Sounds to me like you are self-centered egotists that think you are bigger than God! Wake up and smell the Starbucks...If you would not live to see tomorrow, are you ready to meet your maker? Honestly...think about it! You can't get something from nothing! American's True Clown - www.clownconceptual.com
Red Clown Fred November 29, 2004
Just wanted to say I loved the article:
Where Are the Moral Believers? Guy P. Harrison
KAC
Kenny A. Chaffin November 26, 2004
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! As a feminist, atheist--and above all--a human being, I am dismayed at the "religious" and "moral" overtones that are currently dominating U.S. culture. I understand that religion can be a positive force in the lives of some people, and I'm truly happy for them. However, my own life is just as fulfilling WITHOUT religion. Therefore, I'm thrilled that I've finally found an organization that supports open-minded and free-thinking individuals, and is aware these people are also citizens of the United States.
Laurie Berkshire November 22, 2004
Re the "Scale of Doubt Quiz" on p. 52 of December's Free Inquiry, I was thrown by two of the questions:
3. Is there an identifiable force coursing through the universe, holding it together or uniting all life forms? Sure, there's gravitation.
12. Do you believe the world is not completely knowable by science? Well, maybe yes, but I don't believe there's any _other_ way to know anything about it.
Ted Cloak November 22, 2004
Congratulations to Paul Kurtz for great article "Is America a Post-democratic Society." Unfortunately I think it is but may yet be reclaimable.
Selden R. Strong November 21, 2004
Regarding Carl Coon's article in the Dec 2004 issue of Free Inquiry: Humanism and the UN: A Shared Future? Although I agree with Mr. Coon's vision for associating the cause of Humanism with an international institution such as the UN, at the moment the UN appears to be the antithesis of The Affirmations of Humanism and humanists may be more correct to attack the UN with all the viciousness of a FOX news manly-man. If the UN's role in the unfolding 'Iraq food for oil' scandal is even half of what it appears to be then the UN is our enemy, not our ally, and Kofi Annan should be impeached not emulated. Time will tell, but at the moment it certainly appears that the UN knowingly sabotaged the non-violent approach to dealing with Saddam so they could line their pockets with gold while countless Iraqis suffered and died in that tortured country.
Bill Hahm November 21, 2004
Regarding Wendy Kaminer's America's Fear Factor, I couldn't agree more with the author. I worked for the Kerry campaign in Ohio as communications liaison. On election night, I was interviewed by an Austrian tv crew covering the election.
I was asked, "why so many Americans support president Bush?"... I began giving a long explanation, but then I paused and said, "if you want a sound bite...it's because too many Americans are afraid of terrorism and of burning in hell!"
George Picoulas November 17, 2004
I'm confused. The whole premise of secular humanism is the joyous proclamtion that mankind should be independant of God because God doesn't exist, right? But what alarms me is the dedicated focus that there is no God. It seems contrary to me to spend that much time asserting that there is no God if there were in fact, no omnipotent presence. Thats' like me stating, "There are no purple, flying elephants. I'm mad that people believe there are purple, flying elephants! I'm going to devote all my time to showing you that there are no purple, flying elephants." Why not, just simply, not believe and leave it at that? Tell me what you think about this. I'm fascinated by Humanism and it's tenets that seem to transcend the meta-physical. Humanism seems to be taking steps towards itself being a religion. Please write back to let me know where we are going with this.
Andrew, October 26, 2004
If you ever come across anyone that not only believes in purple elephants, but also believes that purple elephants inspire him to engage in holy wars, genocide, sexism, homophobia, intolerance, terrorism, xenophobia, slavery, etc., please let us know. We would be happy to challenge any such belief system.
The problem is that many people believe that theism is relatively harmless. However, theism has consequences, many of which are downright catastrophic. Moreover, we cannot effectively combat the consequences of these harmful practices without constantly challenging a major root of the problems, i.e., theism. Conversely, a belief in purple elephants causes no great threat to any plant or animal--including elephants--as far as we can tell.
Secular humanism is a non-theistic life stance. We do not encourage secular humanists to worship living or non-living things, ideas, etc. On the contrary, unlike most religions, we want to have our ideas examined and debated. Unlike most houses of worship, our speakers are always questioned and, in many cases, challenged by members of the audience.
To call secular humanism a religion is problematic to say the least. It is a good idea to allow people define themselves in any way they see fit, as long as they are not being woefully inaccurate or intellectually dishonest. We prefer to identify our conception of secular humanism as a life stance because that is a useful, accurate, and intellectually honest label.
I wish to say to Paul Kurtz that his coining of the term "euraxtroposy" is not likely to succeed. It won't do as much damage as the "Brights" fiasco did, but it just reinforces the idea that secular humanists are arrogant intellectuals.
Keep the common touch.
John Finch, October 8, 2004
While it is true that Islam is a deadly threat to freedom of life, freedom of thought, and freedom of belief, one needs to realize that Islam is merely the most "authentic" version, the most unrefomable version, of the whole biblical tradition. When we criticize Islam for its fanaticism and evil practices we really are avoiding recognizing that in criticizing Islam we are really criticizing Judaism and Christianity, but in an acceptable, bien-pensant way.
Norman Ravitch, September 28, 2004
Wow, great website. It's nice to know that not ALL of mankind is doomed to live and remain in the dark ages, entrenched in the absurd and utterly illogical superstitions of supernatural mysticism (in other words, religion and 'faith'). Keep up the great work.
David, September 19, 2004
I just read your Christopher Hitchens interview. I realize this is an old article, but I came across it accidently and read it out of curiosity.
I must say that your interviewer and Mr. Hitchens miss the point entirely. I don't write this as a fundamentalist, right wing Christian. I do generally agree with most Christian values and it is for the sake of the values that I write, not to convert anyone.
What disturbed me the most was the section talking about how Mother Teresa's facilities were so antiquated, basic, and provided no real medical help. The tone was passing an unfair judgement on her. She never set out to provide "medical" treatment. Her goal was to treat the soul of man. To show care and concern for people that the rest of the world ignored or looked down upon. Whether a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist I think the world would be much better if we could give the care and concern for the soul of man, the driving spark and magic of life instead of just providing for physical needs.
I don't have to agree with all of Mother Teresa's fundamentalist views to realize that love was her driving force. You can stand back and criticize because she didn't do it the way you would have if you want, or you could get involved and spend your time helping in your own way. I think if we ( myself included ) were all a little busier living our values we'd have a little less time to criticize each other.
Dan Garner, September 12, 2004
Thank you for being here. I need to read of reason once in awhile. I don't bother to cast my "pearls before swine" to often. Religious dogma is the most dangerous power in the world. I get into trouble trying to explain my position to a zealot. I've had only one success at showing the folly of faith based belief systems. Slowly and carefully I've planted seeds of reason in my fiance's thinking. I've found much on your web site to help me with my goal; which is to take away her fear of the consequences of not having a deity. Thank you for being here it gives me hope in a world ripped apart by religion.
William Edmunds, September 5, 2004
How do you claim not to be religious if you have tax-deductible associations, that are intended for 'religious purposes'? Why was Christianity banned from the public school system for being religious and for contradicting the First Ammendment, & yet secular humanism is the predominant curriculum in many highschools and universities? I have visited many religious sites, and I have yet to find one like yours. One who criticizes the beliefs and faiths of others, and where such ignorance abides. I am appalled by your biased opinions and I do hope this commentary will influence the future content of this page.
No name given, August 27, 2004
The Council for Secular Humanism does not have a religious tax exemption. We are an EDUCATIONAL organization. An organization does not have to be religious to receive tax-exempt status. In any case, secular humanism is not a curriculum at all. It is a life stance. Indeed, in my 15 years as a secular humanist activist, I have heard of only one college course on secular humanism. The first textbook on secular humanism (THE CASE FOR HUMANISM: AN INTRODUCTION, by Lewis Vaughn and Austin Dacey) was not published until 2003! Conversely, I will not even venture to guess how many books and courses on Christianity that will be found at colleges throughout the U.S.
If this is the only Web site that you have ever visited that "criticizes the beliefs and faiths of others," you need to surf the Web a lot more. You should especially check out the Websites of fundamentalist Christians. However, do not believe everything you read. If you do, you will continue to tout such untruths as the claim that "secular humanism is the predominant curriculum in many highschools and universities."
You lived to die, and hurt as the crowd yelled "Crucify!" Yet you understood that your purpose was to fulfill Your Father's good and perfect will As the Son of God, you were rejected by all And despite opposition you still paid for man's fall You died in that horrid place That one day I may see your face We continue to see your hand in all that we do And are convicted by your words "I died for you..." Father, this poem to you I commend As a token of my gratitude I send.
Anonymous, August 27, 2004
Christians assert that Christ's "purpose was to fulfill [his] Father's good and perfect will...." However, what is so perfect and so good about sending an innocent person to die a bloody, torturous death for those who are allegedly guilty? Furthermore, why are so many Christians obsessed with blood and death? Is this a healthy obsession?
Homicide--or suicide, if you happen to be a trinitarian--should never be seen as way of saving humankind. Indeed, such a view invariably leads to holy wars and other horrific oxymorons. Any religion that glorifies such a gory act as a crucifixion is not worth many regrets.
I enjoyed your interview with Chris Hitchens on Mother Theresa. I admire his work and dedication to the truth. However, when he says that he is an atheist, he tells us not how people came to be. Please tell me he does not adopt the theory of evolution? Just as he points out that there is not evidence to support religion, there is also no evidence supporting evolution. In fact everytime a so called "great thinker" comes along with that theory, he is quickly shown to be lacking significant facts about history. I am sometimes amazed at how a man of Mr. Hitchens insight into the world can be so ignorant when it comes to God. Anyone who can look at the human body or up in the sky and think this was all an accident is just that. Mind you I have never read or have heard otherwise that Mr. Hitchens believes in evolution. And if that is the case i apologize for assuming otherwise. Can someone please give me more information and some background into his belief. Thanks
Brian Hartman, August 24, 2004
Christopher Hitchens does not simply "believe" in the theory of evolution. He accepts the FACT of evolution. The explanatory theory of evolution has been accepted by most reputable scientists for about 150 years. In fact, the theory has never been stronger. There is strong evidence of evolution in the fossil record (with transitional fossils), DNA, and so forth. It does not make sense to say that every so often a "great thinker comes along with that theory." The theory has never gone away. On the contrary, its foundation is just as strong as the theory of sexual reproduction, the theory of flight, or the theory of gravity.
The human body has evolved. There is no strong evidence to suggest that human beings were created by a Supreme Being. We have evidence of human evolution in the way of "Lucy," Homo erectus, and other fossils. When we look "up in the sky," we see evidence of ORDER, but not DESIGN. On the other hand, there is also much DISORDER. For example, supernova create AND destroy numerous solar systems throughout the universe. This is exactly what we would expect to find in the natural world, as opposed to a universe ruled over by a perfect Being.
In conclusion, it is simply wrong to compare religion to the scientific theory of evolution. The latter withstands critical, peer-reviewed scrutiny, but the former does not.
Regarding the "New Directions: Free Inquiry & Human Enrichment" by Dr. Kurtz (Aug-Sept edition of FI), my ongoing concern about "science & religion" is that religion never has & never will reach concurrence with science, nor will we succeed in applying the scientific method to the multiple faiths of & in supernaturalism. For "that great Nature which embosoms us all", in Emerson's words, is 100% exclusive of fantasy, fallacy, yearning, wishful thinking and delusion. Thus, "never the twain shall meet", which freethinkers know, while deliberate avoidance of this truth will not assist us in instigating that needful "New Enlightenment", which Dr. Kurtz, as always, has crystallized for the free inquiry & human enrichment, so essential for 21st c. America & worldwide. But I agree whole-brainedly (not "wholeheartedly" & not "soulfully) with Natalie Angier, that, while we uphold that "highest of [all] wisdom[s], ...kindness", her "God Problem" is also that of far too many, allegedly freethinking "scientists", including my colleagues in neurology.
David S. Summers, M.D., August 23, 2004
As a Christian I find your website insightful and refreshing. I am horrified by the current shift to the extremist right in America. Compassionate Conservative and Conservative Christian are oxymorons. I believe that ALL organized religions are basically cults, and are inherently evil. I believe their only real function is to perpetuate themselves by giving men power over women in general, and a handful of men power over everyone. I believe they try to exercise this power by controlling access to the womb, who can go in and who can come out. This is evidenced by their obsessive suppression of natural sexuality. I believe this suppression of natural sexuality is directly responsible for a large percent of domestic violence and sexual assault and abuse. It also goes a long way to explain their obsessive hatred of homosexuality, because if you do not want what they control, they cannot control you. And they will always seek to vilify and destroy what they cannot control. I believe that faith can be a good thing if it leads you to be a kind and loving and respectful, open-minded person. But too often religion, in an effort to control the masses and perpetuate itself, promotes intolerance and creates bigotry. The truth of this is seen all over America today as good, decent Christians everywhere rush to the polls to deny basic civil rights to GLBT citizens in the name of God. Discrimination for Jesus! Amen! Peter Neill, Tuftonboro NH
Peter Neill, August 5, 2004
Re Richard Dawkins and "What Use Is Religion," he misses one important point. Most adults are children, relative to political rulers. All the way back to the ancients, rulers discovered that they could rule by fear of gods and demons better than by fear of earthly consequences. "Obey me, or the gods will smite you," is a possible evolutionary basis for the origin of religions -- and it still works today.
Malcolm McClintick, July 24, 2004
I have just read the comments that richard dawkins wrote about kurt wise in the piece titled sadly,an honest creationist. I personly have no college education,but I completly understand mr. kurt wise comments and beliefs.The truth that you seek with your eyes he has already seen with his heart.Look aroud you and think about all of the invisable things that you cannot see with your eyes but yet they exit.such as the air,radio waves,satelite signals,t.v.signals etc... Mr. kirt wise is a very wise man,because he has seen the truth and held on to it,no matter what the blind, the uneducated and the unwise have tried to teach him.For him to go any other way,would be devastating to his heart,for GOD is watching over the seed that was planted there a long time before his great education. To know all the knowledge of this world,and never know GOD is the worst thing that I could ever imagine. truth
samuel l velie, July 18, 2004
There is no good reason to suppose that anyone sees any truths with the "heart." This is just an attractive way of appealing to the emotions, as opposed to the intellect. Moreover, many theists make the mistake of believing that secular humanists reject theism simply because we cannot perceive a possibly existent God through the senses. However, this is wrong. We accept the existence of "air, radio waves," etc. because there is abundant EVIDENCE of their existence. They have empirically verifiable effects in our world (radios work, trees sway, and so forth). Similarly, we cannot perceive gravity through the senses. Yet, on any given day we can perform billions of different experiments to confirm its existence. Furthermore, the day we are able to perform such experiments to confirm the existence of God, you had better believe that, at the very least, the vast majority of secular humanists will embrace theism.
Your wbsite is interesting, and paradoxical, as it reads like a modern version of the scientically-based reformist movement in Europe some five hundred years ago. This movement, like yours, began with the noble intention of questioning all things spiritual and finding the base for truth in "scientific fact". The problem with this approach is that science is constantly evolving, and the state of science today (and it's understanding of human life and consciousness) is primitive...or so it will seem to the student 500 years hence. As for "logic", this can be used to disguise reality just as the accountant uses accountancy rules to mask profit. I actually agree with you that formal church dogma does not constitute "spiritualism". But I know, as surely as I know I am a woman, that I have a spirit, a mind and a soul. I do not require a church to connect me to God, and I do not need to justify or explain my faith. It is simply part of me, and perhaps the most wonderful gift of my life.
Wanda Fish, July 14, 2004
The fact that "science is constantly evolving" (as are religions) is hardly a "problem" for secular humanists. On the contrary, it is a strength. It only makes good sense to discard useless ideas when better ideas come along. This is what religious extremists do not understand. They are trying to rule the world based on ideas that gained currency during "primitive," unenlightened times.
However, it is true that "logic" can be misused and abused. However, it still seems that "the only alternatives to reasoning well are reasoning poorly or not reasoning at all." Even though logic might lead us astray, it does not make sense to denigrate it, just as it would not make sense to do away with science, knives, or matches, simply because they have the potential for both constructive and destructive purposes.
You certainly do not "know" that you have a spirit "and" a soul. That is merely your belief. Moreover, even though your faith might be "the most wonderful gift" of your life, faith has caused tremendous suffering throughout the world. Perhaps this would be a better world if people had less faith and more good sense.
As a Christian, I feel that we are given free will to make choices in our lives...be they right or wrong. However, we live in a society that is too liberal...so much so that at the rate we are going we are sure to reach social collapse at some point. As secular humanists, you are quick to criticize the morals of Christians...yet you have no morals. Everything to you is ok as long as it is pleasing to the individual. As far as the opposition of same-sex marriages, consider this. In the future, what if the majority of unions in america are same sex marriages? What will that do to the population???? Come to think about it...homosexulaity is a pretty good means of population control! Homosexuals cant reproduce children on their own...and to go outside of the relationship to do so through surrogate parents just creates more havoc and confusion for our unborn children of the future. "Who is my mommy and daddy? Why don't they live together? So I can grow up liking both Girls and Guys???" This is only a twinkling of the questions that will haunt them. Consider this as well. Statistics show that children born out of wed-lock to single parent homes (especially young parents) are more likely to face social and psychological problems. Yet you view all of this to be OK. Until you understand the there has to be restraints placed on society as to how they should live and the choices that they make and what is and isn't allowed, secular humnism is going to be the destroyer of society in the 21st century. You are teaching selfishness to today's youth...no longer "help others"...you now teach..."help yourselves" with room to "act now and regard consequences later" because it's OK. As humans, we know what's best and we can fix everything ourselves. I tell ya what...you can fix a lot of things...you may even be able to prolong living. But you will never beat death. And what then? So you've lived life for what? For absolutly nothing, that's what. I mean, your philosophy is that you live and and then you die. Since you leave no room for life after death, then life is basically worthless. In the end, death wins. As a Christian, i will NEVER buy that!!! Just like you will never defeat the inevitable. I will pray for you all, as you don't even realize that you are doing Satan's work for him. You are a sad and depressing group with nothing to look forward to...only temporary happiness to distract you from the inevitable dread of death. At least i live my life truly happy, and not fearful of death at all. I know where I'm going. Do you?
Name not given, July 1, 2004
The claim that society is "too liberal" could be interpreted in many ways. After all, the utter opposite of "liberal" is "reactionary." Examples of reactionary regimes include the former Taliban government of Afghanistan, the current regime in Sudan, the ruling class of Saudi Arabia, etc. The point is that "liberal" ideas have traditionally referred to women's rights, civil rights, universal human rights, and so forth.
Many conservative religionists, however, are simply referring to morality. They often claim that humanists have no morality, rather than trying to understand that perhaps humanist ethics simply differs from their own. They confuse "live and let live" with hedonism. For example, humanists believe that consenting adults should have the right to indulge in sexual relations as long as they are not harming anyone else. They might personally favor certain sexual practices, or they might be opposed to them. Most conservative religionists, on the other hand, want to make their religious morality the law of the land. However, this kind of mindset invariably leads to slavery in one form or another.
The claim that the majority of marriages might one day occur between members of the same sex is a common logical fallacy. Moreover, all of the leading sex research shows that homosexuals probably do not constitute more than 10% of the population (and that figure is very generous).
Researchers have conducted over 20 studies on about 300 children of gay and lesbian parents. According to the research, children of these parents do well in every imaginable category. Furthermore, the children of gay parents grow up to be heterosexual in the same vast proportions as children of heterosexual parents.
The research certainly indicates that children born out of wedlock tend to have more social and psychological problems than children in homes with two GOOD parents. Big deal. Most humanists are in favor of strong, healthy families. We just do not buy the simplistic notion that the government can strengthen families by trying to force people to get married, as George W. Bush seems to think.
On the one hand, conservative Christians complain that humanists are "teaching selfishness to today's youth." On the other hand, many libertarians complain that we are advocating altruism (as we do in the Affirmations of Humanism.) It seems that we can't win for losing!
Most humanists have no problem with the notion that we will die some day. However, it is ludicrous to claim that our lives are "absolutely" useless just because we will die. Was Martin Luther King's life useless? Was Thomas Edison's life useless? Is the life of a good parent or teacher useless? God or no God, afterlife or no afterlife, those lives can in no way be considered "basically worthless!" (Incidentally, most humanists "are not fearful of death at all," and live happy lives.)
Finally, it is depressing to learn that so many fundamentalist Christians still see the world in terms of black and white. Humanists cannot simply disagree with fundamentalists. We "are doing Satan's work for him." How is such a charge any better than the claim made by extremist Muslims that America is "the Great Satan?" As long as this kind of primitive thinking exists, there will always be strife in the world.
I have read through much of your web site, and everything that I have seen has reinforced my Christian worldview. I have found nothing on this site but lies, hypocrisy, and propaganda. I do not hate you for it, though, for Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies. I just want to tell you how much God loves you as humans. Your site has motivated me to stand up for what I believe, and the time is coming when others will do the same as me. Thank you for "enlightening" me-I never knew you humanist were so Godless and bent on silencing "dangerous" Christians.
Jacob Noll, June 16, 2004
To be honest, when the words "lies, hypocrisy, and propaganda" come to mind, many humanists immediately think of Christianity. Take, for instance, the tired claim that "God loves you." The message is that God loves every human being. However, not LOVE, but what love can accomplish, is to be chiefly valued. That is to say, if God is not motivated to feed, clothe, house, protect, and provide for all human beings, what good is his "love?" In other words, where is the EVIDENCE to support the extraordinary claim that God loves everyone? If he doesn't confer loving actions upon all human beings, does his all-loving nature really count? After all, millions of people have been victimized by "acts of God" such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and so forth. Do these acts constitute evidence of God's love for human beings?
According to the International Director of the Center for Inquiry, Bill Cooke, the claim that God loves everyone is rooted in the "anthropocentric conceit," i.e., the belief that human beings are special in the eyes of God. Even if this claim is true, however, how would that make God's love superior to the love that many people have for human beings AND other animals? If God loves other animals, why does he allow them to suffer from feline leukemia, paralysis, blindness, tumors, and numerous other afflictions? Christians claim that all human beings suffer from these afflictions (and death) because of Original Sin. However, what original sins did kangaroos, fruit flies, koalas, and polar bears commit? Don't naturalistic explanations for suffering, sickness, and death make much more sense than theistic explanations?
Finally, Christians like to tell humanists that they will pray for them. Most humanists, on the other hand, would much rather have fundamentalist Christians do less praying for THEM, and more THINKING for themselves.
I have a question. Are there no conservative Atheists?
Drenn, June 15, 2004
There have been numerous conservative atheists throughout history (Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, George Schuyler, James Hervery Johnson, Woolsey Teller, and others). Indeed, there are many conservative atheists that have contributed to the pages of FREE INQUIRY (Tibor Machan, Robert Price, Antony Flew, former FREE INQUIRY editor Tim Madigan, and others).
Among the current leading activists of the Council for secular Humanism, Tom Flynn and DJ Grothe are libertarians. It is simply not true that the Council for Secular Humanism simply promotes a liberal agenda. On the contrary, we have been criticized for publishing articles by Christina Hoff Sommers and other leading conservatives. (Incidentally, anyone that has been closely following the latest writings of Christopher Hitchens on the Iraq war would hardly consider him to be liberal on this issue. Perhaps it is best not to try to pigeonhole people.)
In any case, most SECULAR HUMANISTS tend to be progressive. Indeed, in the upcoming Prometheus book TOWARD A NEW POLITICAL HUMANISM, edited by Barry F. Seidman and Neil J. Murphy, the reader will be treated to humanist conceptions of progressive politics.
Finally, Ronald Reagan's son recently came out of the closet and publicly admitted that he is an atheist. No doubt, he is just one of many children of famous conservatives that reject a belief in God.
A simple action should be taken to increase the secular thought which can improve this world-Please take the action of asking all readers to actively leave issues of Free Inquiry as they travel etc. An alternative to the Gideon bible or dentist office magazine. Please let me know of your decision. I think it is very important that this step be taken.
B. Floral, June 9, 2004
I would like to know of activities such as disaster relief, quality-of-life improvement help for disadvantaged, etc. done under the auspices of the CSH.
Charles Blackwell, June 7, 2004
The Council for Secular Humanism is primarily an educational organization. However, we do help the disadvantaged. We used to have a program called the Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort (SHARE). We raised money for victims of natural disasters, also known as "acts of God." As FREE INQUIRY editor Tom Flynn used to joke, "Our motto is, 'when God beats up on you, we're there.'"
The Council for Secular Humanism also has blood drives, as well as food drives for the needy. We work very closely with the Friends of the Night People, a Buffalo-based organization that provides food and other supplies to the needy. Their spokespersons speak regularly at the center. We also help to feed and clothe poor families in the Buffalo area.
The work of which I am most proud is the work of the Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS). They have helped reform the lives of thousands of former drug addicts, alcoholics, and people with other addictions throughout the world. Their work flatly contradicts the bogus claim that a belief in a higher power is absolutely necessary for those trying to beat their addictions.
In many cases, secular humanists perform charitable actions without the aid of humanist organizations. For example, I am involved in literacy programs, tutoring programs, mentoring programs, and so forth, without the auspices of the Council.
Historically, secular humanists have played major roles in the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's rights movement, church/state separation cases, and numerous other social justice movements and progressive causes. In most cases, however, they were not acting under the auspices of any organized humanist group.
In any case, whether one helps the disadvantaged has nothing to do with the question whether God exists. Many religionists and secular humanists help their fellow human beings, but their actions in no way provide evidence for or against the existence of God. The kindly actions of secular humanists simply show that it is not necessary for people to believe in God to perform good actions.
Re: Two Competing Moralities: The Principles of Fairness contra 'Gott Mit Uns'
Why does the author presume marriage should be, and only be, between a couple? This seems to go against the rest of the arguments in the article. If the argument is that the state should not control what gender a couple is using personal freedoms as the main criteria then the state should not control any of the combinations of consenting relationships - multiple partners of either sex, etc. The state has no stake in "civil unions" except to enforce any and all legal contracts that are created. "Marriage" is a cultural matter to be brokered by individuals within their different cultures - and in our multi-cultural, constitutionally "free" society, the government has no business defining, condoning, penalizing or privileging any of the types of "marriages" or "civil unions" that consenting adults may enter.
Bill Bickerton, May 31, 2004
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING.. IT TAKES SO MUCH MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THE REMOTE CHANCE THAT WE EVOLVED THEN IN CHRISTIANITY. If we evolved, what would be the purpose of this, it doesnt matter anyways and we should just all go die because there would be no meaning. THERE IS NO TRUTH, what does that mean, that statement contradicts itself. This is a website; is that true or not, you tell me..
Name not given, May 26, 2004
The theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most firmly established theories in all of science. It does not take blind faith to accept this theory. The fossil evidence (including numerous transitional fossils), the DNA evidence, and evidence in numerous other areas attest to the awesome explanatory power of this theory.
Why should we assume that there must be some easily detectable purpose to evolution? There is no reason to suppose that Mother Nature (not God) is in any way obligated to reveal any of her secrets to us. When we discover her secrets, good for us. In any case, most living things have a survival instinct. That is to say, the will to survive is probably the main engine driving the forces of evolution by natural selection.
Finally, most secular humanists would never say "there is no truth." You could be thinking about extreme postmodernists or thinkers from some other school of thought. After all, most secular humanists certainly believe that it is true that Christianity does not stand up to critical examination.
Do Secular Humanists believe that there are no truths?
Matt, May 26, 2004
Secular humanists certainly believe in truths. That is just the point. Most of us do not believe that there is just one, grand spiritual TRUTH. We believe that there are many TRUTHS. Moreover, these truths are often difficult to find.
Most religionists claim that secular humanists believe in moral relativism. In actuality, however, we simply believe that it is very difficult to find moral absolutes. For example, Christ taught that we should always turn the other cheek. But are there not times when common-sense self-defense is entirely justified?
Secular humanists believe in truths. However, most secular humanists do not believe in absolute certainty on many questions. After all, absolute certainty in morality often leads to events such as those that occurred in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. Doubt, however, is often a great virtue.
What solid proof is there against biblical text? I am doing my own analysis of the Bible and its accuracy. I was wondering if you could help me out with my research. I'm trying to get information from both sides of the argument before forming my opinion. I have read Lee Strobel's Case for Christ and then did some follow up research online as well through the library and it seems to be very accurate.
Thank you for your help.
Matt, May 26, 2004
The "solid proof" against the Bible is overwhelming. In fact, it is difficult to even know where to begin. Why not begin with Genesis? In the beginning God reportedly created sprouting "vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit tress bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them," etc. (Chapter 1, verse 11). However, he did not reportedly create the sun until AFTER the creation of vegetation (verse 16). Common sense, though, tells us that vegetation will not grow without sunlight. It would take a foolish leap of faith to believe otherwise.
Moreover, in verse 16, we read that God created the sun and the moon, as well as the stars. However, the sun IS a star. A perfectly intelligent God would have pointed this out to those responsible for recording his words and deeds.
Of course, Christian apologists will jump through hoops all day in futile attempts to rationalize such blatant errors. Indeed, Lee Strobel attempts to defend Christianity in this way in THE CASE FOR CHRIST. However, Earl Doherty has written a devastating critique of Strobel's work in the excellent book CHALLENGING THE VERDICT: A CROSS-EXAMINATION OF LEE STROBEL'S "THE CASE FOR CHRIST."
In conclusion, I applaud your decision to "get both sides of the argument." I only wish that parents would take this position before indoctrinating their children before they reach the age of reason. If this were the case, there would undoubtedly be far fewer theists throughout the world.
You people are totally whacked. So God doesn't exist because there is no need for Him to exist to explain things? But then again, if He doesn't exist then how can you refute the existence of something that doesn't exist or, better still, why bother? Could it be because if you're loud enough and shrill enough in your denial of the existence of God, you won't hear that little voice in your head that asks "what if I'm wrong?". I tend to agree with Einstein who said "The more I know about science the more I believe in God".
Name not given, May 10, 2004
If naturalistic explanations usually suffice to aid in our understanding of the natural world, there is nothing "totally whacked" about rejecting the unsubstantiated claim that God exists. God is an unnecessary explanation, and posting a mystery God does nothing whatsoever to improve our understanding regarding how the natural world works.
Why does it not make sense to refute something that does not exist--or is not true? If most adults believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the tooth fairy, humanists would no doubt spend time refuting those claims as well. One might also argue that it is foolish to refute sexist or racist claims because such claims are untrue. However, how could one ever combat sexism and racism without refuting sexist and racist claims?
Most humanists have no problem admitting that we might be wrong. On the contrary, theists are much more likely to insist that they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. After all, Christ equated himself with the Truth, and the writers of Judaic, Christian, and Muslim holy books insist that these books are completely true.
Finally, I would like to know the source of the supposed Einstein quotation. There is much debate about Einstein's religious views. However, one thing is absolutely clear: He did not believe in a personal God, such as the God of the Bible. Furthermore, he never presented any strong scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Why would you devote your time to this philosphical bit in opposition of something you supposedly don't believe in? that's like making statements, about not making statements. The mere fact that there is entire organizations about this subject is indicative of a deep-seated fear. That's just my observation. I also wanted to see if anyone actually reads these posts. So, if I've irritated you enough, perhaps you'll write back to me and we can start a meaningless dialogue just for the sake of doing it. Maybe someone will read this and we can talk about whatever you'd like. I'm sure my rhetoric can be amusing in the least. At the most, I get to be a vessel in through God works.
Andrew, April 21, 2004
We at the Council for Secular Humanism devote a lot of time responding to religion because religion has a great deal of influence throughout the world. If the events of 9/11 will not convince you of this brutal fact, then what will?
You might be correct to assert that this organization is rooted in "a deep-seated fear." But this is certainly no IRRATIONAL fear. On the contrary, it makes perfectly good sense to fear theocrats, God-centered terrorists, murderous foes of abortion, and the numerous other religious fanatics that threaten not only democracy, but civilization itself.
Finally, any vessel through which God works must certainly be a BROKEN vessel that could only be fixed with the help of reason. Please, just say "yes" to free thought.
Dear folks, Re the 'brights' flap, I'm one of those who--while agreeing that 'brights' is impossibly, embarrassingly self-congratulatory--also are uncomfortable with 'secular humanist'. It's intrinsically anthropocentric; and, in a world in which nonhuman beings are ruthlessly exploited or carelessly exterminated by the tens of millions daily by us humans, I eschew any label that would in any way appear to dignify and legitimize our monstrous disregard for our fellow beings on this planet. The most accurate and affectively neutral self-label *I*'ve seen yet for us folks is Richard Dawkins's pre-'bright' term for himself: 'scientific rationalist'.
Rod Gates, April 16, 2004
Lucretius said: ----------------------------- "Whilst human kind Throughout the lands lay miserably crushed Before all eyes beneath Religion- who Would show her head along the region skies, Glowering on mortals with her hideous face- A Greek it was who first opposing dared Raise mortal eyes that terror to withstand, Whom nor the fame of Gods nor lightning's stroke Nor threatening thunder of the ominous sky Abashed; but rather chafed to angry zest His dauntless heart to be the first to rend The crossbars at the gates of Nature old." ------------------------------------- My comment: Secularism is as old as the human civilian race..when will we ever learn? When will we ever understand?
Jens Peter Nielsen April 14, 2004
How about... I pledge my allegiance to the flag of the United States, and to the country for which it stands, one nation under Canada with freedom for those who are debt-free and justice to those who can afford it.
Anthony Oland, April 13, 2004
I just want to say that I am deeply grateful that one of your tenets mentions ethical conduct. If the belief in God is the most monumental concept in human existence, why is it not sufficient enough to compel all believers to be splendid examples of simple human goodness. Those of us who understand that our fellow human beings and our fellow creatures are our just concerns, have no need to waste our lives in the purchase of a glorious afterworld. The greatest achievement we can hope for is to demonstrate to our fellow being, a brand of kindness and love that emanates purely from the conscience. We are all of this earth, we are fragile, and we are just tiptoeing between heartaches in life. Goodness for goodness sake~
Brad, April 5, 2004
Secular humanism will be useless on Judgment Day, when people who rejected Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior appear at the Great White Throne judgment and then condemned to the lake of fire.
Since Christ will be the Judge on that Day, it would be wise to scrap that secular humanism nonsense now.
Cynthia Freeman, March 27, 2004
I completely agree with everything suggested on your website. I am 17. The only influence I have had is from a friend, who told me that society had given me all my ideals and beliefs. From then on I started to re-develop myself from being a strong Christian to an even stronger Secular Humanist, even though I hadn’t had any contact with this site or any other secular humanist resources at all until a few days ago. I however don't believe your approach to progressively reverting humanity is best. Even though I have a lot to learn, I think that even though it is sometimes important to tell the truth, I think in some instances within this website it shouldn't be told. What I am referring to in particular is when the term ‘atheist’ is used, even though I accept reality and have no problem with this term, other non-followers viewing this website may not. I think all secular humanists trying to win over society should call themselves agnostic. Agnostic because the common roadblock in the minds of religious followers is the ideals passed onto them which erase their fear of death; people will be dissuaded from secular humanism being an atheistic following because they will decide upon it being most unsatisfactory for their lives. I think an idealistic description of agnosticism should be used- something like: Is belief that there could be supernatural forces at work, but in no way involving it in thought processes and decision making due to its lack of benefit towards themselves and society, and all that society demands of people is that they remain fair. Then you can list the reasons why, as well as to persuade that everything in humanity can be related to Darwinism. I think this is all viewers need to start re-developing themselves. Aside from this I think the site could use more realistic ideals. The last thing I want to add is that I think the success of secular humanism depends on a completely proven form of psychology taught at universities, the current theoretical nature of the subject does not help the cause
Alex R - Gold Coast, Australia, March 25, 2004
I saw David Silverman on O'Reilly last night and wrote down this website. Today I went to the O'Reilly website to get more info. and only the opposing side is on the site. That is NOT fair and balanced! I've been looking for a group who thinks like I do for a long time-I believe in humanity; live and let live and let's leave god out of it! Bravo to you all! Being unemployed i can't contribute financially, but I want to be included in your group to take any action I can, sign petitions...Thanx for letting yourselves be known through the media!
L. Jordan, March 24, 2004
You guys & gals are funny & misguided beyond belief. All the joys & gifts we possess are simply attributed to random molecules & when we die--POOF--no more. Benjamin Franklin thought aloud about you nuts &, paraphrasing him: "If we have as much crime & sin in a Judeo-Christian society, I can only imagine what will happen in a Godless one." Moral relativim, conventional wisdom, postmodernism,secular humanism..barf.I often wondered what it would be like to be a secular humanist:I guess I would have all the answers, I could legally screw anything, everything would be relative from my life experience. Who is your Almighty anyway? The state? Got socialism?
Bryan, March 23, 2004
The secular humanist could just as well say to Bryan: Theists are funny and misguided beyond belief. They have not one shred of strong evidence for the existence of god. Yet they talk as though his existence were a matter of self-evident truth.
Any "joys & gifts" that we might have, in all probability, have perfectly naturalistic explanations. Of course, by "joys & gifts," Bryan is probably not referring to such "acts of God" as hurricanes, plagues, floods, droughts, famines, earthquakes, etc. Bryan obviously believes that the universe was designed by God. One can only wonder, however, if he also believes that God has blessed us with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, cancer, and numerous other diseases.
Bryan talks about "random molecules," however no evolutionary biologist talks about the random formation of proteins. On the contrary, it is quite clear that amino acids are self-organizing in a very SELECTIVE manner.
While it might be nice to live forever, there is no sound reason to believe that we will. However, why should that make life in this world meaningless? After all, when theists contemplate heaven, they generally want the same "joys and gifts" they receive on Earth. They want to be with their loved ones again. They want good health, good food, and many want great sex. (Just ask any would-be suicide bomber.) If we want such "joys and gifts" AFTER we die, they obviously have value to us while we are alive.
Bryan does not realize that he has shot himself in the foot by acknowledging the high crime rate in "a Judeo-Christian society." Indeed, the prisons are filled with theists, but it is rare to find incarcerated non-theists. Nigeria is rated as the most religious nation in the world, yet they have one of the most corrupt governments and a soaring crime rate. Furthermore, theocracies are among the most brutal and intolerant governments on the planet. So much for religious morality!
We secular humanists do not have all the answers. However, we have the courage and the good sense to think about the burning questions. We do not believe anything goes, and we have no "Almighty." We do, however, understand that it is very difficult to find moral absolutes. For example, the New (Second) Testament teaches that lying is always wrong--even the so-called little white lie. But if faced with the choice of turning a Jew over to the Nazis or lying to save the Jew's life, lying (or deceiving) would seem to be the only ETHICAL choice.
Life is not always easy, but it is still worth living. To paraphrase Robert Ingersoll, we humanists prefer to enjoy life in the here and now and let the gods rule the heavens as they see fit.
RE: "Self-Brighteousness". While I certainly see the point of criticism of people advocating the term "bright", I would like to point out that we live on a planet where people with a lot of power and imaginary friends in the sky are placing us all at grave risk. Anyone who has the guts, in a society that may as well be run by flying saucer cults, to openly say that the emperor has no clothes is a friend of mine regardless of his or her label of choice. Can we, please, stop worrying about whether (thank you, Monty Python) to call ourselves the Front of the Judean People of the Judean People's Front and concentrate on trying to protect rationality from the barbarians at the gates?
Louis Kelly, March 23, 2004
RE: "The Passion of Christ" as "a political weapon" by Dr. Kurtz, the human mind & behavior, as perceived by modern "medicine", is sufficient for humankind to "know", with A.C. Swinburne, that "no life lives forever & dead [folk] rise up never". Such "lore", confirmed by reality-based truth or experience, is antithetical to faith-fantasy or sectarian exploitation of myth & fallacy; hence the lies of Gibson, superimposed on the self-serving lies/myths of nonexistent gods, heavens, purgatories - commingled with yearning, imagination, & wishful thinking - are or should be acknowledged as nonsense or events so contaminated by lies that any truth is destroyed, & intelligent analysis is impossible, elucidating thereby the wisdom, genius, & practicability of sustaining & protecting that one & only guardian of religious liberty: freedom FROM religion by all forms of governance, whether executive, judicial, or legislative. The White House dunce & Gibson & their Christian-right cronies will never comprehend such freethinking, but I believe there's hope through educational enlightenment of the people.
David S Summers M.D., March 18, 2004
in regards to Patrick Inniss: you have graet intrest in the nation of islam. That is very good but you lack all facts . Have you read meassage to the black man . Have you ever been to the teaching of Farrakhan or are you just a follwer you only go by he say, she say. You must seek the knowelge for your self read in to it and present facts and back it up. He must some great effect in order to get 2 MILLION black men to unite on oct 16, 1996 . No one in history of america has ever gatherd so many men in genaral together at one time. Only him he has many supporters. I'm one and so are you if you even took time to let his name into your mind , you care about him enough to let his name run throught your central neverous systsm to write or type his name and I thank you this only means you have been touched by a man of GOD.
SIS T X, March 18, 2004
Many religionists are of the opinion that anyone that reads their literature objectively cannot help but to understand the clarity and power of their truths. However, as Robert Ingersoll once noted, "The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman reading it." The same could be said of religion in general.
Elijah Muhammad's MESSAGE TO THE BLACK MAN was clearly written by a man that was woefully undereducated in the sciences. And though Minister Farrakhan has given many great speeches, he is still a religious fanatic. As late as the 1990s, his newspaper THE FINAL CALL panned the film "Jurassic Park," primarily because it fostered the "myth" that dinosaurs actually existed! (Elijah Muhammad consistently told his followers that dinosaur science was false and that dinosaurs never existed.) Despite the existence of dinosaur fossils and trace fossils such as eggs, skin impressions, stomach stones (gastroliths), and fossilized feces (coprolites), we are supposed to actually deny the fact that giant lizards roamed the Earth up until 65 million years ago.
This is just one of the numerous absurdities to come out of the Nation of Islam. Add to this the theocratic and reactionary world view that the group espouses, and it is no wonder that the Nation has its critics.
I hope and pray that you find God soon! Your website is a waste of space and disgusting. Majority rules and majority in this country are Christians! Take your message elsewhere, like maybe a socialist country.
Name not given, March 14, 2004
Do you really want to chase away "Evangelical Capitalists," i.e., those of us who believe in free minds and free markets, as Reason magazine puts it?
Free markets merely reflect the choices made by vast numbers of individuals, each with a human face. At the opposite end of the spectrum from free markets, Big Government does open the door for corporations and labor unions and all sorts of special interests to take advantage of society, but that is the fault of the proponents of Big Government (such as Free Inquiry, it seems), not the Evangelical Capitalists.
Unfortunately, this latest editorial lumps political conservatives and libertarians under the same moniker (Evangelical Capitalists). Thus it attacks a lot of potential allies.
Dale W., February 27, 2004
FREE INQUIRY should not be accused of chasing away so-called Evangelical Capitalists. We voice views from various backgrounds. We have had articles in recent issues by such libertarians as Tibor Michan and Glade Ross. Tom Flynn, the editor of FREE INQUIRY, is a libertarian. Tim Madigan, who edited the magazine before Tom, has described himself as a libertarian.
Because we are truly dedicated to free inquiry, we will never be able to please everyone--nor do we hope to. We will continue to be attacked by leftists who believe we are pandering to the right-wing, and right-wingers who believe we are anti-capitalist socialists. What else would anyone expect from a journal that takes free inquiry seriously?
Where's something on the top of the main page about this Mel Gibson "Jesus--passion stuff movie?"
Where is there something to counter all this mindless religious babble in the main media?????
I see nothing in the main media to counter all the BS.
I am extremely frustrated that I see no counter to the religous fanfare!
Pat Higgins, February 27, 2004
Actually, there have been numerous responses to "The Passion of the Christ." Paul Kurtz wrote perhaps the best critique of the film for the Council for Secular Humanism's electronic newsletter. An edited version of his critique will be published in the June/July 2004 issue of FREE INQUIRY magazine.
Christopher Hitchens and Katha Pollitt wrote trenchant critques of the film in THE NATION. The Reverend Paul Scott, founder of the Messianic Afrikan Nation attacked it from a Black spiritual perspective. He said that "the image of a White Jesus is more dangerous to Black children than gangsta rap." The Fox News Network reportedly featured a debate on this topic.
I have spoken publicly on this film numerous times, including appearances on CBS Radio and National Public Radio. I will also write a humanistic critique of the film. Do not feel frustrated. Trenchant critics are trying to combat this madness. However, contrary to what the Religious Right might claim, secular humanists do not control the media.
Children are the future. I think this organization should experiment with opening small, but very high quality, schools for classes K-12, and solicit "faith-based" funds from the govt. Take the govt. to court if needed. Start with one school in the right community and branch out. These schools should hire the best secular-minded teachers available and focus on the principles this organization supports with tolerance for those who believe otherwise (including organized religion). Of course, long-term success would only be possible if the schools also provide students with a high-quality education to compete in the work force. Religion, from an historical perspective, should be taught, but I don't think the schools should preach aetheism or agnostic beliefs and the like, just present them in the same context as other philosophies. We don't want to brain-wash children, we want to produce open minds to explore the possibilities. "Preaching to the choir" (pardon the cliche) through magazine articles is fine, but it really isn't very affective in opening minds.
John Perkins, February 26, 2004
Others have suggested that we open humanist schools. At the time, however, this does not seem practical. Humanists generally do not have many children, and we do not seem to have a big enough market to warrant such a project. We do have reading materials and some classes emphasizing moral instruction for children, and will continue to provide these kinds of products and services.
In any case, we at the Council for Secular Humanism would not solicit faith-based funds from the government. We are not a religious or faith-based organization, and do not wish to be recognized as such.
Just one Question for all you Rational thinkers.
Science has yet to explain this to me, as my religon easily has...
In Matter cannot be created or destroyed where did the first matter come from?
Law of science proves the theory of creation is correct.
Mike, February 26, 2004
There is no law of science that proves the "theory" of creationism. Your religion has undoubtedly provided you with a comforting answer to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. However, your religion has not provided a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.
Unlike theists, secular humanists have no use for a God of the gaps. History has shown us that such a God always recedes as naturalisic explanations are found. We have no need to believe that God pulls the sun across the sky, because we now have the heliocentric theory. As Sheila Solarin of Nigeria has noted, we no longer pray to fertility goddesses. Now we have Planned Parenthood. There is no reason to suppose that God created that rainbow as a pact with humanity. We now understand that rainbows are formed as a result of the refraction and reflection of rays of sunlight on raindrops. We do not need to believe in a rain god or a god of thunder. We have meterology. Hopefully, you get the picture.
Similarly, we do not need to posit a mystery God to explain the existence of matter. We have numerous scientific theories to deal with this topic. In any case, positing a mystery God does not effectively fill in this supposed gap in our knowledge. You have to follow the argument wherever it leads, as Socrates pointed out. That is to say, you must necessarily ask the question: If matter comes from God, where does God come from? More importantly, you must provide strong EVIDENCE for whatever answer you give.
In all probability, the universe is self-existing and self-contained, and rerequires no explanation outside itself. It might not be poetic, but life is not always so.
Having only recently discovered your website, and indeed the principles that underpin Secular Humanism, I felt compelled to provide some feedback. I have always been an atheist, always been disturbed by aspects of religion and finally found the words that have helped 'put the pieces together' in my head. Thank you.
Daniel, February 12, 2004
I was just wondering how a person can have a humanistic outlook and a hope for the future (after life on Earth) at the same time? If there is no God who cares about us, then why live at all? Life on Earth would be in vain. It just doesn't make sense. If humanists believe that people are rational, then they can't argue that Jesus was irrational when he spoke of Heaven, can they? That would be contradicting themselves. I don't understand why anybody would not want to have any hope in this world. Jesus is the only surefire hope there is. Everything else will just turn to dust.
Name not given, February 9, 2004
Why should there be a contradiction between having a humanistic outlook and hoping for a positive future? Why are the two positions mutually exclusive? On the contrary, because we recognize that this life is all we have, we aim to make the most of it. The better question would be: "If theists want to get to heaven so badly, why do they want to live so long on Earth?"
If there is no God that cares about us, why should that stop us from caring about ourselves? Again, that would be all the more reason to develop a positive, human-centered life stance. Life on Earth is not in vain. Ultimately, it's probably all that really matters.
When Jesus reportedly spoke of Heaven, his ideas were not rooted in reason. By his own admission, they were based on FAITH, which is often the opposite of reason. There is no contradiction in being reasonable and concluding that a belief in Heaven is irrational.
There are countless millions of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Hindus, Unitarian Universalists, humanists, and others that would take exception to the arrogant claim that "Jesus is the only surefire hope there is." In any case, just because a Christian hopes that Jesus will save her does not mean that that wish will be fulfilled. We secular humanists prefer to concern ourselves with earthly matters and, in the words of the great 19th century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll, "let the gods rule the heavens as they see fit."
In the Feb/March issue of Free Inquiry, there is an article by Grothe and Dacey that suggests that atheism is not a civil rights issue and that atheists do not suffer any real discrimination on the job, except perhaps alienation. I do agree that atheism is not, per se, a civil rights issue since it falls under the larger category of religious freedom. Nevertheless, I believe the second point is entirely inaccurate. I taught at a junior high school in Texas. While working at the junior high school, I had atheist-related stickers on my car. Several teachers told me I was going to hell and one told me I should not be allowed to put stuff like that on my car and come to still, though many other teachers proudly displayed Christian stickers. Moreover, the principal of the school would come visit my classroom every day, standing in the doorway, glaring into the classroom. I asked several other teachers if they experienced this type of treatment and they told me that they did not. During the school year, I took the stickers off for unrelated reasons and the visits that had been going on for months, mysteriously came to an end. So, I do believe that discrimination against atheists is alive and well, especially in the "Bible belt," although I do not think that a special civil rights movement is needed that exclusively represents the interests of atheists. Rather, I think religious freedom without regard to a particular set of beliefs is desperately needed, especially in light of the actions of the current administration.
Emil Crawford, January 31, 2004
Dear Sirs:
In your previous issue, you publish an Op-Ed Piece (by Ms. Barbara Smoker) in favor of infant euthenasia. She states that infant euthanasia is only "very late abortion", and, since the baby will suffer as he grows older, it is humanistic to kill it now. Furthermore, she claims that she was the only writer that was "willing to contribute an article advocating infant euthenasia" for a recent debating book.
I feel her pain. I was the only person willing to contribute an article advocating cannibalistic murder to the same debating book. Murder is, after all, merely very early death from old age; most people will suffer infimity and disease as they grow older, so helping them avoid it by killing them when still young is the humane thing to do; finally, let's be logical: why bury all this good protein in the basement instead of eating it?
Unfortunately, due to society's lack of logical thinking and understanding, not only was my article rejected, but I am no longer allowed to use the computer facilities in the home for the criminally insane to which an unthinking, religiously-obessed society confined me.
For shame.
Avital Pilpel, January 28, 2004
Regarding bigotry against the nontheists, I think we are the most widely and viciously despised social group, *and* we will never truly suffer for this like women and racial minorities have. The simple reason for this is because an African American cannot change the color of her skin the same way an atheist can simply lie or keep mum about his unbelief. Very few women are willing to go to the lengths that George Eliot did in order to get work, instead struggling for the cause while they get by on what they can.
And because it is so easy for an atheist to completely ignore the bigotry hurled against him, we will never see much in the way of civil rights movements.
I urge the active atheists among us to note that the vast majority of the nontheists in the world seldom if ever even think about their own atheism. This is the norm: we are humans, and atheism is the default when it comes to religious ideas. Religious people learn these later in life, but we all start out without religion. Religion is an added attraction which the atheist chooses to ignore much like you might expect a concert violinist to avoid the Super Bowl hoopla.
Cliff Walker, January 28, 2004
I'm sick and tired of the anti-capitalist, leftist tenor of the editorial policy of Free Inquiry. The decidedly leftist tilt of Mr. Kurz has gone too far. Will non-leftist secularists have to create their own organization so we can have a place to discuss questions of secularism without being subjected to the purely partisan politcal and leftist ideological views of Mr. Kurz? Mr. Kurz needs to realize that non-theism and leftism are NOT the same thing.
Greg Burch, January 27, 2004
The editorial board of FREE INQUIRY is made up of libertarians, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and others that are hard to define. However, I don't know of a single "anti-capitalist" in the bunch.
Incidentally, the name of the publication is FREE INQUIRY. That is why there are often views that offend people from every political background. Many have accused FREE INQUIRY of being too liberal because of writers such as Paul Kurtz. Others have accused us of being too conservative because we have published articles by Tibor Machan, Christina Hoff Sommers, and others. We have published pieces condemning the war in Iraq, and we have published writings defending it.This is what FREE INQUIRY is all about.
Non-theism and "leftism" are not one and the same. It should also be noted, however, that non-theism and SECULAR HUMANISM are not one and the same. The truth is that most secular humanists tend to be progressive. It should therefore not be surprising that most secular humanist leaders, writers, and activists will have progressive political views (which they have the right to express).
As an agnostic, I find you to be witless, petty theophobes; just atheists with a bad attitude and a thesaurus; the really big words from, "Smoker'" and, "Cooke," so impressed me. By the way, tacky handles; I don't like giving strangers my real name, but jeez.
Taking the decision to kill babies, we still all that murder here in the sticks. I would prefer a spirited debate with any televangelist to the hate-mongering drool I saw on your web-site any day. If their is a god, amy He heed the words, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do." Simplified into words that won't require your well-thumbed dictionaries, "Chill Pops, they're dumb-asses."
No name given, January 5, 2004
FREE INQUIRY must be true to its name and publish articles that do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its editors. After all, this is what true free inquiry is all about. Certainly, not all humanists believe in infanticide for babies that are certain to be deformed in some way. Still, those humanists that defend this stance seem to do so out of concern for the babies. It does not seem fair to accuse one that argues for involuntary euthanasia of "hate-mongering."
I enjoy the magazine "Free Inquiry". I am an atheist, however I have some major disagreements with Mr. Kurtz and the ideas presented in the Humanist Manifesto 2000. The idea of establishing a "World Parliament" goes directly against my observation that the larger the government institution, the less responsive it is to the people. Look at our own government. Right now I could easily get an appointment with my local mayor. I could probably arrange a meeting with the governor. However, as I go further up the hierarchy of our government, my chances of being heard as an individual decreases. A world government would just add one more layer to the government hierarchy. It would probably not be very responsive to the people, and like the UN today, it would be rampant with corruption and personal agendas. The nation state system may not be perfect, but it is still the best system we have for insuring local autonomy. Governments at their lowest level are always more responsive to the needs of their citizens.
Ed Pickel , January 3, 2004
You need christ sir. Then the Ten Commandments would make more since to you. I will be praying for you.
Brandon Clinton, December 30, 2003
I have read several of the articles reflecting disturbing trends in the fundamental religions. I have to ask the question; whatever happened to the ideas of people who actually seriously considered God and believed in God, such as John Locke, Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant, etc? These were great thinkers, centuries ago. This is the 21st century and the cream of the crop is Lahaye and JK Rowling? I find this seriously disturbing. I think people who claim a belief in God should find these people extremely disturbing. These people are not about God, but about Fantasy.
I believe in a God, but, in light of some of the lunatics under the lime light this planet really needs a push for a stronger separation of church and state.
Personally I agree with a great scientist, who once said, "What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.”
Albert Einstein
Sincerely, David Abrams, December 16, 2003
Why do some conservative ideas seem to revolve around the denial of a freedom to an unpopular segment of people? Take for instance Senator Rick Santorum's defense of a constitutional amendment that would deny homosexuals recognition of their couplings, in short he said that if a constitutional amendment articulating heterosexual marraige as the only legally recognized marraige were enacted, then courts could not "mess with the rights of Americans" (thank you cspan for quote). This is the all-to-familiar right espoused by conservatives. You know, the right to deny certain freedoms to people that you may not like. My biggest concern for same-sex marraige is the possible abuses of the system, in other words two guys or girls pretending to be gay for benefits etc... but knowing people, this would not be a significant enough of a concern to justify the denial of freedom to any human being. Many defenses of gay marraige involve grim statistics of heterosexual mating (half of all marraiges end in divorce...in case you have been living in a moon crater). A pragmatic defense can be no more complicated than this "No freedom for the heterosexual that is not then recognized for the homosexual." The freedom to involve your mate, life partner, husband, wife, in the legally defined parameters of your life such as your health, your income etc., should be asserted by any and all human beings.
Thomas Swift, December 11, 2003
If you have comments, positive or negative, from a secular humanist perspective or from some other point of view, please let us hear from you.
Copyright notice: The copyright for the contents of this web site rests with the Council for Secular Humanism. You may download and read the documents. Without permission, you may not alter this information, repost it, or sell it. If you use a document, you are encouraged to make a donation to the Council for Secular Humanism.
CFI SUMMIT
OCTOBER 24-27 2013
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Joint Conference of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
The transnational secular humanist magazine
Renew your FREE INQUIRY subscription