atheism – RI Future

December 24, 2014December 29, 2014

The war on secularism

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

For his last Christmas in office before handing the reigns of government over to Gina Raimondo, Governor Lincoln Chafee mostly avoided the idiotic lambasting he has received in previous years over his decision to refer to the large decorated evergreen placed in the State House rotunda as a “Holiday Tree” rather than a “Christmas Tree.” Locally speaking, the annual “War on Christmas” was relatively quiet this year, mostly, I believe, because of the election and because of the attention being given to the #BlackLivesMatter protests.

As president of the Humanists of Rhode Island, I waited until the day after the election to formally request a spot in the State House for our Roger Williams banner. This banner, placed for the first time in the State House last year, has been relegated to a spot on the second floor of the State House, in an area designated for displays by local ethnic and civic groups.

The idea of such an area is to allow a “free speech zone,” a place for symbols and ideas of a religious nature to be displayed on public property. In this way has the law evolved so that the separation of church and state may be violated. Here you will find all sorts of statements and displays about religion. There are mangers and baby ~~Jesuses~~ Jesii?, Christmas trees and icons of saints. In fact, far from being a public space free of religious endorsements, the State House has become a public space chock full of religious endorsements: Christian, Jewish, atheist and other.

This is why I don’t call the battles over such displays a “War on Christmas.” These battles should more properly be called a “War on Secularism,” and we are all losing. None of these displays belong in a public building, with the possible exception of the Humanists of Rhode Island’s exceptionally designed banner which celebrates the birth of Roger Williams and the separation of church and state, which has secular, historical and seasonal value, but no religion.

But the law is the law, and it’s unlikely to change anytime soon, so those with a secular and non-believing outlook will be compelled to at least balance the religious views on displays with their own for the foreseeable future.

There is one big problem though. Humanists, atheists and all non-Christians and non-Jews are victims of viewpoint discrimination, an illegal process where the opinions and ideas of certain religious groups are prioritized over others. Certain groups are routinely being given better placement in the State House, garnering their displays greater visibility than others, which gives these groups the appearance of favoritism.

What I’m talking about is the placement of the Christmas Tree in the main rotunda. Governor Chafee was onto something when he called it a “Holiday Tree.” As a holiday tree, devoid of religious meaning, the tree could stand every year in the best, most visible location in the State House, and no one could make a case that their religion or non-religion was being discriminated against. But calling it a Christmas Tree means that Christian views are being prioritized by being given the favored spot, year after year.

The addition of a Hanukkah menorah, also always located in a favored spot just off the main rotunda, does little to make the situation better. Note that the menorah is never given the center spot, but is always off to the side. Note that the Christmas Tree is never moved to the side so that any other viewpoint might be displayed in its dominating place of honor.

The message the State of Rhode Island is sending is clear: Christians are #1, Jews are #2 (perhaps by virtue of the history, monotheism and holy texts they share with Christians) and all other view points are relegated to the second floor, where visitors must search them out.

This year I repeatedly asked that our banner be allowed to occupy some space on the main rotunda, either hung near the tree or displayed on a structure we would provide. My requests were ignored. When I said that I wanted a place on the main rotunda, I was told that I could have the space on the second floor or nothing.

This is wrong. The second floor is for second class citizens. First class citizens are given the main rotunda, given a state sanctioned lighting ceremony, and given the endorsement of our state government. This is a clear violation of the first amendment, and a clear message to non-Christians that this is a Christian state, run by and for Christians alone. The rest of us are simply tolerated.

Next year the Humanists of Rhode Island will once again demand placement on the main rotunda. We hope that Gina Raimondo does the right thing and allows our banner to be placed with the Christmas Tree.

Support Steve Ahlquist!

October 22, 2014

Can atheists be trusted in public office?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“I should emphasize that being an atheist would neither recommend nor disqualify [Jorge Elorza] from being Mayor of Providence,” said Bishop Thomas Tobin in a surprising, recent Facebook post, but before celebrating Tobin’s tolerance and openness, we should read on, “But I wonder if an atheist mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of believers (of all faiths) and to encourage and support the many contributions the faith community makes in our city and state.”

Thus, Tobin slyly implies that atheists are intolerant.

Put aside, for a moment, the idea that atheists may be more or less intolerant than a conservative, Republican, Catholic Bishop and ponder a moment what Tobin’s words would sound like if he were talking about group of people other than atheists.

“But I wonder if a Jewish mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of Christians (of all denominations) and to encourage and support the many contributions the Christian community makes in our city and state.”

“But I wonder if an Asian mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of citizens (of all races) and to encourage and support the many contributions non-Asian communities make in our city and state.”

“But I wonder if a woman mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of men and to encourage and support the many contributions men make in our city and state.”

“But I wonder if a Catholic mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of Protestants and to encourage and support the many contributions Protestants make in our city and state.”

A candidate’s religious convictions (or lack thereof) are not relevant to their fitness for office, unless those beliefs run contrary to the Constitution of the United States. Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution reads, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

If your religious beliefs run counter to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and you attempt to act on those beliefs in your official capacity as an elected official or judge, then you are unfit for office. Unless one has good reason to suspect that a candidate will not uphold the Constitution, questioning their fitness for office on the basis of religious belief or unbelief is bigotry, pure and simple.

September 16, 2014September 17, 2014

Cianci’s robocall peddles falsehoods and prejudice

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

How does a person who has twice embarrassed the great city of Providence by losing their job as mayor due to felony convictions convince people to give them a third chance to screw over the city? First, such a person must hold such a low opinion of the voting public that they seriously think of themselves as a viable candidate. Second, the candidate must then do everything they can to paint their opponent as something worse than someone who has twice been caught violating the public’s trust.

Vincent Cianci has attempted to solve this unique problem by branding his opponent, Jorge Elorza, as an atheist eager to impose his disbelief in God on unsuspecting children in our public schools. In a robocall delivered to those Providence area homes that still have landlines, listeners were given the following false choice:

Buddy Cianci believes that there needs to be a separation of church and state and teaching about God’s existence, or non-existence, has no place in our public schools. Who do you agree with? Press “1” if you agree with Cianci that teaching about God’s existence or non-existence, does not belong in schools. Press “2” if you agree with Jorge Elorza that it would be acceptable to teach in schools that there is no God.

Cianci’s robocall is referencing a paper from 2010 in which Elorza speculates on the limits of secularity in public schools. In this paper, Elorza is careful to outline three different ways in which to understand God, theist, deist and memist. At the end of his paper Elorza concludes that schools could theoretically teach that the theist God does not exist, but that the deist and memist Gods would be constitutionally protected. Says Elorza,

Deism allows for individuals to search for answers to the transcendental and ultimate questions of life. And memism allows for people to live according to any particular moral code and to worship God as they see fit. The core features that give religion its special significance in people’s lives remain entirely intact.

Elorza’s paper was a philosophical and legalistic think piece, not a policy paper for the advancement of atheist ideals. Nowhere in this paper does Elorza seek to oppose the protections of the First Amendment or violate the tenet of separation of church and state. Cianci’s robocall is a crass attempt to divide people on religious grounds, playing on our prejudices and fears.

On this site, I speculated, in response to Elorza’s paper, that Elorza might be an atheist, and I chided the candidate for unfairly characterizing his paper as a defense against “angry atheists” during a debate with Michael Solomon on Channel 12. Elorza may or not be an atheist. Cianci may or may not be a Catholic. In truth, the religious beliefs of the candidates do not matter. What matters is character, and an assessment of the previous actions of the candidates as pertains to how they may perform in the future.

By this measure, Cianci is the clear loser. Twice convicted of serious crimes performed while in office, Cianci has twice demonstrated his inability to lead this city. His candidacy for a third go at the job is an insult to the voters of Providence, and his robocall demonstrates the depths of his dishonesty.

Jorge Elorza is the clear choice for mayor of Providence.

September 4, 2014September 6, 2014

Is Jorge Elorza an atheist?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Providence mayoral candidate Jorge Elorza was a law professor at Roger Williams University when he wrote his 2010 University of Pittsburgh Law Review article “Secularism and the Constitution: Can Government Be Too Secular?” In this legal paper Elorza claims, “science has disconfirmed the claim that the theist God has the power to violate the laws of physics” and that in a public school setting, “teaching that the theist God does not exist would not violate any of the underlying values” of the religious clause of the first amendment. In other words, it might be permissible, says Elorza, for public schools to teach that certain kinds of gods do not exist.

In his paper Elorza demonstrates a good deal of knowledge about the so-called new atheism, quoting extensively from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, but he also mines popular works of science, such as Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene and Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe. This is all part of an effort to “engage the literature from various scientific disciplines and reveal the extent to which religious claims have been successfully debunked by science.”

Elorza claims that there “are four views of God that cover the entire spectrum: the theist, deist, atheist, and what I call the memist view.” The deist position is that God is a creator who set the universe in motion and currently plays no active role in the universe. This means, says Elorza, that there is no “scientific” difference between being an atheist (one who denies the existence of god) and being a deist. “…the disagreement between deists and atheists is of no consequence,” say Elorza.

A theist god, however, is more problematic. “The theist believes,” says Elorza, “that God is not only the spark that gave birth to the universe but that He has also intervened in the natural world and has violated the laws of physics since the point of creation.” This is the god that Elorza maintains cannot exist, and is disproved by science.

The last kind of god Elorza discusses is “memist.” “Based on the concept of the meme,” says Elorza, “the memist God resides entirely in the minds of its adherents.” For a definition of this kind of god, Elorza turns to The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, and James’ definition of the divine, “…the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.” The memist god, it seems, is the god in our head, and this is the one kind of god that is unquestionable real, because it is located within our minds, as a concept. “While the existence of both the deist and theist God can be called into question, the memist God most certainly exists!” declares Elorza.

Elorza seems to be arguing for the legal status of methodological naturalism, (a term he does not use in his paper) which is a requirement when engaging with the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is the assumption that miracles will not happen when scientists engage in experimentation, because science is the study natural laws, and miracles are by their supernatural nature violations. Differentiating between a theistic and atheistic world “is possible because a world with a theist God is fundamentally different than a world without one. In particular, a world without a theist God is one where natural phenomena may be understood as a gradual process over time. However, a world with a theist God that violates the laws of physics produces a world with ‘ontological discontinuities.’”

Still, Elorza’s ultimate conclusion is that the elimination of the theist god from secular society and laws does not diminish religious protections. “While the memist God would have all of the powers to prescribe a moral code as would the theist God, religious groups might object to the memist God on the grounds that it does not have a divine source. Since it is contained entirely in the human mind, it may be believed that its stature is comparatively diminished in relation to either the deist or theist God. However, I argue that even though it does not have a divine origin, religious adherents should take solace in the fact that this should not diminish its level of constitutional protection.”

In other words, even though science can show where your belief in god has come from, and even though there is no good reason to believe in your god, your belief is constitutionally protected.

Now this all sounds very much like the kind of paper an atheist might write. But when confronted about this paper by Ted Nesi during a televised debate with Democratic primary challenger Michael Solomon, Elorza backtracked. (.)

Ted Nesi: You wrote in a 2010 law review article that, quote, the evidence shows that it’s overwhelmingly unlikely that the theist God exists. Therefore, you wrote, it’s Constitutional to teach in public schools that, apparently, the God of Christianity and Judaism does not exist. Why do you believe that, and would you seek to implement that in the Providence public schools?

Providence Mayoral Candidate Jorge Elorza: No, absolutely not….This is a 60 sixty page article, and it’s a special definition of what the theist God means. Effectively, I wrote this article because there are a number of quote-unquote angry atheists arguing that since evolution has proved true…God doesn’t exist. And I wrote this article to combat them and say that look, you might be right on this small slice, but everything else that God entails remains intact…I don’t seek to have this be taught in the public schools. This is a hypothetical that I laid out over 60 pages in an academic article.

TN: But you did write it’s unlikely that the theist God exists…Do you believe that yourself, or are you saying this is what those scientists believe?

JE: As narrowly defined, within that article, then yes, I believe that. But that’s a very special definition. There is so much more to what God entails.

Why did Elorza mischaracterize his paper? “I wrote this article because there are a number of quote-unquote angry atheists arguing that since evolution has proved true…God doesn’t exist.” Yet the only kind of God that Elorza allows in his piece is one that exists in human minds, one without any external reality or divinity. Bringing up the “angry atheists” comes off as a dodge, and an insult to atheists. The only people Elorza mentions as being angry in his paper are theistic parents. “…in order to teach, over the objections of angry parents, that the theist God does not exist, the issue must be a well-settled scientific principle.”

The truth is that being an atheist is seen as a career killer for politicians seeking public office. The American Humanist Association’s Maggie Ardiente claims that 24 members of Congress have privately admitted to be atheists. However, if these politicians are outed, they will deny being atheists. Pew has pointed out that atheists are near the bottom (with Muslims) of the popularity poll with voters.

With public attitudes like these, it makes sense that Elorza might want to distance himself from his paper, which is a shame, because the paper really does argue for the kinds of religious and conscience protections the first amendment guarantees.

If Elorza is elected mayor of Providence, he would be the the highest ranking openly atheist elected official in the country.

But of course, he would first have to be open about his atheism.

September 30, 2013September 30, 2013

Atheist extremist?

“Without a doubt, there is no better example than Steve Ahlquist of an atheist on a crusade.”

-Travis Rawley, Catholic Extremist

ahlquist-150x150 Two different conservative, Catholic bloggers have taken me to task this week for my public advocacy of secularism, Humanism and atheism. On Channel 10 News Conference Justin Katz referred to me as an “atheist extremist” and in the same weekend Travis Rawley called me an “atheist agitator” and asked, “Why, again, is Steven Ahlquist even speaking?”

When one talks about extremism, whether in a religious or political context, one is usually referencing the subject’s proclivity towards resorting to violence. Muslim extremists might fly planes into buildings. We use the modifier “extremist” to differentiate these people from the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful, decent people. Christian extremists might shoot abortion doctors, and again, we use the modifier to differentiate these criminals from the vast majority of decent, peaceful Christians.

What exactly do “atheist extremists” do that differentiates them from average, peaceful atheists? Apparently they writes for RI Future, and espouse unpopular opinions about religion and religious privilege in our state. Sometimes they write letters or editorials to the Providence Journal, or go on television to defend and promote their views.

That’s it.

No body count and no death and destruction result from the actions of these atheist “extremists.” Just the peaceful and not so easily ignored voice of a growing number people who are pointing out that when it comes to religion and supernatural belief, “the emperor wears no clothes.”

In Rhode Island, conservative religious voices are extremely active and almost impossible to escape. They literally shook the dome of the State House in their fervor to oppose marriage equality this year, on two different occasions. The Catholic Church maintains at least one lobbyist to the General Assembly, a Catholic priest who also sometimes leads our legislators in prayer. With 113 seats in the General assembly, there is not one legislator that publicly identifies as atheist or Humanist. On talk radio avowed Catholics John DePetro and Dan Yorke entertain Bishop Thomas Tobin as a frequent guest. Tobin is the local leader of a church that claims 44% of Rhode Island’s population as members. A free news-monthly, Good News Today, claims a circulation of 16,000 and there are two entire channels on Cable Access devoted to religious broadcasting.

Given the multitude of voices extolling the putative virtues of faith, supernaturalism and religion, why do so many conservative voices worry about the comparatively few voices, like mine, that advocate for reason, naturalism and secularism? Some think that religious believers are afraid of the truth, that their faith is weaker than they pretend it is and that plagued by doubts, religious believers secretly worry that atheists might just be right, and that there really is no God.

I disagree with that assessment. Right now, the only real critique of conservative religious values and their corrosive effect on our political discourse is coming from progressive atheists, Humanists and liberal religionists who are unafraid to speak up. The critiques generated by progressive atheists do not speak so much to policy as they do to the very foundations of conservative religious philosophies, rejecting outright such theological ideas as original sin and human depravity, doctrines of salvation and and the existence of natural law as a foundation for our ethics.

Rejection of these religious ideas have implications for our society when it comes to dealing with poverty, crime, punishment versus rehabilitation, birth control, marriage rights, public schools, medical care and virtually any other politically contested issue, including all human rights.

If, as conservative bloggers and commenters maintain, I am indeed an extremist and agitator, then so is every person in Rhode Island who has ever written a blog post, appeared on radio or television, written a letter to the editor or commented on the web about any religious or political issue. If we really want words to have meaning and value, we should use them carefully and avoid such loaded terminology.

August 29, 2013

Atheists convene in Boston this Labor Day weekend

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

People might be surprised to learn that just as there are many different ways to believe in all the different religions and gods currently in vogue, there are also many different ways to not believe. There are atheists, new atheists, confrontationists, accomodationists, Humanists, secular humanists, religious humanists, Ethical Culturalists, freethinkers, Brights, naturalists, strong and weak agnostics and many, many more. Every major religion can count among its devotees those who doubt or plainly disbelieve the teachings of their church, synagog or mosque. One poll suggests that 15% of Catholics don’t believe in God, but most of them don’t identify as atheists, they call themselves Catholics.

There are many different organizations that seek to cater to the concerns of nonbelievers, just as there are many different organizations (we call them churches or religions) that cater to believers. Those looking for simple answers and easy labels will be frustrated.

This weekend in Boston one such group, the Atheist Alliance of America (AAA), will be holding their annual convention just outside Boston at the Westin Waltham Boston Hotel. First formed in 1991 as the Atheist alliance, the group quickly expanded, becoming the Atheist Alliance International (AAI). In 2010 and 2011 the AAA and the AAI became two separate organizations. The AAI is positioning itself as a group to deal with international concerns while the AAA focuses its efforts here in the United States.

The convention in Waltham/Boston starts Friday night and continues throughout the labor day weekend. Sunday night’s speaker will be “renowned scientist, esteemed researcher and noted author” Dr. Steven Pinker of Harvard University. Another notable guest will be Rebecca Vitsmun, who, when in the aftermath of a tornado that wrecked her home was asked by Wolf Blitzer live on CNN if she thanked the Lord for her survival said, “I’m actually an atheist.”

Other guest include Rebecca Hale, president of the American Humanist Association, Maryam Namazie, and Iranian born atheist and feminist, Paula S Apsell, executive producer of NOVA for PBS, and many more guests local, national and international. A full list of speakers is available on the conventions website.

I’ll be attending the convention and will be recording and writing about the various speakers and programs thanks to AAA President Chuck VonDerAhe. It promises to be an interesting weekend.

August 23, 2013

NecronomiCon Keynote Address: Lovecraft was an atheist

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Dr Stanley Lemons, the church historian for the First Baptist Church in America on 75 North Main St. here in Providence, Rhode Island opened the NecronomiCon with a short yet fascinating talk about H.P. Lovecraft and his relationship with the church.

Dr. Lemons told of a young Lovecraft, who, “Hated this church, but… loved this building.”

Clarifying, Lemons explained that Lovecraft had decided to quit the church by age five and had become an atheist by age eight. That’s right, Rhode Island, this weekend we are celebrating the accomplishments of one of Rhode Island’s leading atheists.

Of course, Lovecraft’s atheism is somewhat nihilistic and existential, a far cry from some of the more optimistic and Humanistic atheism I might champion. Still the government Roger Williams established here 350 years ago helped guarantee freedom of and freedom from religion for all shades of belief and non-belief.

You can view Lemons full talk below, followed S.T. Joshi’s keynote address in which he talks about the long and tortured history of Lovecraft’s literary reputation. In the middle of Joshi’s speech is the surprise appearance of Lovecraft’s ghost, banging out “Yes, We Have no Bananas” on the church organ.

This is going to be a fun weekend.

January 13, 2012January 13, 2012

Girl at the Center of the Cranston “Prayer Banner” Case targeted by Cyber-Bullies

Upfront let me say that I am proud to be an uncle to the amazing Jessica Ahlquist, the student who two days ago won her case against the City of Cranston over an unconstitutional “prayer banner” on display at her school. It was not only a victory for Jessica, but a victory for everyone in this country who values the Constitution, freedom of conscience, and our secular society. Founder Roger Williams based the government of Rhode Island on these principles, establishing the first secular government in history and the freest land in the world at the time.

From time to time, of course, we need reminding of our history and of the importance of our Constitutional rights, and Jessica did so with a grace and poise not often found in people well older than her.

That’s why it’s so difficult to talk about the threats and cyber-bullying that she has been exposed to since the verdict came down. One website provided a long list of screenshots of these, and they are truly deplorable.

“shes not human shes garbage”

“I think everyone should just fight this girl”

“I’ll drop anchor on her face”

“Let’s all jump that girl who did the banner”

“When I take over the world I’m going to do a holacaust to all the atheists”

“i cant wait to hear about you getting curb stomped”

“everyone is going to beat you up prob”

“what a little bitch lol I wanna snuff her”

This from people defending a Christian Prayer on the wall of a public school. A prayer that says, in part:

“Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,”

That’s irony.

To the credit of the Cranston School Committee, when I contacted them with my concerns, they were quick to assure me that the Cranston Police have been investigating these threats since last night, and that they are taking this issue very seriously.

Cranston School Committee Chairperson Andrea Iannazzi admits being troubled by what she has seen but “will not break confidentiality by discussing students behavior or discipline…” Which is fine, because most of this bullying behavior and threats come from minors, and as long as appropriate action is taking place, all should be well. Also responding were Steve Bloom, Frank Lombardi, and committee member McFarland. Cranston Superintendent of Schools Nero is aware of the situation, as is Assistant Superintendent Judy Lundsten.

As a parent, an uncle, and a citizen of Rhode Island, I am glad that the situation is being addressed in a forthright and professional manner. Title 16-21, concerning the Health and Safety of Students, defines bullying as “the use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof directed at a student that… places the student in reasonable fear of harm to himself/herself…” or “creates an intimidating, threatening, hostile, or abusive educational environment for the student…”

As an atheist Jessica is part of a minority that is currently under attack at her school. If she were black, Jewish or gay there would be a huge outcry against her being treated in this manner. Given that our society is, at its best, concerned with the health and safety of all our children, I am pleased by the prompt action Cranston city officials seem to be taking.

Update 2:00 PM:

The Providence Journal has picked up the story from Rhode Island’s Future here.

January 11, 2012January 11, 2012

Ron Paul no Friend to the Non-Religious

So last night Ron Paul gave a rousing speech in New Hampshire after he lost the primary there. He went on and on about FREEDOM of course, his supporters apparently unconcerned that Paul’s concept of freedom does not include a woman’s right to choose, many forms of birth control or laws that protect freedom, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul’s idea of FREEDOM is strictly a kind of faux free market libertarianism. Rousing the libertarian base, he claims that all problems will be solved by the free market. For instance, if you get really sick, and your health care doesn’t cover a procedure, the free market allows you to find a charity, enter indentured servitude, or die.

Problem solved.

But Paul did something unusual last night. In fact, as Republican candidates go he did something almost unheard of. The candidate obliquely mentioned Atheists and their right not to practice religion. Here’s the link to that part of his speech.

Paul may play the role of a libertarian ideologue, but he’s no fool. He knows that the youth support he enjoys because of his anti-war and anti-war on drugs policies sports the fastest growing non-religious population in the country. His speeches about FREEDOM resonate with that crowd, and indeed he can be a compelling speaker, but is Paul being honest with the crowds about his true beliefs?

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Ron Paul may be a closeted Christian Fundamentalist of the worst kind. As Alternet reported:

A common misconception about the Ron Paul agenda is that he is a libertarian who just wants to let all humans live as they please. But Ron Paul is no libertarian; if not a Christian Reconstructionist himself, he is truly the best enabler a Reconstructionist could hope to have.

Ron Paul seeks to shrink the federal government to minimal size not because it intrudes in the lives of individuals, but because it stands in the way of allowing the states and localities to enact laws as they see fit — even laws that govern people’s behavior in their bedrooms.

I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, including the bit where Paul spoke to the openly segregationist John Birch Society, and revealed that he is entirely able to speak their language. Paul enjoys the support of such racist groups as Stormfront, as reported by Katha Pollitt at NPR:

No wonder they love him over at Stormfront, a white-supremacist website with neo-Nazi tendencies. In a multiple-choice poll of possible effects of a Paul presidency, the most popular answer by far was “Paul will implement reforms that increase liberty which will indirectly benefit White Nationalists.”

Atheists love it when they get mentioned in the larger political sphere. But we should be careful who we support and why. Religious opponents of atheism love to pull out the lie that Stalin, Mao and Hitler were motivated to murder and genocide by their lack of supernatural belief. Do we really want to reinforce that stereotype by supporting a man with racist, homophobic and misogynistic views, just because he uses the right buzzwords and tosses us the occasional shout out?

Hell no.