph.co.uk

In the recent governors race in Virginia, Glenn Youngkin scored a huge upset win days after promising to ban critical race theory from Virginia schools. Youngkin is hardly the only Republican calling for school bans. In Texas, Representative Matt Krause sent a letter to school administrators about books in their district. Did they have Ta-Nehisi Coates on their shelves? Isabel Wilkersons Caste? How about LGBT Families, by Leanne K. Currie-McGhee? Or any of about 850 other books that might, in Krauses words, make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex?

Beyond Texas, beyond Virginia, the prospect of banning books and ideas from public schools has GOP strategists smelling electoral blood. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy vowed to turn school bans into a winning issue for Republicans in 2022, sketching a parental bill of rights to protect kids from troubling ideas about race and sex.

Zachary D. Carter: The Democratic unraveling began with schools

These efforts have a history. Back in the 1920s, the vague term that galvanized conservative angst was not critical race theory but evolution. Conservative pundits at the time seized on a cartoonish misrepresentation of evolutionary science and warned their fellow Americans that evolution was nothing less than a sinister plot to rob white American children of their religion, their morals, and their sense of innate superiority.

But although the school bans might have changed some school curricula in the short term, in the long run, they backfired. Telling parents you dont want their kids to have the best possible public schools is never good politics. A full century ago, the most effective school-ban campaign in American history set the pattern: noise, fury, rancor, and fear, but not much change in what schools actually teach.

In the 1920s, the idea of evolution wasnt new. Charles Darwins bombshell book about natural selection had been published 60 years earlier. The outlines of Darwins theory had become standard fare in school textbooks and curricula, even though the real scientific controversies about the mechanism of natural selection were by no means settled. But the furious campaign to ban evolution had nothing to do with those debates among scientists.

Read: The evolution of teaching creationism in public schools

In 1923, T. T. Martin, the Blue Mountain Evangelist, preached that evolution is being drilled into our boys and girls during the most susceptible, dangerous age of their lives. Evolution, Martin warned, was not good science but only a plot by sneering high-brows to inject mandatory atheism into public schools. Martin claimed to have abundant evidence that the teaching of these text-books is unsettling the faith of thousands of students.

He never shared that evidence, but he did paint a terrifying picture of the evolutionary conspiracys results. Once the Evolutionists robbed children of their faith, Martin wrote, they laugh and jeer, as the rapist laughs and jeers at the bitter tears of the crushed father and mother over the blighted life of their child.

Martins pitch wasnt only about religion. He framed his fight against evolution as a fight against all manner of modern woes. Supporters of evolution, Martin preached, were not real men; they were sissy; they had given up their Christian manhood. They were not even real Americans; they were betraying the spirit of those who came over in the Mayflower, Martin said, adding, Where is the spirit of 1776?

What could anxious parents do if they wanted to keep their children safe from the schemes of atheists and sissies? How could they protect kids from a vision of America that wasnt focused on sturdy white Puritans and the heroic followers of George Washington? In language that could have come from 2021 and not 1923, Martin told parents to take over their local school boards, to put on the Board of Trustees only men and women who will not employ any teacher who believes in Evolution. After that, Martin predicted, seizing control of state legislatures and cramming through anti-evolution laws would be simple.

It was never quite that simple, but the movement to ban evolution from public schools seemed, for a few years, to be an unstoppable political juggernaut. School-board elections became furious affairs, pitting neighbors against one another with accusations of treason and atheism. To give just one example, in Atlanta, William Mahoney, the local leader of the Supreme Kingdom, a Ku Klux Klan offshoot, attacked school-board members and the citys teachers. He promised to force the reluctant school board to eliminate five teachers on suspicion of teaching ideas that were paganistic atheistic beastialistic and anarchistic.

State legislatures werent far behind. From 1922 to 1929, legislators proposed at least 53 bills or resolutions in 21 states, plus two bills in Congress. Five of them succeeded. Oklahomas 1923 law provided free textbooks for the states public-school students, as long as none of those textbooks taught the Darwin theory of creation. Floridas legislature passed a nonbinding resolution in 1923 declaring that teaching evolution was improper and subversive. Tennessee was the first to actually ban the teaching of evolution. It shall be unlawful, the 1925 law said, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible. Mississippi followed suit, banning in 1926 the teaching that man descended, or ascended, from a lower order of animals. Finally, in 1928, anti-evolutionists in Arkansas managed to pass a similar law by forcing a popular vote.

Liberals quaked. In the words of one science educator in 1927, the U.S. had entered its first modern culture war, a pitched battle between two opposing cultures. On one side was science, progress, and liberalism. On the other were the forces of reaction and armies of ignorance with their sights set on dominat[ing] our public institutions.

In the furor of these political battles, few paused to examine the actual goals of the anti-evolution movement too closely. Oklahomas law, for instance, was at least as much about providing free textbooks as it was about evolution. And Floridas resolution was purposefully vague, purposefully symbolic. In 1923 Florida, what politician would vote in favor of subversive teaching?

Read: I was never taught where humans came from

The bills that did not pass, meanwhile, veered ever further from the actual science of evolution. One early bill in Kentucky in 1922 proposed to ban not only evolution but Darwinism, Atheism, Agnosticism, or evolution. As the bill wended its way through the process, lawmakers added provisos: The law would empower citizens to sniff out and report such teaching. School boards would be forced to interrogate any educator charged with teaching evolution within five days. And the ban became broader and more impractical with every new iteration. One Senate amendment, for instance, would have banned the teaching of anything that will weaken or undermine the religious faith of the pupils in any public school or college.

Kentuckys lawmakers werent the only ones hoping to ban anything they didnt like. Across the country, in state legislatures from Delaware to California, conservative lawmakers tried to score political points by banning modern ideas from their public schools. Congress considered a bill in 1926 that was supposedly anti-evolution but in fact imposed sweeping restrictions on the content of public schools. At the time, Congress controlled the budget for schools in Washington, D.C. The 1926 bill would have cut the salary of any D.C. instructor caught teaching disrespect of the Holy Bible, or that ours is an inferior form of government.

These bills were more about political theater than pedagogical policy. Their claims were so broad and so vague that they would have led only to chaos and confusion in public schools. In West Virginia, for instance, one 1927 bill simply banned any nefarious matter from the states public schools.

These bills never answered the obvious questions: Who would decide what counted as nefarious? What would a teacher have to say to be considered disrespectful of the Holy Bible? What did it mean to teach that other governments might have better ideas than ours? To be sure, many of these state bills never had much chance of ever becoming law. But Kentuckys wide-ranging bill failed by only one vote. If it had passed, it would have radically challenged the very idea of a liberal-arts education. What could getting rid of any ideas that could weaken a students religious faith have possibly meant?

Back then, just like today, no one knew. The anti-evolution movement wasnt really about banning one specific scientific idea; it was instead a confused and confusing effort to make America great again by purging its schools of science, history, and critical thinking. Movements to ban ideas from public schools were always less about realistic educational policy and more about planting a political flag for a vaguely defined vision of America.

How did the fight over evolution end? Every town and city was different, but Atlanta can offer one example of how frightening the anti-evolution surge could be and how fast it could fall apart. In March 1926, William Mahoney, the anti-evolution leader of the Supreme Kingdom, seemed to have brought the city school board to its political knees.

As the school board prepared to discuss a citywide ban on teaching evolution, Mahoney gathered 2,000 citizens in an open-air rally. A visiting preacher warned the crowd that if the school board failed to ban evolution, 20 years from now there will be no respect for law in Atlanta and Georgia will be a sea of debauchery. Yet the school board voted down a proposed ban, 93. As one member announced, good science was what every intelligent, educated, and open-minded citizen really wanted in Atlantas public schools. After its humiliating defeat, the Supreme Kingdom fell apart. Its national leader, Edward Young Clarke, became embroiled in a series of sexual and financial scandals, and Mahoney became a local laughingstock.

Nationwide, the anti-evolution movement suffered a less dramatic denouement. Instead of headline-grabbing showdowns and momentous defeats, the movement simply petered out. It became just another distraction that teachers had to deal with. About a decade after the last anti-evolution law was passed in 1928, one survey of thousands of high-school teachers showed that most had simply gone on with their teaching without fuss or bother. Several of them reported that they did not in fact teach evolution, but not because they were concerned about Christian manhood or upholding the Spirit of 1776. Instead, they were more worried about much more prosaic problemsmany reported that they could not teach evolution simply because they did not have enough time in the day.

Certainly, some teachers had been cowed by the fury of the anti-evolution movement. In a 1942 survey of high-school science teachers, one California teacher reported avoiding teaching evolution because controversial subjects are dynamite to teachers. Others, however, said they could never be scared away from teaching good science. One respondent from upstate New York, for example, insisted he would carry on teaching evolution. Ive had fights, he said, but havent lost yet.

Textbook publishers were less willing to fight. The vague outburst of hostility against evolution stymied the publication of textbooks that boldly and freely taught the best modern science. But wary publishers didnt cower before the anti-evolution mob as much as they pretended they did. They couldnt afford to.

As the careful work of the historian Adam Shapiro has shown, prominent publishers claimed to have edited out evolutionary content, but many times, they simply didnt. The best example might be the case of George Hunters Civic Biology. This textbook was at the center of the famous Scopes Trial in 1925. After the furious wave of anti-evolution bans had passed, the publisher offered a new edition, supposedly free of objectionable evolutionary content. In fact, however, the evolution-free edition was almost exactly the same as the old edition. The publisher merely removed the word evolution and replaced it with similar words such as development.

And no one objected. As Shapiro found, most of the conservative watchdogs appointed by anti-evolution lawmakers gave new textbooks the most cursory of glances. If publishers edited their indexes and tables of contents, if they removed the word evolutionthe word itself, not the ideathey could avoid expensive revisions to the text. As a result, many textbooks kept their scientific treatment of evolution the same.

Over time, even successful legal bans revealed their own inherent weaknesses. In Arkansas, for example, by 1965, science teachers were required to use state-approved textbooks that taught evolution, even though the states 1928 ban was still officially in effect. It was an absurd situation, and one brave teacher finally took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled in 1968 that the states ban on evolution violated the Constitution.

Years before that, however, even in states like Arkansas that had legally banned evolution in the 1920s, people had quietly agreed that the ban violated a more fundamental requirement of public schools. Bans on modern ideas only hurt schools and students, they concluded. In the long runand, as in Atlanta, even in the short runthe call to ban evolution could not overcome parents insistence on the very best modern public schools for their children, schools free from the dictates of what one Atlanta school-board member called error enshrined in popular belief.

Back in the 1920s, the effort to ban evolution was not really about the science of evolution. It was instead an attempt to bolster political careers with sweeping but ultimately meaningless gestures. The confusion and vagaries of the 1920s bills were not accidental. Voters might not have known what scientists meant by terms like natural selection, but they knew what politicians meant when they took a stance against nefarious matter and against radical teachers who supposedly taught children that ours is an inferior government.

But the bans failed to change many textbooks, failed to change many classrooms, and failed even to change the course of many political careers. Politicians willing to stand in the schoolhouse door to keep out troubling ideas will not be willing to stand there forever. Sooner or later, the cameras will leave, and parents will demand that schools give their children the best available education.

Read the rest here:
The Greatest (Failed) School Ban of All Time - The Atlantic

November 15, 2021 The Freedom From Religion Foundation is decrying conservative rallies for scapegoating atheists and calling for one religion under God in America.

Speaking at a recent three-day ReAwaken America conference, held at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio as part of a national tour, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, the keynoter, opined: If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God, and one religion under God. Flynn reportedly spoke about his Christian faith to refute QAnon claims that he worships Satan. Flynn has been comparing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Pontius Pilate in promoting his theory of the insurrection crucifixion.

Flynns remarks are distasteful, ignorant, threatening and truly un-American.

An outright attack on atheists took place in the opening prayer at a Take Back Virginia rally in mid-October, called by supporters of then-gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin, which focused on a call to arms in a battle against communist atheists, according to the New York Times.

The Times, in an article citing many examples around the nation of what it terms is the menace created by the increasingly violent tone of GOP speech, published a photograph of the prayer. The Times reported that the urgency of a call to arms was conveyed right from the opening prayer, when conservative Joshua Pratt warned of the looming threat of communist atheists and said: Your children are in a battle, and we need your help.

Those at the rally pledged allegiance to a flag that the participants were told had flown over Trumps rally prior to the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Although Youngkin declined to attend the rally, former President Trump phoned in. During his call to the Virginia rally, Trump repeated his lie that mass voter fraud stole the 2020 presidential election from him. Other speakers included indicted former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon. Even though Youngkin did not attend, his campaign associate, Virginia state Sen. Amanda Chase, did. Chase has been censured by the state Senate for promoting election fraud conspiracy theories, including urging Trump to invoke martial law in December to seize voting machines.

The targeting of atheism at this rally and Flynns over-the-top attacks on secular government and true religious liberty are part of the increasingly troubling and often violent rhetoric of Christian nationalists, exemplified by U.S. Rep. Paul Gosars notorious tweet last week repurposing an anime video showing him brutally killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and threatening President Biden with two swords. Gosart was one of many Christian nationalist members of Congress who voted not to certify Bidens election.

The red-baiting bugaboo linking atheists with communism has been exploited to entangle Christianity and the U.S. government. Historically, it was invoked to insert religion into U.S. symbols and money in the mid-1950s. The congressional actions to adopt In God We Trust as a belated motto, to require its usage on all currency and to insert under God in the previously secular Pledge of Allegiance have had disastrous consequences for Americas reverence and respect for the secular nature of our government.

It is unfortunate that whole generations have grown up reciting a pledge that ironically divides what was once one nation, indivisible, and viewing a theocratic motto which turns believers into insiders and nonbelievers into outsiders. As Anne Gaylor, FFRFs principal founder, always liked to say, In God We Trust isnt even accurate. To be accurate it would have to say In God Some of Us Trust, which would be a very silly motto. Thats why FFRF embraces the original motto, E Pluribus Unum (From many, [come] one), chosen by a committee of founders.

E Pluribus Unum doesnt mean United we stand, says Dan Barker, FFRF co-president. It means Divided we stand. Americas strength is really the nature of its plurality: different states and different citizens, working together to form a more perfect union.

That union is indeed being menaced by Christian nationalists like Flynn and other theocrats who despise what helps make America great: Our godless Constitution, and a Bill of Rights that protects true religious liberty by barring government from taking sides over religion.

http://www.ffrf.org

See the original post:
FFRF deplores Flynn and Christian nationalism's threat to atheists and nation - YubaNet

Dialogue is imperative to improving relations between people of various faiths and none. Too often, religion has been an enabler and sanctifier of intolerance and conflict. The relationship amongst persons of religious and nonreligious affiliations leaves much to be desired. Interfaith-belief communications have mainly been a master-slave, king-subject, lord-servant, conqueror-conquered affair. The relationship has been characterized by hate, hostility, mistrust, persecution, oppression, impunity, and conflict. Established religions treat nonbelievers with indignity and contempt. Mainstream faiths are often rallied against no faith traditions and non-believing communities.

Religion is codified not to tolerate or include the other, the nonreligious or unbelieving other. This unfortunate situation applies because people of faith wrongly assume that they have a monopoly of truth, knowledge, and morals. Believers are socialized to dislike or loath non-believers. They are conditioned to regard nonbelief in god as a serious crime, a capital offense, and, yes, a forbidden habit. Interestingly, a believer in one religion is regarded as an unbeliever by other religions. Dialogue within the universe of belief has been framed in faith, theistic or religious terms. Belief in a God has been made a criterion to participate in a dialogue. Interfaith or inter-religious, not interfaith-belief, dialogue has been the norm. An interfaith-belief dialogue that includes atheists and other non-believers is an exception. But this should not be the case. The dialogue project should be inclusive.

The entrenched religious antagonism towards the non-religious should not be a surprise. Religious intolerance is rooted in teachings, indoctrinations, and traditions. The Christian scripture explicitly describes non-believers as fools (Psalms 14:1), that is, those without knowledge and wisdom. Non-believers are designated as blind and ignorant (Ephesians 4:18). Belief in the existence of a God constitutes an automatic investor of wisdom and understanding. The scripture enjoins believers not to relate or yoke equally with nonbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

Sacred texts sanction oppression and unequal treatment of nonbelievers. They make a virtue out of persecuting and discriminating against non-believers. The Islamic holy book contains verses that incite hatred and violence against non-Muslims. The Quran enjoins Muslims to attack and kill non-believers (Surah 3:151) and treat them without mercy. Other verses contain chilling statements of violence and intolerance. For instance, Surah 2:191 says: And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims). Surah 9:5 states: Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.

Among the Islamic traditions, conversion to Islam is celebrated, but renunciation of the islamic faith is an offense and a dishonor to the family. Deconversion from Islam is punishable by death or long imprisonment. Views that are critical of Islam are regarded as blasphemies and serious infractions.

But it is pertinent to note that religion is a mixed bag of doctrines. There are religious teachings and scriptural verses that emphasize love, tolerance, and compassion. But the antagonism towards people from no faith traditions is rooted in the hateful and immoral teachings and indoctrinations of religions. The time has come to take a critical look at these teachings that undermine interfaith-belief dialogue. Dialogue will transform communication between faith and no faith constituencies. It will turn the imparting or exchange of information between people of faith and no faith into a two-way process. What obtains at the moment is a one-way- an unyielding one-way religious communication.

What applies is a monologue, an intense religious monologue. The non-religious are constantly informed about religion and belief in God. There is no room to inform the religious about nonbelief or irreligion. Due to this one-way communication, the religious continue to languish in prejudice and ignorance of nonreligious canons including humanism, atheism, and freethought. The religious find it difficult to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the non religious.

In addition, a dialogue will change interfaith-belief relations into a business of equals, not unequals. It will transform interfaith-belief relations into an interaction marked by mutual respect. Dialogue will emphasize shared values and translate interfaith-belief relationship into an asset, and a mechanism to foster peace and development in the country.

Leo Igwe, nskepticleo@yahoo.com

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:
DIALOGUE AND INTERFAITH-BELIEF COMMUNICATIONSTHISDAYLIVE - THISDAY Newspapers