The history of church-state separation in twenty minutes

Adam Lee of Daylight Atheism recently gave a short talk on the topic of church-state separation at Columbia University. As Adam explains, separation benefits all religious sects, protecting each of them from all other sects. Nonetheless, there is a long history of Americans religions attempting to circumvent the separation clause. One of the main problems has been that members of many religions, including today's religious right, simply cannot comprehend or accept the possibility that government could be religiously neutral.  They are driven along by this idea: "If you are not their ally, you must be their enemy." This is an excellent two-part talk on a critically important topic, and you can view both parts of the talk here. Here is Part I:

Columbia Speech from Adam Lee on Vimeo.

Also, notice that Adam (AKA Ebonmuse) is now out of the closet as an atheist.  There's an important reason for that move, one that is explained in this Daylight Atheism post about FFRF's "Virtual Billboard Campaign."  I'm totally in favor of having non-theists of all stripes (including atheists, new atheists, agnostics and ignostics) spread the word that they are decent, law-abiding, tax-paying moral members of society despite the fact that many of them do not attend church. They need to be heard because they are all-too-often unfairly disparaged, especially by conservative believers, and because non-religious people comprise one out of six Americans. Here's how Adam further explains the reason for the Campaign:

As simple as it is, this may be one of the most effective things we can do to improve our public image and get our message out. The religious right has worked hard to spread poisonous stereotypes about who we are, what we stand for, even what we look like. By associating atheism with a friendly, smiling face that could be your friend or your neighbor, we go a long way toward counteracting those prejudices in the public's conception and making people more likely to listen to what we have to say.

Continue ReadingThe history of church-state separation in twenty minutes

Recipe for morality: Just add empathy.

We often discussed empathy at this website, for instance here. And here. Most of the time, we discuss the importance of empathy-based morality without invoking any supernatural beings, beliefs, or commandments. This is not to claim that religion is always irrelevant to such discussions. For the past day, I have repeatedly thought about Rush Limbaugh's recent invocation of Jesus. He claimed that Jesus would prefer that we lower the tax rates for rich people and that we dismantle the federal social safety net for those who are not rich. This morning, coming out of a courthouse a poor-looking man smiled and said, "I hope you're having a good day." I thanked him and walked on, struck that an upbeat man of such modest means, a man I didn't know, would take time to greet me. That reminded me of a recurring thought I have: If I were God, I would visit earth dressed as a poor person, and I would mingle with well-to-do people to see how they treated me. If I were God and I did this, I would repeatedly be reminded that rich people avoided me. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingRecipe for morality: Just add empathy.

Preparing to run for President

There is no surer sign that someone is getting ready to run for president that the fact that they suddenly claim to be more strongly religious than they ever were before. You can now see this phenomenon with Newt Gingrich, who is trying to score political points by mouthing off about all the purported damage being done to the country by non-theists like me.

Continue ReadingPreparing to run for President

Neo-Jesus according to Rush Limbaugh

Lawrence O'Donnell put Limbaugh in his  place after Limbaugh attempted to rewrite the Bible. Limbaugh's outburst was this: Those on the political left mangle the words of Jesus Christ. They improperly claim that Jesus was a liberal/socialist who would approve of tax increases on the rich. This is incorrect, says Rush. Jesus would not "take" taxes from the rich: At 5:30, O'Donnell gives Rush a homework assignment:  Find a bible passage where we find Jesus "sympathizing with rich people for having paid too much tax or having been too generous, or having been forced by anyone, by the state, by Caesar, by anyone . . . forced to be too generous. "

Continue ReadingNeo-Jesus according to Rush Limbaugh