Spread the Word Week One

So, thus begins Spread the Word, a hopefully weekly segment in which people will essentially blog, but with visual aids. Welcome to the talking points of the future, brought to you by your new Talking Points coordinator!

Here are some links to sites that I used in gathering info - there's good stuff here:
Abuses of Religion on the Campaign Trail

The Survey .

Enjoy the first Spread the Word segment everyone!

~Meryl

Romney and Atheists

All the talk about Romney's big religion speech leaving out atheists and agnostics is, to my mind, overblown -- one of the wonderful things about being an atheist is that we generally don't give a damn what other people think about us. Why should I care whether some mediocre Republican functionary takes the time to talk about my beliefs?

That said, it's a little unnerving when they start to imply that religious faith is somehow a prerequisite for public life. The fact that George H.W. Bush in 1987 could get away with saying "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" is obviously worrisome, and Romney exhibits a muted form of the same prejudice:

In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong. [...]

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

Well, fuck you too, Governor.

But really, what's offensive about this is not so much its attitude toward me as its attitude toward reality. To suggest that religious faith is a prerequisite for liberty is, well, it's false. I really like the way the Washington Post editorial board put it:

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom," Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.

It's a matter of time before America catches up with the rest of the First World in terms of secularization -- the proportion of nonreligious people in America nearly doubled between 1990-2001 and is presumably still on the rise (though we have a long way to go compared to even the Brits, 44% of whom identify as nonreligious) -- so I don't worry too much about it. The kind of rhetoric we get from Romney, not to mention the more extreme theocons, will seem laughably anachronistic within a few decades. Still it'd be nice if our political leaders could at least perform the basic intellectual task of separating moral & ethical principles from religious dogma; is that so much to ask?

Speaking of God

I might be alone in thinking that the coin-printing error Raul pointed out below is, however accidental, a definite step in the right direction. (Seriously, guys. Separation of church and state. This one is pretty fucking obvious.)

But regardless of your opinion on government-mandated monetary theism, this
is big news:

On Monday, March 12, the Secular Coalition for America will make history by announcing the name of the first openly nontheistic member of Congress.

Per their press release, this seems to be the result of a contest they held last year, with a $1000 reward, to effectively "out" an atheist/agnostic member of Congress (such as gay rights activists have been doing, with mixed success, for the past few decades) -- although this release also describes their Mystery Congressman as "openly" nontheistic, so hopefully it's a mutual rather than a malicious thing.

Anyway, I'm very excited about this, both as an atheist and as a lover of religious freedom -- in an era where a majority of Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist president, and public school teachers are being fired for "enticing children into witchcraft," anything that hints at acceptance of nonbelief in the public sphere is laudable. Hopefully this Secular Coalition thing is legit and will be able to garner real publicity (i.e., not just unhinged bloggers).

Meanwhile, political junkies get to play the predictions game: who is it? The libertarian blog I found this on suggests, without any corroboration whatever, that it might be Massachusetts' own Barney Frank... as cool as that would be, I'd rather it was not the case. Why? Because Barney Frank is already the most awesome congressman ever, and we need to spread the love around a bit.

Anyway, it seems to be a big day for atheists and a bad day for God. Personally I hope these trends continue. After all, what's the worst that could happen? ...

Update (3/12/07): It's Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), who is 75 years old and has been in Congress (representing part of the San Francisco Bay Area) since 1973, consistently ranked among the body's most liberal members. He's apparently a "nontheistic Unitarian". Bravo, Rep. Stark!

For something a little less inflammatory ...

.... let's try religion! No?

Anyhow, Nick Kristof had an op-ed about reconciling humanism with fundamentalism which Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett replied to.

It's an interesting and not a little disturbing issue to think about here at Harvard for those of us who are have an equally firm belief in scientific rigor and political reality.