Category Archives: Atheism

One of the most consequential stories in American religion in recent years is the rapid and seemingly unceasing rise of nones those who respond to questions about their religious affiliation by indicating that they are atheists, agnostics or nothing in particular.

According to some recent estimates, around 4 in 10 millennials and members of Gen Z, a group that comprises those born after 1980, do not identify with a religious tradition. In comparison, only about a quarter of baby boomers indicate that they are religiously unaffiliated.

Social scientists are only beginning to explore the demographic factors that drive individuals who no longer feel attached to a religious tradition.

But as someone who follows the data on religious trends, I note one factor appears to stand out: gender.

Scholars have long noted that atheism skews male. Meanwhile, critics have pointed toward the apparent dominance of male authors in the new atheism movement as evidence of a boys club. Indeed, a quick scan of the best-selling books on atheism on Amazon indicates that almost all of them are written by male authors.

According to data from the Nationscape survey, which polled over 6,000 respondents every week for 18 months in the runup to the 2020 election, men are in general more likely than women to describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or nothing in particular. The survey, conducted by the independent Democracy Fund in partnership with the University of California, Los Angeles, was touted as one of the largest such opinion polls ever conducted.

However, tracking the gender gap by age reveals that at one point the gap between men and women narrows. Between the ages of 30 and 45, men are no more likely to be religiously unaffliated than women of the same age.

But the gap appears again among older Americans. Over the age of 60, men are 5 to 8 percentage points more likely to express no religious affiliation.

Moreover, older Americans both men and women tend to be far less likely to identify as nones compared with younger Americans, according to respondents of the survey.

What may be driving this pattern of young women and older women being less likely to identify as nones than their male counterparts?

One theory in social science called the life cycle effect argues that when people begin to marry and have children, some are drawn back into religious circles to raise their kids in a religious environment or to lean on support structures that religion may provide.

But once kids grow up and leave the house this attachment fades for many. I make this point in my forthcoming book called The Nones.

The data on gender and those with no religious affiliation could indicate that this drifting is especially acute for men. One explanation could be that men are more likely to be religious when they are part of a family unit, but when children grow up, that connection becomes weaker. Unfortunately, the survey does not offer a direct test of this hypothesis.

But it would fit with survey research over the past five decades that has consistently found that Christian women are more likely than men to attend church.

One word of caution about the data is necessary. The survey is just a single snapshot of the the public in 2019 and 2020. Its possible that this same pattern would look different if data were collected 20 years ago or 20 years from now. Either way, it offers a small window into how age and gender interact with the religious lives of Americans.

[Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversations email newsletter.]

Here is the original post:
Faith in numbers: Behind the gender difference of nonreligious Americans - The Conversation US

In our latest podcast, Jessica and I discussed the past week in politics and atheism.

We talked about:

Order My Name is Stardust or anything else from Stardust Science and get a 10% discount with the promo code FriendlyAtheist!

Dont worry about the White Houses faith-based office yet. (1:08)

A Newsweek article claimed atheists hate homeschooling because kids have to spend time with their parents. (16:48)

Why is a Kentucky city using FEMA relief money to build a church? (26:03)

This is what happens when a progressive church invites an anti-gay speaker. (35:34)

Georgia GOP lawmakerswant three doctors to verify the genitalia of trans kids playing sports. (48:55)

There are very few Black atheists in America, according to a new survey. (56:28)

South Carolinas abortion ban is bad news but it could be worse. (1:00:00)

Two women are getting promoted after their boss strategically decided not to elevate them when Donald Trump was in office. (1:08:28)

Wed love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. If you have any suggestions for people we should chat with, please leave them in the comments, too.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes or Google Play, stream all the episodes on SoundCloud or Stitcher, or just listen to the whole thing below. Our RSS feed is here. And if you like what youre hearing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon and leaving us a positive rating!

More:
Podcast Ep. 362: Is the White House's Faith-Based Office a Problem? - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

This weeks complaint from Crystal Quiring ("We are still out here," Feb. 4) is that only one of the editorial letters (written in the week after the attack on the Capitol) was written from the conservative point of view.

I had a similar complaint about your Dec. 31 issue, because both of the editorial letters on that day were to say right on to explicitly Christian content in your Christmas issue. That was OK with me, but one of those letters did so at the expense of the religions of atheism and 'none' above all other faiths. He said That is a national disgrace and we are a lesser country for it.

The privileged seem to be adept at portraying themselves as victims.

Atheism and none are not the names of religions. My highest authority, after a strong religious upbringing, is now science. I like to actually believe what I say I believe. Corresponding terms for the religious would be ascientism and some or lotsa.

In a country with about 30% of people qualifying as nones, there were two of us in Congress or the Supreme Court last time I checked. There were also less than 1% of us among people in prison.

Freedom of religion should include the option of freedom from it.

Read this article:
Letter: Like to believe what I say I believe | Chaska Letters to the Editor | swnewsmedia.com - SW News Media

Published: 2/12/2021 12:01:20 AM

In his Feb. 7 letter, Charlie Stepanek sees the country as being in need of a common source of unity and inspiration. He goes on to suggest that we all recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which he quotes.

Count me out.

As a substitute teacher in several school districts, I am called to engage in this ritual every morning. But I amend the pledge in two ways.

First, I drop under God. This wasnt in the pledge when I first learned it. And some historians suggest that the introduction of under God in 1954 was done during the Cold War, as a way to differentiate the U.S. from the concept of Communist state atheism. I refer you to Wikipedia for a fuller discussion.

And while a New Jersey judge ruled that hearing under God in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate rights of atheist students, I prefer my pledge to be religion-free.

Second, I find it incorrect to assert that our nation under God or not has liberty and justice for all. If there is one thing that we should have learned in 2020 its that our nation does not provide liberty or justice for many.

I wish that it did. But until it does, Ill leave that phrase out, while hoping that in spite of Trump and QAnon it remains indivisible.

TOM CHASE

Northwood

See the rest here:
Letter: Problems with the pledge - Concord Monitor

Rohit Mahajan

AN English bowler, Ted Wainwright, said of the great Ranjitsinhji: Ranji, he never made a Christian stroke in his life.

Charles Fry, Ranjitsinhjis friend and captain at Sussex, believed Ranjis distinctive strokes were due to a combination of perfect poise and the quickness peculiar to the athletic Hindu.

Its all rubbish, really theres no Christian stroke or Hindu quickness or, for that matter, Muslim reverse-swing. It can be safely assumed that both Wainwright and Fry were not really referring to Ranjis religion and that, in the idiom of their day, they were overflowing with Oriental clichs.

Sport is secular. What god or gods you believe in or dont believe in plays no role in how you perform. Bob Woolmers atheism didnt prevent him from trying his best with a deeply religious Pakistani cricket team. John Wright, born in a Christian family, and an enthusiastic choir boy as a child, did his best to coach an Indian team that had players from different religious backgrounds.

Religion poisons everything thats the sub-title of a book by Christopher Hitchens, the atheist writer and polemicist. In India, it seems that there are clear attempts to poison cricket, too, with religious hatred.

Wasim Jaffer, who played 31 Test matches for India, is Muslim. So is Zaheer Khan or Mohammed Siraj, the emerging fast bowler. Sachin Tendulkar is Hindu. Shubman Gill is Sikh. Virat Kohli is from a family of Hindus, but is non religious.

Big deal! Sport transcends religion. Sportspersons know it well. They know a player must perform, whichever god he does or doesnt bow down to.

Its no surprise, then, that its a cricket administrator who has poured poison into cricket.

Jaffer, who had an excellent career lasting over two decades, winning several Ranji Trophy titles with Mumbai and Vidarbha, resigned his position as Uttarakhands coach recently. He alleged that the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand (CAU) secretary and selectors had been pushing non-deserving players for selection into the state team. His resignation letter suggested that the CAUs affairs were run in an unprofessional manner.

Immediately after that, CAU fired a salvo at Jaffer its secretary alleged that Jaffer was making religion-based selections. He alleged that Jaffer was trying to break the team through religious activities. As if on cue, the teams manager added allegations of his own that Jaffer used to call maulvis for Friday prayers at the teams camp, and changed the teams religion-based slogan to Go Uttarakhand.

Later, Jaffer denied the allegations, and said that it was a very painful episode for him. The communal angle that has been brought up, that is very, very sad, Jaffer said.

Had I been communal, both Samad Fallah and Mohammad Nazim would have played all the games. Its a very petty thing to say, or even think, he said.

Its terrible that a cricketer and coach has to explain this.

Social media erupted in a battle on the issue. There were several voices in support of Jaffer, too. CAUs secretary then began to backtrack, saying he never knew of any allegation of communal bias against Jaffer.

So all this trouble was over nothing? No. Its likely that the CAU secretary, who has inherited control of the association from his father, has been unnerved by his own wild allegation. And it is also possible that Sourav Ganguly, BCCIs president, had a quiet word with him.

Among his brother cricketers, few dared to stand up for Jaffer not his India captains Sachin Tendulkar, Ganguly and Rahul Dravid. Anil Kumble, his coaching partner at IPL team KXIP, was one of the few players who supported him, the others being Manoj Tiwary and Dodda Ganesh. Ajinkya Rahane, who has shared long partnerships with Jaffer for Mumbai, said he had no idea about the issue.

Jaffers prominent Mumbai teammates Sanjay Manjrekar known for often saying the right thing or Tendulkar kept their silence.

Clearly, even the God of cricket is not necessarily a good friend to a man in need. A good straight-drive doesnt make you a great human being.

Read more from the original source:
Sport transcends religion, leave it alone - The Tribune India

Julhas Alam, The Associated Press Published Wednesday, February 10, 2021 6:22AM EST

DHAKA, Bangladesh -- A special tribunal in Bangladesh's capital on Wednesday sentenced to death eight Islamic militants for the 2015 killing of a publisher of books on secularism and atheism.

Anti-Terrorism Special Tribunal Judge Majibur Rahman announced the verdicts in a packed courtroom in the presence of six defendants. Another two, including sacked military official Sayed Ziaul Haque Zia, remain at large.

The judge had earlier issued arrest warrants for them. The prosecution said they belonged to the banned militant outfit Ansar al Islam.

In October 2015, suspected militants hacked to death Faisal Abedin Deepan of the Jagriti Prokashoni publishing house in a market near the Dhaka University. On the same day, another publisher, Ahmed Rashid Tutul, survived a near simultaneous attack also in Dhaka.

Both victims were publishers of Bangladeshi-American writer and blogger Avijit Roy, who also was hacked to death in February 2015 when he was returning from an annual book fair in Dhaka.

The judge said prosecutors were able to prove the charges against all the eight accused. He said they acted against free thinkers with a larger aim to destabilize the country.

Razia Rahman, Deepan's wife, expressed satisfaction with the verdict. The defence said they would appeal.

Tutul, who was severely wounded, flew to Nepal and ended up taking asylum in Norway with his family.

Yes, I just heard the news of the verdict. I wish we will one day come to know who is this former army officer Zia. Why he masterminded the attack and how he was patronized, Tutul told The Associated Press in a message from Norway. I think Bangladesh will seriously deal with the radical forces and get rid of them.

In 2015, several atheists, bloggers and foreigners were killed by suspected militants. A Dhaka bomb attack on Oct. 24, 2015, aimed at minority Shiite Muslims killed a teenager and injured more than 100 people.

Authorities say the broke the network of militants in a massive crackdown following a 2016 attack on a cafe in Dhaka in which 22 people, including 17 foreigners, died together with five assailants.

The Islamic State group had claimed responsibility for that and other attacks, but Bangladesh's government said that domestic groups were behind them and insisted that IS has no presence in the country.

Read the original:
Eight convicted in murder of atheist publisher in Bangladesh sentenced to death - CP24 Toronto's Breaking News

Nature documentaries like the BBCs Planet Earth, Blue Planet, and most recently, A Perfect Planet, are amazing masterpieces of modern videography, displaying creation in detail and majesty. Every creature soaring through the sky, or streaking through the deep, or thundering over the savannah exhibits power, beauty, and unmistakable purpose. David Attenboroughs grandfatherly narration and Hans Zimmers moving musical scores only add to the childlike awe these films induce.

All of which makes it even more odd when Attenborough declares that all of this glory lacks purpose, or that it arose by chance and natural selection, and that none of it bears witness to any meaning or Mind beyond itself.

A recent article on atheism, also from across the pond, reminded me of this contradiction. In The Guardian, Harriet Sherwood described a new project from the University of Kent that seeks to discover whether disbelieving in God makes people less spiritual overall. According to the projects authors, atheism doesnt necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena. Nor do unbelievers lack for a sense of purpose, despite lacking anything to ascribe ultimate meaning to [in] the universe.

In the article, Sherwood profiled several unbelievers, from an agnostic to a free thinker to Positivist pastor and Satanic priest (who makes it clear he doesnt believe in a literal Satan). All of them insist that life can be deeply meaningful and even moral without God.

We can determine for ourselves what is meaningful, said one. The meaning of life, suggested one woman, is to make it the best experience you can, to spread love to those around you. Beauty and tradition are at the core of my philosophy, said another. One self-identified atheistic Jew explained, Being part of a religious community offers music, spirituality and relationshipsit reminds me Im on a journey to understand myself better and motivates me to help others.

Hearing outspoken unbelievers proclaim that meaning and morality arent accidents is about as jarring as hearing David Attenborough proclaim that the worlds most amazing creatures areaccidents.There is an inability of atheists to let go of the transcendent.

In his book, Miracles, C.S. Lewis wrote about the passionate moral activism of a famous atheist of his day, H.G. Wells. Moments after men like Wells admit that good and evil are illusions, Lewis said, you will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, to revolutionise, liquidate, live and die for the good of the human race.

But how do unbelievers, naturalists as Lewis calls them, account for such ideas? Certainly, nature is no help. If thoughts of meaning and morality find their origin in arrangements of atoms in our brains, then they can no more be called true, Lewis observed, than can a vomit or a yawn.

Lewis concludes that when Wells and other unbelievers say we ought to make a better world, they have simply forgotten about their atheism. That is their glory, he concludes. Holding a philosophy which excludes humanity, they yet remain human. At the sight of injustice, they throw all their Naturalism to the winds and speak like men and like men of genius. They know far better than they think they know.

Id love to ask the people behind masterpieces like Planet Earth, or the unbelievers profiled in The Guardian, about this contradiction. Years ago, I had a similar conversation with a woman I was seated beside on an airplane. She had very strong moral opinions about all kinds of things, but scoffed at me, How can you believe in God! I gently asked her why she believed in right and wrong. It was a fun conversation, and it made me realize that it is possible to affirm the human gut-level intuition about beauty and wonder and morality, while questioning where all of those things come from.

And if you havent read Lewis masterful book Miracles, add it to the list. If its been a while, its worth revisiting. Fair warning: unbelievers should beware. As Lewis himself said, A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.

Publication date: February 5, 2021

Photo courtesy: GettyImages/Boonyachoat

BreakPointis a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can't find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.

John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host of BreakPoint, a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN),and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.

See the original post:
Meaning and Morality Without God: Atheists Know Better Than They Think - Christianheadlines.com

There are always changes of leadership in the non-profit world. Weve seen quite a bit of it in the insular world of organized atheism. But this one hits me personally.

Roy Speckhardt, the executive director of the American Humanist Association, is stepping down from his position after 15 years at the helm (and 20 years with the organization). Ive known him ever since I became involved in this (loose) community nearly two decades ago, and hes been a consistent voice of reason in a community that often claims that word but doesnt always deserve it.

It would be hard to describe all the ways hes shaped how people see Secular Americans in a more inclusive, positive light but I would just point out that he helped steer the formation of the Secular Coalition for America (a lobbying group in D.C.), oversaw a legal team that argued in front of the Supreme Court, and helped convince Rep. Jared Huffman to go public with his humanism.

I suspect there are very few long-term activists in our community who havent worked with him, directly or indirectly, at some point. Were all better off because of that.

So why step down now?

While there are always multiple factors in a decision like this, one reason stands out.

Speckhardt acknowledges that the atheist world remains a predominantly white cis male one thats certainly still the stereotype and one way to change that is making sure women, LGBTQ individuals, and people of color are in positions of power. Speckhardt has routinely elevated those voices within the AHA, but ultimately, hes always been the guy at the top of the pyramid. Hes the one who gets quoted in the media, for example, by virtue of his position.

So as he leaves his post, hes urging the AHA board to give strong consideration to replacements who arent like him, especially people of color since weve rarely seen them running atheist groups of this size. In a statement sent to me, he explained:

Being at the helm of such an organization as the AHA, whose mission is so critical to our times and whose influence far outstrips its size, was the greatest honor of my life, but Ive decided its time for me to step down and make room for new leadership. It is my emphatic hope that my seat is filled with a Black or Brown humanist because our movement has gone too long without such diversity at the helm and this would open the door for the AHA to truly achieve its potential as a humanist and anti-racist institution.

Obviously, the position is open to everyone who wants to apply. (The job is already listed on LinkedIn.) But its no small thing when the leader of one of the largest atheist groups in the country gives his board clear direction on how he believes they should move forward.

The current President of the AHA Board of Directors, Sunil Panikkath, said that Speckhardt will stay in his position until a new leader is selected.

Speckhardt hasnt announced his future plans just yet, though his next book, Justice Centered Humanism, will come out in April.

(Screenshot via YouTube)

Read this article:
A Humanist Leader Is Stepping Down and Hoping a Person of Color Will Replace Him - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

History and Background

One notable provision in the North Carolina State Constitution is under the section for eligibility for public office. Article 4, Section 8 states that any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God is disqualified from holding public office.

This constitutional clause is common in southern states. In fact, there are seven other states that share this law.

This comes off as a partisan issue, as the majority of atheists lean Democratic. This provision unfairly limits Democratic candidates. This is the only constitutional provision for qualifications for a political candidacy that is politically charged towards one side of the aisle or another.

Has There Been An Atheist in Office?

This has been one self-proclaimed atheist in public office in North Carolina history. Asheville city council member Cecil Bothwell served from 2009 to 2017. He did not place his hand on the Bible when being sworn in. He also left out so help me God when referring to upholding the U.S. and North Carolina constitution, but delivered the rest of the oath as written.

Is this Law Constitutional?

This law is in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Both atheism and the lack of religious belief are protected under the law in the same way religion is protected under the constitution. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no legal preference for religion over irreligion.

There is also the issue of separation of church and state. The separation of church and state has been a right of the people since the founding of America. It is in the first clause in the Bill of Rights, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Article 4 Section 8, prohibiting atheists from holding office, was written in 1868. This rule barring atheists from running was never honoring the founding of America and was never legal under the Constitution. Additionally, the US constitutional law is superior to state laws.

This was upheld in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an atheist who ran for office in Maryland, despite the state constitution banning it. This ruling banned religious tests for public office and was banned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961.

Why is it Still in the State Constitution?

So Article 4 Section 8 is constitutionally illegal, and cannot be enforced due to the Watkins decision.

However, amending the state constitution is a difficult process. It would require a two-thirds majority to amend the constitution, which is unlikely to happen any time soon as the Republicans hold the majority.

Republicans have no political incentive to remove this law. It has the potential to upset their political base well as having no benefits if removed. According to the Pew Research Center, Christians make up over 80% of the Republican party.

Additionally, it allows Republicans to scrutinize any atheists who run for office. Atheists are significantly more likely to be registered as Democrats with only 15% identifying as Republican.

Article 4 Section 8 was written in 1868, then was ruled illegal in 1961. The North Carolina State Constitution was last rewritten in 1971. This means this law was deliberately left in the state constitution despite being illegal and outdated.

Conclusion

Ironically enough, it is typical for those serving public office to swear on God when being sworn into office. Specifically, swearing to uphold this U.S. and state constitution. Although the separation of church and state is in the constitution under the first amendment.

This means this habit of swearing into office under God is in nature, hypocritical. Religion should never be a prerequisite for participation in government.

Read the original post:
Politics: North Carolina Political Landscape; Don't Believe In God? Guess You Can't Run for Office - The Appalachian Online

"Familiar" is usually not a favorable adjective in a movie review, but in the case of "The Little Things," it's not a criticism.

The thriller is familiar because it's the latest in a long line of Denzel Washington-mentors-a-younger-cop movies, and because its serial killer tropes have popped up many times in the post-"Seven" era: police flashlights piercing a dark room filled with forensic evidence, ironic R&B music from the '60s, neon-stained streets, a murder board packed with photos and clues.

None of these things will dazzle moviegoers with their originality, but they succeed at establishing a tense mood.

They also work because Washington, like Tom Hanks or Jessica Lange, is one of those actors whose connection to the audience is such that we'll follow him pretty much anywhere. I wish he'd test that more often (a comedy, maybe?) but he's adept at varying the specifics of the people he plays, all of whom have solid names like his moniker in "Little Things": Joe Deacon.

He's a decent guy (practically the first thing we see him do is scratch a mutt's back) with a dark secret (there's talk of how his obsession with a case got him exiled from Los Angeles) and a willingness to overlook his mentee's arrogance (the first thing Rami Malek's Sgt. Jim Baxter does is try to get Joe's car towed) if it'll help solve their case.

Washington makes Joe authoritative, intelligent and vaguely haunted, all of which tracks and positions him opposite the callow Baxter, who's written to be like a dog with a bone and who becomes even less nuanced in Malek's half-note performance.

They're trying to solve the grisly murders of young women in L.A., which a colleague compares to the recently solved Night Stalker killings (as evidenced by all the boxy cars, "Little Things" is set in the '90s).

There's intriguing character stuff here: Deacon is skilled at his work but not his life, talks to corpses in an effort to understand the killer and has stopped believing in God because of all the terrible stuff he's seen.

Deacon's atheism, though, is one of several strands in "Little Things" that are left to unravel. Writer/director John Lee Hancock's script is studded with oblique references to religious extremism among Baxter's colleagues, who used to be Deacon's colleagues, but it's unclear what the movie is trying to say about that or if it's somehow related to the enigmatic ending, which is deliberately unsatisfying in the way the justice system also sometimes leaves us unfulfilled.

Initially, I didn't love that ending. But the more I sit with "The Little Things," the more I appreciate the way Hancock leaves his conclusion messy, emphasizing the trauma left in the wake of violence and positioning the reveal of its debilitating effects as one final lesson from Washington to Malek.

Chris Hewitt 612-673-4367

out of four stars

Rating: R for violence, nudity and language.

Where: In theaters and on HBO Max.

The rest is here:
In 'The Little Things,' Denzel Washington tracks another killer, and it's another good movie - Minneapolis Star Tribune