atheist – RI Future

May 22, 2014May 24, 2014

Sheldon Whitehouse keynote speaker at Secular Summit

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

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse at Forward on Climate rally

Rhode Island’s own Senator Sheldon Whitehouse will be addressing an audience made up of atheists, agnostics, Humanists, freethinkers and other nontheistic Americans at high noon on Friday, June 13th in Washington DC for the 2014 Secular Summit & Lobby Day, according to the Secular Coalition for America (SCA), the group holding the event. The SCA was founded to “increase the visibility of and respect for nontheistic viewpoints in the United States, and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all,” according to its mission statement. Locally, the organization is endorsed by the Humanists of Rhode Island.

Senator Whitehouse is an excellent choice for speaker at an event where the participants will be more concerned with science and facts than with religion and theology. Whitehouse has taken a strong stand on the dangers of climate change (as should be expected of a Senator from the “Ocean” State) and has maintained a pro-science stance on the issue. He famously rebuked Republican lawmakers who believe that Climate Change is unimportant because “God won’t allow us to ruin our planet” just over a year ago in one of his “Time to Wake Up” speeches, asking,

We are to continue to pollute our Earth, with literally megatons each year of carbon, heating up our atmosphere, acidifying our seas, knowing full well by His natural laws what the consequences are, and instead of correcting our own behavior, we’re going to bet on a miracle? That’s the plan?

Sheldon Whitehouse is not an atheist. He identifies as an Episcopalian, and speaking before an audience of Humanists and atheists is bound to get some people inappropriately riled up. The local chapter of the SCA, the Secular Coalition of Rhode Island, as well as the Humanists of Rhode Island and many more unaffiliated atheists, agnostics, Humanists and freethinkers appreciate the Senator’s appearance at the event.

Note: I am the president of the Humanists of Rhode Island and on the board of the Secular Coalition for Rhode Island.

May 13, 2014May 13, 2014

John DePetro’s tacit antisemitism

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

“The people have won. The atheists have lost! The people have won. The atheists have lost,” crowed John DePetro as he began broadcasting last Tuesday, May 6th, about the Supreme Court decision Greece v. Galloway that ruled that the “practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

Was DePetro’s contention that the Supreme Court decision was a victory of “people” over atheists (not “people”) a fair or complete assessment? Given DePetro’s penchant for playing rather loosely with reality, you probably know the answer. But there was an odious undercurrent to DePetro’s celebratory monologuing that morning, a strain of something far darker and more historically dangerous. As DePetro celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision as a victory for Christianity over atheism, he was also celebrating a victory of Christianity over Judaism.

Susan Galloway, who is named in the case, is Jewish, not an atheist. Linda Stephens, her co-plaintiff, is an atheist. The pair were represented not by the ACLU, but by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, among other Jewish organizations, filed amicus briefs. If the decision can be celebrated as a victory of “the people” over atheists, it can equally be celebrated as a victory of “the people” over Jews. Moreover, the Supreme Court split along religious lines, as all “five justices in the majority were Catholics, and three out of the four dissenters were Jewish.”

Imagine if DePetro had declared this ruling as a victory of Catholics over Jews. We would have immediately recognized such speech as hateful bigotry. Why is it different when he goes after atheists?

Cranston City Councillor Michael Farina spoke* to Gene Valicenti that morning, and DePetro used the clip endlessly on his show. Farina said, “We don’t typically try to push religion on anybody in the city. That doesn’t mean we can’t. This ruling, I think, will give us the ability, if we wanted to say a brief prayer, we could.”

Which prompted DePetro to say, “You would think that this idiot in Cranston would implement [prayer] right away, instead of cowering like the cowards they are, to the ACLU and the atheists” and “Cranston is the worst. First they fold to the ACLU and the atheists with the banner, and now they’re ‘Oh, we’re not pushing religion.’ No one is pushing religion.”

Try this experiment. Replace the word ‘atheists’ with ‘Jews.’ After all, a Jewish woman was at least 50% responsible for bringing this case, and many Jewish groups were involved.

“Cranston is the worst. First they fold to the ACLU and the Jews with the banner, and now they’re ‘Oh, we’re not pushing religion.’ No one is pushing religion.”

“You would think that this idiot in Cranston would implement it right away, instead of cowering like the cowards they are, to the ACLU and the Jews.”

Using the Greece v. Galloway decision as an opportunity to attack atheists reveals Depetro’s ugly bigotry. By neglecting the facts of the case, and pretending the case was brought entirely by atheists, DePetro omitted the fact that many religious minorities and including Jewish Americans, are equally marginalized by such prayers.

Ignoring the opinions and even the very existence of Jewish Americans involved in this court decision is tacit, if not overt antisemitism. I would be interested in hearing DePetro explain exactly how atheists are “mean spirited individuals” for bringing this lawsuit but Jews are not. I’d be interested in hearing John DePetro explain the opening words of his broadcast, “The people have won. The atheists have lost! The people have won. The atheists have lost!” in such a way as to dismiss the humanity of the atheist woman who brought the suit but not the humanity of the Jewish woman involved.

Atheists according to DePetro, are not people. Following DePetro’s logic, neither are Jews, or any other religious minority, for that matter. After a while, one wonders if there is any group, aside from rich, white, non-union Catholic males, that DePetro considers worthy of consideration and humanity.

John DePetro is contemptible.

You can listen to the entirety of his comments on Greece v. Galloway below.

*When will people learn that there is no difference between going on WPRO News and WPRO Talk? Did Cranston City Councillor Michael Farina know that his soundbite for the Gene Valicenti newscast was going to be played relentlessly by DePetro, or that DePetro would spend a half hour of showtime calling him an idiot? How often do I have to point this out?

May 7, 2014May 8, 2014

Ceremonial prayer violates the conscience of everyone

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

A few days ago the Supreme Court gave a thumbs up to government sanctioned Christian prayers taking place before secular government meetings. For nonbelievers and believers alike, this was a disappointing decision.

To many millions of people, prayer is an important part of their lives. It can be a meditative and calming practice, and a direct path to accessing the mind and grace of a God. It can be a deeply moving process of extreme intimacy and importance.

Ceremonial prayer, by contrast, has long been acknowledged as religiously meaningless. As Justice Kennedy says in his decision,

Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be under stood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Such prayers are not attempts to secure the favor of a God, they are merely acknowledgments of the fact that some people can’t perform ordinary tasks without first rooting themselves in the mythology of their ancestors. If the prayers were true attempts to contact a God, then they would run afoul of the Supreme Court decision. The prayers, in the context of government meetings, must be ceremonial, or they become illegal.

This state of affairs poses the true believer an ethical dilemma. When participating in the prayer, the true believer must go through all the motions of prayer without actually engaging in real prayer. They must, in effect, pretend to be praying, because the kind of prayer permitted by law must be ceremonial by nature. (Now, this is doubly confusing from an atheist perspective, because prayer is viewed as attempted communication with an imaginary being. The law now mandates that believers pretend to attempt communication with an imaginary being, which just seems a step too far.)

People of many religious faiths might take exception to the idea that they must, for secular purposes, play-act elements of their faith in a secular public forum. Some take their religion very seriously, and to perform prayer cermonially may violate their conscience. These people, when confronted with such a dilemma, might pray for real, not just pretend to. In such cases, even though it will be impossible to prove or to demonstrate, the First Amendment will be violated, according to the Supreme Court.

Some people of faith will therefore have an impossible decision: They can either betray their God by falsely praying or betray their country by truly praying, an impossible conundrum the concept of separating church and state was invented to avoid. The First Amendment was born out of a desire to protect the conscience of American citizens. In this respect, Greece versus Galloway was a very unfortunate decision for religious believers.

Atheists and Humanists by comparison, won’t have it that bad. Would we have preferred to have ceremonial prayer simply done away with? Certainly. We do not want to feel pressured to violate our consciences by pretending to pray. We don’t like the idea that when we show up at a legislative hearing to plead our case that we can immediately be marked as outsiders because we refuse to participate in the prayer.

A different outcome in Greece v. Galloway would have protected the consciences of the nonreligious and religious alike, but Kennedy’s decision contains the interesting caveat that ceremonial prayer must always be done “with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs.” The decision also mandates that the prayers do not “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion.” Finally, local governments must make “reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders” and welcome an invocation by anyone who wishes to give one, regardless of their faith.

This means that the State of Rhode Island, as well as all its cities and towns, must open their ceremonial prayer process to “all of the congregations located within its borders” and this includes, for purposes of the law, nonbelievers. Already the American Humanist Association has started a registry for people certified to do secular invocations. Humanists and atheists across the country are signing up, ready to enter town halls and other legislative bodies with the intention of offering ceremonial platitudes that do not “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion.”

We already have at least two Humanists/atheists ready to deliver ceremonial invocations in Rhode Island, and we’ll have many more lined up soon.

May heaven help those who try to stop us.*

*not an actual prayer

April 21, 2014

Governor Chafee proclaims May 1st ‘Day of Reason’

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

For the second year in a row Governor Lincoln Chafee, at the request of the Humanists of Rhode Island and the Secular Coalition of Rhode Island, has declared May 1st the “Day of Reason.”

The United States is a product of the Age of Reason. As humanity faces economic and ecological uncertainty, we should remember that it is through the power of reason that we will overcome these challenges. Reason has cured disease, given us wonderful technologies and philosophical insights, and has allowed peace and prosperity to bloom. Rejecting reason leads to human suffering.

Though this observance is held in parallel with the National Day of Prayer, on the first Thursday in May each year, the goal of this effort is to celebrate reason- a concept all citizens can support- and to raise public awareness about the persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship.

Governor Chafee has twice declared May 1st to be the Day of Reason, and the groups that have made this request hope that the next governor will be equally generous with support for our efforts. The Day of Reason extolls extolls a value almost everyone holds dear.

Almost everyone. Some people make a living being unreasonable, bombastic idiots:

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.