Posted on 01/06/2005 9:12:28 AM PST by missyme
Bracing for what's to come from a Republican-controlled White House and Congress, people who don't believe in God are joining forces as never before to make sure their rights don't get trampled in what they perceive as a stampede of religious zeal.
Riding a post-election spike in new memberships, groups of humanists, agnostics and other non-theists are raising funds to put their first-ever lobbyists on Capitol Hill. To shape an agenda, leaders from as many as 20 non-theistic groups will convene Jan. 15-16 for their largest summit since Ronald Reagan took the Oval Office with help from the Moral Majority in 1981.
For those who regard themselves as "freethinkers," organizing into cohesive teams for any purpose has never been an easy task. But the effort this time has gained fresh momentum as those outside the world of organized religion brainstorm how to defend their freedoms in what feels to them like a time of siege.
"A lot of non-theistic people tend to be independent and non-joiners," said Herb Silverman, president of the Albany, N.Y.-based Secular Coalition for America, which represents five non-theistic organizations and has endorsements from others.
"Now they're starting to get worried. ... It seems we're a group politicians can feel comfortable discriminating against."
Such a perception seems to be driving non-theists to get active. For example:
-- Membership in the Washington-based American Humanist Association has jumped 5 percent since the election and 15 percent since January to reach the 7,000 mark.
-- The Secular Coalition for America has grown its lobbying fund from $8,000 a year ago to $50,000 today. At $100,000, the group intends to hire a lobbyist and possibly an administrative staffer.
At the Los Angeles-based Atheist Alliance International, donations in November 2004 outpaced those of the prior three months put together as donors, apparently troubled by President Bush's re-election, began giving in four- and five-figure amounts.
Encouraged by these developments, both the Secular Coalition and the American Humanist Association are pressing ahead with plans to launch their own 501c4 organizations so they can legally finance congressional lobbying efforts. And insiders are hearing some hardened non-theists warming to the notion of collaborating with liberal religious groups for pragmatic reasons.
"There's been a shift," said Roy Speckhardt, deputy director of the American Humanist Association. "Some in the atheist constituency are saying things like, `We'd like to work more with you (in coalitions with progressive religious groups) so we can have an effect in Washington.' They've realized they need to do this in order to get things done."
Over the years, non-theist groups have tended to organize locally as supportive communities for those whose beliefs aren't compatible with church, mosque or synagogue. Atheist Alliance International includes 40 local chapters whose collective membership totals about 3,700. Such numbers represent just a fraction of the 38 million Americans who self-identify as "secular," according to the Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Organizational numbers have tended to be small, leaders say, because skeptics are by nature wary of being followers. And in some cases, would-be joiners might fear potential repercussions for coming out of the closet publicly as non-theists in an overwhelmingly religious nation.
Leaders identified with atheism say they routinely receive anonymous hate mail, including threats. One staffer at the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation reported received an early December e-mail saying, "You deserve to be shot in the chest."
Others have been ostracized. When Silverman gave an invocation at a Charleston, S.C., City Council meeting in March 2003, six council members stood and walked out in protest.
But with a rising tide of power emboldening religious conservatives in Washington, non-theists are increasingly finding reason to stand, be counted and speak up themselves. Topping the list of concerns is a sense of decay in the principle of church-state separation. From faith-based initiatives to frequent religious expression in the public square, people of a secular viewpoint are feeling excluded from the public domain.
"There's a strong impression on the religious right that religion has been excluded" from public life, said Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry, a bimonthly magazine read by 30,000 secular humanists. "Our perception of fairness is their perception of discrimination against the religious right.
... This election really seems to send us the message that we're probably going to keep losing ground."
Yet as they get more organized, non-theists are also finding they are more than a one-issue constituency. Leaders say those who don't believe in God share a virtual consensus in favor of gay and abortion rights.
"If you take religious arguments out of the mix, there's no other group that's opposing progressive values," said Timothy Travis, a non-theist from King George, Va.
On the judicial front, the New York City-based American Civil Liberties Union has seen membership grow by almost 50 percent since the start of 2004, from 300,000 to 445,000. Meanwhile, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has seen membership climb by about 4 percent since the election to about 5,100. Both groups use donations to mount legal challenges to government-sponsored religious activity.
Yet for non-theists, the new goal is to win a favorable opinion from lawmakers and their constituents. The arrival of a solidly Republican Congress and a second term for Bush mean, in Silverman's opinion, it's time to get more organized.
"There's a feeling we need to get our community out and not just sneer at those we feel are influencing the culture for the worse."
Action is needed, he said, to oppose what many in the movement see as a "creeping theocracy."
I understand the definition of "invocation." That's why I said that I have spoken during the normal time of an invocation and explained what I said.
Of course I cannot invoke something I do not believe. I do believe, however, in the power of the human mind and in reason. If I am asked to offer an invocation, I do just what I said. And I've done it many dozens of times in a wide variety of situations.
So far, nobody's ever been bothered by it.
If they don't like the backlash they shouldn't have pushed so hard to the left beforehand.
Cost of 20th century Communism: 100 million dead
Cost of USA's "Right to Choose": 40 million dead
Cost of ending Bible reading from public schools: school shootings, rampant promiscuity
For 3000+ quotes by atheists on how bad the evidence is for evolution, big-bang cosmology, etc.
http://shop4.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-086
It even has sections on atheists talking about the negative effects of humanistic thinking on society.
Jesus Christ is our only hope. May I love, forgive, and follow.
Communists.
Knew it.
That persons do not know evil. Evil is evil good is good G-D is good that persons do not know G-D. Thank you
Their fervor is just proving that humans seek religion:
They've made Liberalism their religion.
Of course, their god is the devil, whether they know it or not.
>> people who don't believe in God...
> Atheism...
Ahem: there are more people in the world who don't believe in God than just atheists.
> I am tired of having their religious zeal rammed down the throats of the rest of us.
Then imagine how tired *they* are. To do so, imagine that our currency said "There Is No God To Trust" instead of "In God We Trust."
"I cannot even imagine being in such a bizarre situation that an atheist would be asked to deliver an invocation. An atheist giving an "invocation" sounds like mental masturbation to me."
Not so bizarre. I've been an active member on many boards of directors and an officer of several organizations. All normally began their meetings with some sort of invocation. As a member, I've often come up in the rotation for delivering such a thing.
While most invocations ask some deity to protect the group and guide its decisions, mine were somewhat different. I always simply ask the group to carefully consider the issues that will be discussed and make their best decision, based on their assessment of the issues. I appeal to logic and intellect.
I never denigrate anyone's faith, and never would. I do not share any religious faith with them, but I do share a common concern for fairness and proper actions.
Not once, in all the times I've done this, has anyone objected to my words. It is not so bizarre.
This includes all athiests who don't believe in a higher power, i.e., God or that Jesus died for their sins...died in their place.
I wonder....is denying His existence, denying Him, the unforgiveable sin? Would make me think.
Well, perhaps here you have an opportunity to educate me. But since an atheist is one who by definition does not believe in God, I find it hard to understand how you can claim that there is such thing as a person who does not believe in God and yet is not an atheist. So please explain.
Then imagine how tired *they* are. To do so, imagine that our currency said "There Is No God To Trust" instead of "In God We Trust."
Well, let 'em start their OWN country and have their OWN currency. This one was started by people who universally believed in God (although not all were Christians).
And please don't give me that "separation of church and state" nonsense, since 1) there is no such thing in the Constitution, and 2) virtually everybody who was remotely connected with the framing of our government favored the public invocation of God's blessings at every opportunity.
Lastly, let us not forget that atheistic fanaticism killed and imprisoned more people in the 20th century than any religious doctrine ever has.
I would not term that an invocation. It's more of a statement of purpose for the meeting. I can appreciate an appeal for rationality, introspection and care (although I find the appeal somewhat superfluous at a meeting of serious minded people). But, if the meetings are usually begun with a legitimate invocation, I would personally request that your comments be followed by a proper prayer.
"I would not term that an invocation. It's more of a statement of purpose for the meeting. I can appreciate an appeal for rationality, introspection and care (although I find the appeal somewhat superfluous at a meeting of serious minded people). But, if the meetings are usually begun with a legitimate invocation, I would personally request that your comments be followed by a proper prayer."
I would not term it an invocation, either. It occurred at the time for the invocation, and always substituted for it. No harm done, and the meetings went on as usual.
I am an unbeliever. I sit on these boards or executive committees. When my turn comes to say a few words, I do so, and that has always seemed satisfactory to those I serve with. I see no problem. Your situation might vary from that. I don't know.
Not everyone is religious. It seems to me that there is a place for those who do not profess a religion, as much as there is for those who do. Apparently the people I work and serve with agree with me. There it is.
I understand.
> I find it hard to understand how you can claim that there is such thing as a person who does not believe in God and yet is not an atheist.
Agnostics do not believe in God.
Muslims do not believe in God (not yours, anyway)
Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, animists, etc. do not believe in God.
Remember, there is a difference between atheism ("I believe there is no god") and agnosticism ("I do not believe in god").
> let us not forget that atheistic fanaticism killed and imprisoned more people in the 20th century than any religious doctrine ever has.
Sorry, no... that was Communism. They bleated about Atheism, but they weren't. They simply replaced one god with another... that being the State (or the "historical dialectic," or whatever other drivel it was)
> is denying His existence, denying Him, the unforgiveable sin?
Seems unreasonable. How P.O.ed at *me* would *you* be if I said that I don't believe that you exist? That I think your postings are being made by someone else in your name?
Let's say someone had the FR user name of "God." (I'm sure someone has tried, maybe there is such a name... but I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment) Would you immediately call the person a liar, or would you immediately believe that the username was accurate?
This statement is not correct. Muslims believe in the God of the old testament. The first part of the Koran is the Torah, or old testament. So, they do believe in the same God. What they don't believe in is Jesus Christ. There is the difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.