New on Alternet: Atheists as a Political Force

Today I’m very happy to announce that I’ve become a contributor to AlterNet, the award-winning online progressive news and opinion magazine. My first essay is titled “There Are 10 Times As Many Atheists as Mormons: When Will Non-Believers Become a Political Force?” Read an excerpt below, and then click through to see the rest:


The propagandists of the religious right shout it aloud as their battle cry: “America is a Christian nation!” And in the trivial sense that ours is a nation populated mostly by Christians, this is true. But in the sense they mean it, that Christianity was intended to occupy a privileged place in the law — or worse, that Christianity was intended to be the only belief professed by Americans — it couldn’t be more false. Although religion in general and Christianity in particular, play a dominant role in our public life, ours is a secular nation by law. And befitting that heritage, America has always played host to a lively tradition of freethought, unorthodoxy and religious dissent, one that dates back to our founding generation.

Continue reading on AlterNet…

About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, Broken Ring, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • http://www.unequally-yoked.com Leah @ Unequally Yoked

    Oh, major congrats!

  • Sarah Jane Braasch

    That’s awesome!!!

  • Valhar2000

    [...]AlterNet, the award-winning online progressive news and opinion magazine.

    Also the cesspool where the dumbest and most hypocritical commenters outside of Youtube congregate.

    But, now that that’s out of the way: Congratulations! Keep soaring to ever greater heights!

  • http://daylightatheism.org J. James

    You are right that Atheists need to pose a (somewhat) unified front in order to prevent ourselves from being so mistreated and insulted. But the problem is that while the religious are like bees, trying to get Atheists to agree on anything beyond “God doesn’t exist” (and even THEN) would be like trying to herd cats. We have liberals and libertarians, even accomodationists and PZ Meyers in the same category, for crying out loud. I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m just wondering what were those signs you mentioned in your article that Atheists are starting to organize for real.

  • Jormungundr

    Good article.
    But skimming through the comments section decreases my faith in humanity.

    I find it disturbing that atheism is hitched with progressive politics. I’ve noticed a near universal connection in people’s minds between atheism and the political left. Right wing and libertarian atheists do exist. Perhaps intentionally alienating them isn’t the wisest of plans. I’m sure that we would support an atheist PAC that didn’t explicitly endorse progressive politics. But then I’m also sure that advice such as this will be seen by some political leftists as concern trolling rather than an honest opinion.

  • Ritchie

    Good article.
    But skimming through the comments section decreases my faith in humanity.

    This.
    But in any case, congratulations, Adam.

  • Andrew T.

    I applaud all efforts to organize, mobilize, and provide support resources for atheists. We may not hold homogeneous opinions, but I have no doubt that a majority of us would demographically support the goals and objectives Adam quoted in his piece (greater protection of free speech, firm separation of church and state, increased funding for science education and research, equal rights for GLBT people, and greater public support for reason and rationality). Furthermore, there’s room for all types…look at the diversity of organizations within the gay and lesbian movement, after all.

    As for AlterNet itself, I’ve been thoroughly familiarized with the qualities of their comment sections from Greta’s blog…

  • Steve A.E.

    While I’m progressive in my politics, I live in an area so right-wing that most of the people active in the local atheist group are outspoken libertarians. I feel pretty great about Cecil Bothwell but have a hard time imagining they’d support him. Similarly, I might be reluctant to support a candidate who took positions I hate on matters of healthcare, tax policy, foreign policy, criminal justice, civil liberties, and education funding.

    I think the idea of an atheist PAC, as per comment #5, might hold a lot of potential, though. I wonder if the PAC Jormungundr envisions would fund avowedly atheist candidates (or something close) regardless of policy positions and if libertarians would donate to it if it funded Bothwell (see his policy positions). Are there comparable right-wing or libertarian atheist candidates we could similarly consider in this scenario? (For instance, a city council member, mayor, or state legislator running for Congress. Or credible candidates running for state legislatures.)

    If such a PAC did exist, donating to and listing candidates perhaps based on criteria from FFRF and/or Americans United for Separation of Church and State or some other standard measure of secularism and non-theism, I’d think we could donate both to it (regardless of our attitudes toward healthcare funding or taxes) and then to our preferred candidates that it might bring to our attention.

    Maybe AtheistPAC funds candidates A, B, C, & D. Perhaps Jormungundr thinks liberals B & C are terrible on a bunch of issues, and I feel similarly about right-wingers A & D. Maybe, though, Jormungundr and I each give $100 to the PAC, and each candidate gets a quarter of the total; meanwhile, I give another $50 each to B & C, and Jormungundr does likewise with A & D. Maybe Jormungundr still gives to the PAC some amount even if there is no A & D available in some given election, or I do likewise if in 2014 all the solid atheists are also libertarians.

    Does this seem like a promising idea to others? If so, we’d probably need someone who’s totally public about their atheism to organize it. Adam?

  • Vin720

    Hey all, don’t forget that there are conservative atheists as well as…..gasp!…..Republican atheists as well. Progressive politics is not on all of our menus.

  • Jormungundr

    Maybe AtheistPAC funds candidates A, B, C, & D. Perhaps Jormungundr thinks liberals B & C are terrible on a bunch of issues, and I feel similarly about right-wingers A & D.

    That is how it tends to work out. So long as the PAC had the narrow goal of increasing religious (er, non-religious) freedoms and opposing entangling our government with religions (Faith Based Initiatives, National Prayer Days, etc), we would all have to put up with it not supporting only the few candidates that we like.
    I have this problem with the NRA. On one hand they do in some ways try to support 2nd Amendment rights. On the other hand they send money to some politicians that I don’t fully support. But that is the price you pay for sending your money to a single issue PAC. I would say it is worth it to pay that price if you really care about that one issue.
    That being said, I’ve never donated to any atheist PACs. Perhaps I should.

  • Alex Weaver

    I find it disturbing that atheism is hitched with progressive politics. I’ve noticed a near universal connection in people’s minds between atheism and the political left. Right wing and libertarian atheists do exist. Perhaps intentionally alienating them isn’t the wisest of plans.

    In the United States, at least, the right wing has thermite-welded itself to the reestablishment of religion and the view that religion is a necessary force in society (at least for the peasants). Big-L Libertarians are basically religious in mindset, though (often) technically non-theists – yes, even the ones who don’t overtly worship Ann Rand – and watering down humanism to appease a collective of fundamentally anti-human and antisocial conceits is inviable and unconscionable.

    They’re welcome to work with us on common causes, and if they really care about atheism as a social phenomenon and a movement they will, even if we don’t pretend to approve of all their views. If they don’t, then they’re useless as allies since we don’t anticipate any need for actual cannon fodder, and even if we did, relying on people who are going to stomp off at the first hint of criticism to help hold the line is a terminally stupid strategy. Sincerely meant or not, this really is just the Mooney-Nisbet argument rebranded.

    Hey all, don’t forget that there are conservative atheists as well as…..gasp!…..Republican atheists as well. Progressive politics is not on all of our menus.

    Opposition to humanism broadly and atheist goals in particular is a sizable fraction of the Repug platform these days. In fact, the Repug party platform is converging to the additive inverse of secular humanism.

    I’m sure there are chickens favorably disposed towards Colonel Sanders, at least to the extent chickens consider cartoon characters. What’s your point?

  • Steve A.E.

    That being said, I’ve never donated to any atheist PACs. Perhaps I should.

    I’ve been under the impression there isn’t one yet. Is there? I mean, I think we should all be supporting FFRF and AU, but I don’t believe they donate to candidates.

    Similarly, I remain really interested in other current examples of atheist candidates comparable to Cecil Bothwell, whether they’re progressive or libertarian or whatever. Can anyone name any?

    Googling a bit, I discover there was Wynne LeGrow in Virginia last year, but are there any others declared for the 2012 elections? Or, okay, additional examples from other very recent years?

  • Ubi Dubium

    We do have a lobbying group in Washington, the Secular Coalition for America. (http://www.secular.org/) By all means, donate to them if you can.

  • http://gretachristina.typepad.com/ Greta Christina

    A lot of people are making comments like, “How can we organize politically? We don’t all share the same political views.” But the same thing could be said for LGBT people. And we have nevertheless become a powerful political force and voting bloc. We’ve done it in two ways:

    1) Organizing on specifically LGBT issues, such as adoption rights, workplace discrimination, etc. Almost all LGBT people agree on these issues, even if they’re conservative Republicans. Atheist can do that with, for instance, separation of church and state issues, and anti-atheist custody decisions, and so on.

    2) Organizing and doing coalition work around issues that most LGBT people agree on — such as feminism and health care — and not worrying too much about the fact that a handful of LGBT people aren’t going to agree with or support those politics. Conservative LGBT people can form their own political organizations — and in fact they have, in the form of the Log Cabin Republicans. Political organizing is never going to be perfect, it’s never going to make everyone happy, and if we’re going to be a political force to be reckoned with, we have to accept that.

  • Steve A.E.

    Greta, would you say that the political organizing should include candidate-specific support (whether those candidates are atheists or just agreeable on secular issues), or do you think that’s not actually important?

  • http://gazinglongintoanabyss.blogspot.com/ Michael

    “While I’m progressive in my politics, I live in an area so right-wing that most of the people active in the local atheist group are outspoken libertarians.” (Not sure how you do quotes here).

    Funny…I have the exact opposite experience. In fact, I feel uncomfortable to voice my real views in their company. That said, I know of Cecil Bothwell (our book group had some of his works proposed) and think it was unconscionable how he was treated. On his policy positions, I’d say libertarians would agree 50% or so (it kind of depends-there is a diverse spectrum in libertarianism). My guess is:
    Public Financing of Campaigns: No
    Child Social Programs: No
    End Income Taxes: Yes
    End War on Drugs: Yes
    Renegotiate Trade Deals (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) Yes, though perhaps not for the reason he supports this
    Stop Being the World’s Policeman: Yes
    Public Option Health Care: No
    End Corporate Personhood: Yes (me personally-unfortunately, most libertarians do not seem to be aware of the issue, let alone have a position on it)

    I don’t know if what he lists next are his official platform positions, and they have far more complicated responses, so I’ll leave them out.

    http://bothwell4congress.wordpress.com/platformpositions/

  • Vin720

    Alex, I am Republican because of many reasons. Being an atheist is just one aspect of my life. I also disagree with the premise that the Republicans are killing religous freedom. Actually conservatitism is defined as less goverment control. It is progressives on the left (socialists) and progressives on the right (fascists) who are hurting freedom of religion or lack thereof.

  • http://www.daylightatheism.org Ebonmuse

    Thanks, everyone, for your feedback and kind comments. Of course, I fully intend to write more posts for Alternet in the future

    Good article.
    But skimming through the comments section decreases my faith in humanity.

    Well, I can’t say I wasn’t warned about that in advance. :) From what I see of the comments section, there are roughly equal proportions of reasonable people, angry people who just want to argue, and aggressive, obnoxious trolls. I observed the same phenomenon on Reddit, where my column got over 1000 comments – which I’d find extremely heartening, except that I estimate that at least 80% of them didn’t read anything beyond the headline.

    @Steve A.E.:

    Does this seem like a promising idea to others? If so, we’d probably need someone who’s totally public about their atheism to organize it. Adam?

    I’d be glad to answer the call, but alas, my day is only twenty-four hours long like everyone else’s. I would, however, second Ubi Dubium’s comment about the Secular Coalition for America, which is doing some great work on our behalf on Capitol Hill (against, it must be said, overwhelming odds). FFRF also runs many clever educational and outreach campaigns, as well as legal work, and I’d strongly advise freethinkers to support either or both of these excellent organizations.

    I don’t know of any explicitly atheist PACs, but if there was one, candidates would probably be frightened to accept money from it. When it comes to candidate advocacy, atheists would probably be better off with a MoveOn-type model, coordinating many small, individual donations.

    A lot of people are making comments like, “How can we organize politically? We don’t all share the same political views.” But the same thing could be said for LGBT people. And we have nevertheless become a powerful political force and voting bloc.

    Well said, Greta! That’s an excellent example of how people who share a common concern can lobby and organize effectively, even if their views on other issues aren’t all identical. And, it has to be said, a lot of commenters on Alternet and Reddit were treating this as an all-or-nothing deal: if we can’t get every atheist to organize, there’s no point in even trying. I don’t think anyone here needs me to point out the fallacy in that.

  • Jormungundr

    Actually conservatitism is defined as less goverment control.

    But the neocons are a perverse mix of big government and social conservatism. I’m sure we can all think of instances in which self proclaimed conservatives have advocated more government control.
    When the so-called conservatives are in power, they spend like there is no tomorrow and try to expand the government’s power past what I am comfortable with.
    When the progressives are in power, they spend like there is no tomorrow and try to expand the government’s power past what I am comfortable with.
    Both sides claim that they support greater personal freedom. Both sides lie endlessly, or at least their political representatives do.

    Greta, option one sounds better to me than option two. Maximizing the size of your group by minimizing the number of issues it deals with seems wise. If the goal is to pool resources in order to form an influential voting block, then we need to not drag side issues unrelated to secularism into such a group.
    I would say that AIPAC is a good example of the kind of the kind of PAC that atheists should form. It ignores partisan politics and simply supports whichever candidate announces his support for Israel. If both candidates in a race announce their support, then both might get ‘campaign contributions’ (legal bribes as far as I’m concerned). If one fails to, there might be a retaliation of attack ads published by AIPAC against him. Thanks to that our national politicians are sure to shovel money towards Israel and not openly denounce it in order to stay on AIPAC’s good side. If I recall correctly, both presidential and vice presidential candidates pledged their support to Israel in the last presidential race debates. Lee’s article claims that there are roughly 10 times as many atheists as Jews in the U.S. If we had a PAC roughly ten times as powerful as AIPAC, then politics would be skewed in our favor. But any attempt to add on side issues that alienate some atheists (“Conservative atheists can form their own political organizations”), will weaken such a PAC.

  • http://darkenedstumbling.blogspot.com/ Leum

    Alex, I am Republican because of many reasons. Being an atheist is just one aspect of my life. I also disagree with the premise that the Republicans are killing religous freedom. Actually conservatitism is defined as less goverment control. It is progressives on the left (socialists) and progressives on the right (fascists) who are hurting freedom of religion or lack thereof.

    Um, have you been paying attention? Conservatives, at least as per your definition, don’t run the Republican Party anymore. The anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-war, anti-drug, pro-torture, anti-civil liberties, pro-racism, etc, etc do. The so-called progressives on the right (a contradiction in terms) are the ones running your party. And by being a Republican you’re implicitly agreeing that their policies are good for the nation (which is part of why I’m not a registered Democrat, incidentally).

  • Yahzi

    I also disagree with the premise that the Republicans are killing religous freedom. Actually conservatitism is defined as less goverment control.

    Hmm. You must live in a different America than the one I read about in the news.

    Is the weather nice on your planet? Because the weather on our planet is getting kind of bad, thanks to our Republicans who don’t believe in science or government regulation to prevent the tragedy of the commons.

  • Alex Weaver

    Alex, I am Republican because of many reasons. Being an atheist is just one aspect of my life. I also disagree with the premise that the Republicans are killing religous freedom. Actually conservatitism is defined as less goverment control. It is progressives on the left (socialists) and progressives on the right (fascists) who are hurting freedom of religion or lack thereof.

    No, conservatism is defined as an opposition to change.

    And yes, I’m aware that the Repugs don’t actually practice that, since they’re actually seeking to drag society kicking and screaming back into the Gilded Age on economic issues, back to the Middle Ages of other countries on religious liberty issues, and straight into Godwin territory on civil liberties issues.

    Also, that’s a conclusion, not a premise.

  • http://gretachristina.typepad.com/ Greta Christina

    Greta, would you say that the political organizing should include candidate-specific support?

    I don’t see why not. Elected officials are largely how laws and policies get set in this country. If we want laws and policies to change, we need to turn ourselves into a visible voting bloc. We need to let elected officials know that we take issues such as separation of church and state seriously… to the point where we’ll support candidates who support it, and won’t support candidates who don’t. I don’t think that’s all we should be doing — but I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be part of it. Every other social change movement I know of does it.

  • Shawn Smith

    Reasonable article, Adam. I just have one small nit to pick. You write in your article that Jefferson was a Deist. I am aware that that is a common statement from some who want to put Jefferson in the non-believing camp, and I used it myself in the past. However, I have been convinced that is a wrong interpretation. It seems much more likely to me that Jefferson, along with other founding fathers, would be best described as theistic rationalists. They believed an interventionist god existed, and that the best way to discern what this god wanted was to use rational thinking and examination of the natural world. One of Ed Brayton’s colleagues has been advancing this thesis, (I can’t remember which one) and it makes the most sense to me.

    Other than that, congratulations on the wider audience the posting on Alternet will give you.

  • Alex Weaver

    It seems much more likely to me that Jefferson, along with other founding fathers, would be best described as theistic rationalists. They believed an interventionist god existed, and that the best way to discern what this god wanted was to use rational thinking and examination of the natural world.

    How does this square with the Jefferson Bible?

  • http://kagerato.net kagerato

    If you want to know what Jefferson believed, read what he wrote:

    What is it men cannot be made to believe ?

    –to Richard Henry Lee, on the British regarding America, April 22, 1786.

    Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

    –Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

    I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

    –Letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789

    (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote “Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?”)

    I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

    –Letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

    They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

    –to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

    –Letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT. , Jan. 1, 1802

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

    –to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

    The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

    –Letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

    –Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

    –Letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

    If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? … Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

    –Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

    Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

    –Letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, July 30, 1816

    My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

    –Letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816

    You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

    –Letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

    Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.

    –Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

    Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

    –Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

    To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

    –Letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820

    Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

    –to James Smith, 1822

    I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

    –Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

    And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

    –Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

    May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

    –Last letter penned, to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826

  • Steve A.E.

    Thanks, Greta. It’s encouraging to hear I’m not barking up the wrong tree by focusing my attention on the question of appropriate candidates. The Secular Coalition for America and FFRF both do great work, but I don’t think either of them or AU or anyone else is doing much to highlight who the best candidates for the cause of secularism are.

    Even leaving aside the question of who any other current or recent atheist candidates are (besides Bothwell and LeGrow), I’d be interested in the specifics of who the best officeholders and candidates are for separation of church and state, even if those politicians are themselves theists. I’m on the verge of trying to put together a database to analyze that, but I sure don’t want to duplicate work that’s already been done.

    Meanwhile, for atheists who are concerned about separation of church and state but also vote Republican, I’d be very interested in knowing who the Republicans are that they’ve recently felt are good on the issue.

  • Shawn Smith

    Alex Weaver,

    How does this square with the Jefferson Bible?

    I would think it would be quite expected. My impression (possibly wrong) was that Jefferson saw rational thought as the best way to figure out what God is/was/wanted. I haven’t read the Jefferson Bible, but I have heard that it was the Bible with all the plainly mythical parts taken out. None of the quotes in kagerato’s list (thanks!) seems to contradict that hypothesis, and Jefferson really doesn’t seem to like organized (Catholic / Calvinist) religion.

  • Charles Black

    Yep I’ll be looking forward to seeing women being lynched & killed for not being virgins when having sex just to name what the Bible proscribes for adultery.

  • http://tni.com/110405 Neil C. Reinhardt

    When someone attempts to tell me the Untied States Of America is a “Christian Nation”, I point out there are not only some Eighty Million members of Other religions who live in the US, there are also well over some Twenty Five Million Atheists.

    I also clue them it is only those with a superficial knowledge of American History who say the United States was founded by Christians. And I use Christian minister & Historian to back me up.

    The article in the link below is on the Founding of the United States was both Researched and Written by R.P. Nettelhorst who is a Knowledgeable and extremely fair Christian Historian and Minister.

    http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

    —————-

    Next, IF Atheists want to achieve equal treatment, then EVERY Atheist who wants this SHOULD not only join at least one of the following four organizations I belong to, support it with time and money, they should be urging other Atheists to do the same.
    http://www.Atheists.org/

    http://www.AtheistsUnited.org/

    http://www.FFRF.org/

    http://MAAF.info/

    They should also become Activists and do everything they can to educate others as to Atheists are,

    After all, Atheists ARE either the leaders, or among the leaders in every field other than religion and more than a few Atheists WERE leaders in the field of religion before they were able to DE-Programmed themselves.

    PROOF HERE

    http://www.celebatheists.com/

    http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html

    http://machineslikeus.com/famous-atheists.htm


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X