He is an out atheist, the president of LaGrange Humanists. Just a few days ago, he qualified as a Democratic candidate for the District 69 seat in the Georgia House of Representatives. He’s running on a campaign of marijuana legalization, campaign finance reform, and opposition to war (including the war on women, he specifies).

His opponent, Randy Nix, is the Republican incumbent, a Methodist pastor, and a former chaplain’s assistant. In his five years in office, Nix has voted to ban abortion after 20 weeks and require an ultrasound, to require English-only driver’s license exams, and to prohibit health care mandates. (You can see Nix’s full voting record here).  Needless to say, they’re polar opposites.

So does Mr. Smith have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this thing?

Recently, I had a a chance to ask him. (Links have been added by me for the sake of clarity.)

Mike Smith, out atheist and Georgia congressional candidate.

Tell me about yourself, in your own words, and why you decided to run.

I have always been an atheist. I graduated from high school here, joined the army, went to Vietnam, came home, and worked my way through college and law school. Meanwhile, I married and we had a son who now has a son of his own. In 2000, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, and I took her to all of her treatments. While she sat in the chemo chair, I would read about Buddhism because I had planned to take a class on Buddhist Psychology. I came to consider myself a secular Buddhist. In 2002, my wife of over 31 years died, and Buddhism helped me understand that I have no control over anything, especially death. I rode a motorcycle from here to Alaska and back in 2003 and it gave me a lot of time to think. In 2004, I married my second wife, and we have two daughters, ages 3 and 5. In 2006, I also had surgery for cancer, but that seems to be in remission.

9-11-2001 was important because it showed me the deadly side of what I had always considered a backward and hateful institution: supernatural religion. I read all of the New Atheist books and agreed with most of what I read. In 2008, like many Obama supporters, I was asked by the Obama campaign and by MoveOn.org to write letters-to-the-editor of my local paper to discuss issues suggested by those groups. When my letters were printed, there were many letters in response calling me a left-wing/fascist/liberal/Communist/atheist, and I soon realized that I could write my own letters about the things I cared about, mostly atheism.

Meanwhile, I was elected to the local Democratic party as a voting member and recruited others in an effort to strengthen the party. One of our goals has been to have as many Democrats as possible on the ballot. We now have about four local candidates, and I had planned to be one of them, possibly a county commissioner candidate.

This past winter, the Georgia general assembly went crazy, passing all kinds of oppressive laws designed to punish women, the poor, and union members. The Republicans also legislated their right to force the Ten Commandments into all public buildings. At that point, I decided to run for the legislature rather than the county commission. I also joined protests against actions of the legislature and helped form the Occupy LaGrange group in support of the Occupy movement.

As coincidences happen, the general manager of the newspaper is the wife of a preacher that asked the City of LaGrange for a $10,000 gift for a Jesus/Winshape summer camp. I wrote a letter to the city, and couple of days later, the city decided to decline the donation to the church. At about the same time, the editor of the newspaper retired, and the new editor seems to be under the influence the preacher’s wife/general manager because they stopped printing my letters. As a result, the political campaign will give me a new venue to express my atheism.

You’re an out atheist. How did you come to identify as such, and how do you feel it shapes you and your decisions?

I answered most of this above, but atheism is clearly the most reasonable way to view the world. By another name, it is Humanism, the philosophy of living with compassion and reason, but without gods. I am reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, who seems to argue that we are motivated by emotion more than by reason, but I can see that some emotions are fostered by reason. For example, I have strong emotions against being forced to do or believe things that do not make sense. That emotion is the sense of freedom.

What values of Georgians do you feel that you best represent?

Fairness and Freedom.

Georgia remains very conservative. How do you plan to convince traditionally conservative voters to support you?

Freedom may be the most conservative American ideal. To address atheism, I will have to emphasize freedom, freedom of religion, and the freedom of all Americans to not believe in supernatural things. Voters who understand that it is fair for atheists to be freed from religion should support me.

What do you see as the toughest battle of your campaign?

My toughest battle will be to convince those conservative voters to support me. It will be difficult to overcome their irrational prejudices.

First, I will have to win the Democratic primary on July 31^st. I plan to do that by participating in as many Democratic events as I can find in the District. There are three county parties here: Troup, Heard, and Carroll. I talked to my Democratic opponent and he does not seem very motivated to participate in discussions or debates, although I think that would be a very good way to get the pubic engaged in the process. Since I have a disinterested opponent, the challenge will be to overcome the prejudice that many have against atheists.

One solution might be to not emphasize my worldview until after the primary. However, the largest city in the district is LaGrange and many people here already know I am an atheist because of my frequent letters to the editor about atheism over the past few years. So, the primary may be my only opportunity to make the voters aware of atheism.

What do you think your chances of election are? [Emphasis mine.]

A political consultant told me from the beginning that he expects the Republican incumbent to raise about $70,000, and that a Democrat might be able to raise about $40,000 but would be lucky to receive about 30% of the vote in this district. He said the benefit of running for the House was that I would receive enough exposure to possibly win a county school board seat the next time.

Another obstacle is the fact that I have decided to not accept contributions because I think money corrupts politics. We should make all political contributions illegal and publically finance all election campaigns. I have enough money to do basic campaigning, but I will not be wasting my funds. So, the financial odds are also be against me.

However, I think that elections should be about ideas, not about money. So, it may be more realistic to believe that my chances at winning depend on the level of voter excitement about the issues I have raised, including: ending legalized bribery of legislators by lobbyists, making the rich [pay] a fairer share of taxes so that we don’t have to keep closing our schools, and legalizing and taxing marijuana. If I am the candidate in November and there is interest in these issues, I think I have a reasonable chance.

Sex & God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality. The bold title and cover image of this book will supply you with endless entertainment from the odd glances you will receive; I made several people uncomfortable at Hobby Airport last month.

Religions of all kinds use our powerful sex drives to infect us with ideas that benefit the religion and hurt and inhibit our ability to be truly human.  Religion’s goal is to propagate religion.  Sex is one powerful method for achieving this.

Straight from the first page, this book flows naturally and Dr. Ray’s words come through as the voice of a good friend, explaining what your parents should have when they sat you down for the “big talk.”  This book systematically reveals the dangers of religious sexual programming, and guides you towards releasing these sexual shackles and live an ethical sex life, free from religious sanctions.

The chapters meander through the ills of religious influence on human sex and sexuality: from limiting our pleasure and shaming and controlling us, to creating unhealthy relationships with ourselves and others.  One point this book reinforces is that even if you are a secular person, religion is influential in your sex life.

At first, I was concerned that Sex & God would only be approached by secular people interested in the subject matter, but it seems palatable by a much wider audience and suitable for the secular and religious at a variety of life stages.  One feature of Darrel’s writing that I found quite useful was the inclusion of easy to process analogies, such as the following:

Religion tries to give us maps of sexuality that are no better than a 2,000-year-old map of my hometown.  In addition, each religion also tries to convince us that their map is never wrong or inaccurate.

Darrel’s extensive research on Sex and Secularism, referenced in this book, clearly shows that religion’s stranglehold on sex diminishes the quality of our lives.  If there was one message I took from Sex & God, it’s this: It’s due time to break free from religion’s grasp and embrace a healthy attitude towards sex and sexuality.  The control that religions have had our collective sex lives has lasted far too long and life is short.

You may think that these old scriptures mean little today, that nobody stones people for adultery or sells errant daughters into slavery, but millions of Jews and Christians actually read these Old Testament books and believe that their god dictated the words.  How can those words not have some impact?

Sex & God will help you begin a journey towards a satisfying secular sex life and help those around you develop one, too. 

…

An expert in the field of psychology for over 30 years, Dr. Darrel Ray holds degrees in religion, Sociology/Anthropology, and psychology. His curiosity of religion’s ability to infect minds led him to write The God Virus and Sex & God.

What advice would you give to people still struggling with religious residue in their sex lives?

There is no magic bullet, but changing your thinking about sex and sexuality is a good start. That is part of why I wrote Sex & God, to help people re-frame their thinking and reprogram themselves away from religious sexuality toward secular sexuality.

What is the most surprising response you have received to this book?

The number of people who have already written or pulled me aside to tell me how some part or other in the book really changed their view of their own sexuality. One lifelong atheist talked to me over coffee a few weeks ago; he went on for half an hour about how surprised he was to find so many religious ideas in his thinking. While he was never religious, he was raised in a religious family and had no idea how many things he had simply accepted without question from early training.

One woman wrote a very long email to tell me to say that she and her husband had two very long talks about the book that exposed a number of destructive religious ideas in their marriage. She actually thanked me for saving her marriage! These and many other responses, really are surprising.  I had no idea the book would have that kind of impact on people.

What is the most important message you would like readers to walk away with?

Examine your ideas about sexuality. Take a microscope to the things you have always believed. Look at ideas that may lurk just below your consciousness yet influence your behavior, body image, self esteem, etc. First and foremost, look at the “should’s” in your life. When I hear people saying, “I should this” or “I shouldn’t that” I hear religion talking — especially if it is related to sexuality.

Love yourself, love your body, its the only one you will ever have. Think about it, religion makes people feel guilty about normal behavior and desires. That has to have an effect on people.  It has to distort their view of themselves, their bodies, their relationships and much more. Being religious means believing you are never good enough; you are imperfect and in need of constant forgiveness, especially around sex.

What challenges did you face in bringing this book to fruition?

The biggest challenge was getting it just right. This is a huge subject on a very sensitive topic. I wanted to stay close to the science be careful to not to go places the science does not support. At the same time, the science is moving fast, so I wanted to make sure my conclusions were on solid ground and based on research that was not likely to change. Beyond that, the writing was a pure joy. This is my fourth book and who knows how many articles I have published. When I am writing a book, I write every day for a few hours. It becomes a part of almost every day. When the project is finished, I seem to go through withdrawal. Sex and God is a subject that has been near and dear to me for decades, so to write a complete work on the topic is a unique opportunity.

Do you expect to explore sex and sexuality in a future book?

I am just focusing on this book right now. I have no idea what I might write next — if anything. For me, writing a book is very organic and exhausting. I have ideas for months or years, then one day I start writing and a book appears! When I started writing The God Virus, I thought I was writing an article or two or three … I was writing a book before I knew it.  I am very fortunate to have two wonderful editors who have worked with me on my last three books. They keep things tight and focused when I go off on the details of the sex lives of 48 Amazonian tribes in Brazil — that got edited out — but it sure is interesting.

What are you working on now?

I am working on promoting the book which means doing a HUGE amount of travel and speaking.  As an author, I am fortunate that I enjoy speaking as much or more than writing. In the 6 weeks since the book came out I have given a dozen talks and have another 30 or so scheduled in the next 4-6 months. Next to sex itself, there is nothing like talking about sex to a group of people, hungry for new ways to think about their sexuality and anxious to eliminate religious sex from their lives.  It is incredibly gratifying.

If readers would like to read up on sexual freedom, are there any books you would recommend?

Yes, there are a number of great resources. First I would recommend Sex at Dawn, by [Christopher] Ryan and [Cacilda] Jethá.  I think it is the second best work on the subject.  I’ll let you guess what is the first best.  Next I would say, The Myth of Monogamy by [David] Barash and [Judith] Lipton; they really cracked the egg open on how humans and other species mate. Next, I recommend The Ethical Slut by [Dossie] Easton and [Janet] Hardy. Ironically, I think Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land, is one of the best books on human sexuality. I don’t read fiction much — especially science fiction — but around 1990 a friend of mine kept insisting that I read it. I finally did and have been grateful ever since. There are many books on sex and sexuality, but far too many of them have a spiritual or religious tone; there is plenty to learn and appreciate about our sexuality without throwing invisible forces and spirits.

Earlier in the day I had perused the bookstore and had bypassed the gaudy bookcover a few times. The maxim rings true, as the contents of this book are superb. Attack of the Theocrats! addresses current issues, and I recommend it for atheists & moderately religious people.

The book opens with a forward from Richard Dawkins that gives a concise preview of what is to come. Don’t skip the preface; it contains a valuable image of Faircloth that helps the reader understand his passion for justice. Using his wealth of knowledge through a background of politics and law, Faircloth starts off strong with an extensive critical review of religious bias in American politics and the social arena. As he exposes a multitude of issues, they begin to fester inside of you. I would like to have seen more of the book dedicated to “What You Can Do,” than the brief section on p. 132, but this book is at least educating and creating a dialogue — especially around child related issues.

More than ten states allow federally funded, unlicensed religious child-care facilities. Depending on the state, this can mean that some of these religious child-care facilities are exempt from a broad range of health and safety laws. Others are offered fewer exemptions, but the real question is why would any exemption exist at all, particularly when the safety of children is at stake?

The focus later shifts to an intimate look at the Christian fundamentalists and Dominionists that are bent on reshaping the United States into a theocracy. Anyone strongly opposed to gay equality and those who consider zygotes sacred will have a challenging time, at first, agreeing with Faircloth due to his unapologetic stance on the issues. Through ample examples, he conclusively explains how religious influence on a variety of issues harms everyone, including religious conservatives, and rigorously attempts to jostle us all into action.

Secular Americans remain a sleeping giant, a huge demographic that has thus far failed to flex its own muscle, much less galvanize the general population. We ignore people suffering under religious privilege while shaking our fist at a slapped-together manger with a plastic baby Jesus in the town square at Christmas time. While symbols are meaningful and these particular symbols on public grounds do violate Madison’s Constitution, Secular Americans must do better to reach all Americans. We must explain the human story — the human harm and the outright abuse of our tax dollars that result from religious privileging in law.

Faircloth aims at the outset to reach across the divide and enlighten both secular and religious readers, but the overall message will only fully pass the filters of a person with secular ideals. If you’re skeptical of the harm religious bias plays in each of our lives, read this book. It is unfortunate that an entire chapter of this small book was devoted to promoting the Secular Coalition for America, as though required by the publisher, but the message does act like a buttress for the chapter that follows.

We must protect the religious liberties guaranteed in the Constitution, including the right sof the so-called Moral Majority and their allies to express their ideas with absolute freedom. However, special privileges based on their religious bias, or anyone’s religious bias, must be removed from our laws. We must devote ourselves to rebuilding Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state, a wall that has crumbled so terribly these last thirty years .We must reinvigorate a culture o f innovation. And if we do these things, a great America will become even greater, a proud America will become even prouder.

Overall, Faircloth was able to promote a sense of urgency in a fast-paced read, while being inspirational and encouraging. Attack of the Theocrats! closes with a stimulating vision for a restored secular America, that will inspire you to action — if you’re already a secular American. I could give you all of the details, but you really need to turn through this one yourself.

…

An interview with the author:

How can non-theists better engage with religious communities to educate them on the benefits of State-Church separation?

I encourage secular people to create our own public advocacy organizations, but to also build alliances with local affiliates of groups like, for example, the gay community and liberal religious groups, but we should make sure to offer our own distinct voice.

What would you like to say to people feeling powerless in addressing the issues in the book?

The religious right felt powerless in the 1960s. They were, and are, a minority. They were ignored. They organized — very successfully — for their ideals of division and exclusion, sexism and homophobia. If they can do that, we can — and are morally required to — take action for justice, rationality and inclusion. Our demographic is growing. This is quite feasible — if people take action.

Why should people care what you have to convey?
American society faces creeping theocracy. It is just not a question of what might happen in the future. It is the stark reality of what has already happened, as I document in the book. We have a patriotic duty to act. The enlightment worldview is an ethical imperative. We betray that imperative if we sit on the sidelines. This book is about directly involving ourselves as secularlists in changing our world for the better.

The Secular Decade Strategic Objectives lay out a clear plan for how we can get involved in creating a secular America. Do you have any advice to parents?

I hold to the view that we want to encourage children to learn critical thinking skills and draw their own conclusions about a whole range of issues, including about religion. If young people so decide, I’d love to see youth involved in secular activism, partipating in the coalition activities I describe in my book. Young people can make very persuasive advocates on many issues, including, for example, advocating for objective textbooks and for protection of children from some forms of religious bias in law pertaining to corporal punishment, faith healing, and child care.

What spurred the writing of this book?

There have been tremendously persuasive books written for our perspective regarding whether or not to believe in god. But we have lacked a specific plan to empower us to play our proper role in society as a whole. I feel that the social action tactics in the secular movement need improvement. I wanted this book to offer a specific strategy for how to best frame our issues to appeal to a broader public.

While researching and writing this book, what did you learn about yourself (or otherwise)?

I learned how hard it is to write a book! I also learned that writing the plan and my motivations for it made me more impassioned about this cause. For my entire life — ten years in politics, lobbying, grassroots organizing, starting a children’s museum — I’ve wanted to see rationality prevail, to see the next generation live in a more rational and more compassionate world.

This book really crystallizes my own philosophy. It is not an armchair philosophy. It is a philosophy of passionate action. I’m not a great scientist like the great scientists I so admire (I’m honored to work for one). I do however think I’m good at forming concrete strategic plans and advocating for those plans with passion. This books makes me feel proud that I have something to offer in support of the Enlightment Worldview that I love.

…

You can purchase your copy of Attack of the Theocrats! here!

Katherine Stewart

Katherine was gracious enough to answer questions about her book and our exchange is below:

Hemant: The book’s subtitle is “The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children.” Can you explain the “stealth” part of that? What exactly is the Christian Right doing that’s somewhat secretive or sneaky?

Katherine: Many of the initiatives I looked at rely to a surprising degree on misdirection and deceit of one group or another. The Good News Club itself, for example presents itself to parent and administrators as an outside group. But it creates the false but unavoidable (and, as far as I can tell, intentional) impression in young school children that its form of religion is officially endorsed by the school. It describes itself with nonthreatening labels such as “nondenominational” and “interdenominational,” which makes people think it’s broadly Christian, when in fact it’s highly sectarian. And it pretends to offer “Bible study,” when really it’s about indoctrinating kids in a fundamentalist form of religion. Anyone who doubts that should read the Statement of Faith on their workers’ applications.

Other religious initiatives are equally sneaky. The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools curriculum courses, for instance, present themselves as nonsectarian study of the Bible as a work of literature and history. But that’s just a thin cover for sectarian proselytizing. The “pizza evangelists,” who come into the schools under the pretense of offering instruction on bullying, anti-drug awareness, or character education turn around and use the platform to create opportunities for proselytizing. I should add that many of the activists I spoke to, and whom I describe in my book, take a delight in the sneakiness of their approach.

Hemant: If parents need to give permission for their children to attend meetings of the Good News Clubs, why does the fact that these groups meet in a school setting matter? Wouldn’t these parents just teach their children the same things in their own house or at a church if the school wasn’t an option?

Katherine: With older kids, that approach makes some sense. But remember, Good News Clubs focus on very young kids, in their first years of public schooling; a centerpiece of their program is the “wordless book,” which can be used to convert children as young as four and five years old. Kids at that age simply aren’t able to distinguish what takes place in a school and what is endorsed by the school.

Remember: we’re talking about little kids here. In their minds, no institution has as much authority as the public school. For them, if it is taught in school, it must be true.

I have seen several instances, including at my own elementary school, when the Good News Clubs were offered cheaper and better space at a church immediately next door to the school, and they declined. They want to be in the school because they know that kids will think their Club is endorsed by the school. Another important factor is that by placing the Clubs in the school, it becomes easier for Good News Club instructors to persuade the children enrolled in their groups to work to recruit other children in the school.

Hemant: What was the significance of the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School? How does it come into play today?

Katherine: The Milford decision removed any serious Establishment Clause concerns in connection with Good News-style activities, and at the same time it said that to exclude such activities represented an unconstitutional violation of speech rights. The net effect has been to propose that whenever a school creates what is technically known as a “limited public forum,” which is to say, as soon as it opens its doors to outside groups of pretty much any kind, it must allow religious groups such as the Good News Club. This decision opened the way for church planting in public schools and a host of other religious initiatives in schools.

In effect it gives a trump card to religious groups, because it is only in the case of religious groups that to exclude them amounts to a violation of their speech rights. So now schools can exclude a soccer club, or martial arts, or political groups, or a theater group if they wish, but the one category they may not exclude is religious groups.

The Good News Clubs made quick use of this trump card. Their numbers in public schools went up 728 per cent in the ten years since the Milford decision. And church-planting in New York City’s public schools went from 0 to 160 over the same period.

This decision is problematic, in my view. Schools routinely exclude partisan political groups from meeting in the school building, for instance, and nobody imagines that we are discriminating against anybody’s viewpoint. But now, when religious groups are excluded, they complain that they are being discriminated against. The Milford decision also undermined the idea that peer pressure or coercion are important factors in school-related cases.

Hemant: Do all these Christian groups need to pay the schools rent for use of the space? Do they pay what other similar groups pay? And can they get away with not paying if it’s a school-sanctioned club like many other after-school groups?

Katherine: Generally they pay what other outside groups pay, which is not very much. But in many instances, you can’t call it “rent” — it is generally a use fee or a custodian’s fee. In the instance of churches planted in public schools in New York City, it amounts to a state subsidy. Instead of paying for their own buildings, buying their own furniture, paying for heat, electricity, air conditioning, renovations, and upkeep of the facility, the churches in question simply paid a custodians’ fee. That’s not “rent” by any stretch of the imagination.

Hemant: I only know of a handful of high school atheist groups and possibly only one middle school atheist group. Do any other religious groups (or atheist groups) try to form in elementary schools or is that strictly a Christian phenomenon? Either way, would that be a good idea for those of us who are not Christian?

Katherine: I don’t know of any atheist groups in elementary schools, but I think it would be a bad idea for the same reason that I think it’s a bad idea for the Christian groups to do it. However, it would be interesting to know what would happen if people were to try to set up an atheist group in a public elementary school that went after “churched” kids, the way Good News Clubs go after “unchurched” kids. If such a club were disallowed, that would highlight problems with the current policy and might potentially be used to challenge it.

Hemant: Would you rather see schools allow *all* religious groups to meet in the building (outside of class time) or should they close the doors to religious groups altogether? Are both legal options?

Katherine: Again, if we are talking about elementary schools, I would exclude religion as a category, just as we exclude politics as a category. It used to be legal to exclude religion as a category, and it is legal in a limited way in certain contexts. However, in most of the country, as a result of the Milford decision, it is no longer legal to exclude religious groups.

At the high school level, I think after-school groups in general should have maximum leeway. But bear in mind that a number of the religious groups make an effort to insert themselves in school-related activities, such as athletics. If Christian athletes want to get together after the game and after school to talk about their religion or engage in acts of worship, that seems perfectly fine. But many groups now attempt to make their religion part of the game, inevitably forcing everyone on the team to take a public stand.

We should not get overly legalistic here. Some things are legally or constitutionally permissible, but that does not mean that they are the right thing to do. If a school in a diverse community is to function well, its members need to show a certain amount of civility and respect toward one another. We are all free to practice our faith, if any, in our homes, houses of worship, and any number of other places. Do we really need to turn our public schools into religious battlefields?

Hemant: At one point in the book, Pastor Rich Lang compares the methods of the Child Evangelism Fellowship (which runs the Good News Clubs) to the Hitler Youth because of the way they target children. Is that a fair comparison?

Katherine: Some of the evangelical missionaries that I have read explicitly cite the Nazis, the Taliban, and the Bolsheviks as models of other groups that focus on children. Not every effort to preach to the young is a form of fascism, but fascism characteristically involves indoctrination of the young.

Hemant: Other than getting educated on the issues, what would you like readers to do in response to reading your book?

Katherine: They should support groups working for the separation of church and state. They should support politicians and political movements that work to bring better people to the judiciary. They should strengthen programs and policies that promote tolerance and civility in our public schools. They should inform themselves about what is taking place in their local schools, and they should educate others about this movement in our midst.

The Good News Club is available today in the four bookstores left in the country and everywhere online.

If you use the service at all, you may already be a fan of @almightygod. With nearly 25,000 followers, he may be the most popular deity out there, which, as we all know, makes everything he says totally true.

He was kind enough to answer some of my questions:

Do you exist?

I tweet, therefore I am. Besides, If I don’t exist, then who pops up the next tissue in the Kleenex box? Case closed!

Do you believe in yourself?

I don’t believe. I know.

All Christians claim to be “True Christians”… but they can’t all be right. So which sect has it correct?

I don’t want to spoil the exciting high-stakes guessing game I’ve set up, but I will say that it’s not a denomination that’s famous for raping children.

Who’s going to win the Republican primary?

Based on the crowds at the debates, the winning candidate will be someone who loves execution, hates gay troops, and thinks the uninsured should just die. But I don’t want to spoil the surprise for you, so keep tuning in to those debates. I’ll give you one hint: It will be a white man.

Why do you hate the gays so much?

It’s not so much that I hate them. They just gross me out… and they deserve to be executed and then roasted in hell for eternity. Other than that I’m fine with them, especially if they’re funny.

The platypus… Were you high when you created that one?

Yes, but that’s not why it turned out so strange. I had a box of spare parts left over after creating all the normal animals and I decided to superglue them all together and add some X-Men like electrolocation superpowers to the bill.

What’s your biggest mistake?

The flood. I shouldn’t have saved those 8 humans.

What’s your biggest secret?

I sometimes use my omniscience to watch people pee.

You must get a lot of action up in Heaven, no?

Well, ever since I kicked Asherah out and had her murdered along with her priests, goddesses just don’t want to come back to my place. I did put it in a human lady a few millennia back, but that turned out to be too much drama. So, I just do what any single dad would do. If I don’t answer your prayer, that’s probably what I’m up to.

You seem to pick on Third World countries a lot. What did they ever do to you?

People in Third World countries tend to die sooner than in rich countries. So, you might say that I love them more since I’m taking them to heaven sooner. And if they’ve never heard of Jesus before, they’ll go straight to heaven on a technicality. You’re welcome, Third World countries! See you soon!

Atheists say they just want some evidence that you exist. So why can’t you just give us some solid proof?

I could just offer some proof and take all the mystique out of it, but I’d rather hide myself from humans and then punish anyone who doesn’t believe the stories about me. I value blind faith and fawning more than informed camaraderie. If I offered a bit of proof, those inquisitive humans would just want more information and more intervention. It’s easier to just take a hands-off approach and then reward and punish people after they die. I’ve got to keep up my reputation for working in mysterious ways.

Will the atheists ever win and get everyone to stop believing in you?

No. And even if they did, humans will always be willing to believe in crazy things. I doubt that I need to provide examples.

…

Thanks to @almightygod for giving me His time… when he could probably have spent it saving lives or sending us the cure for cancer or something.

Excerpts from our conversation are below. The remarks are entirely those of Ms. Ouellette, except for my own, which are [marked off in brackets].

I’ve edited our remarks for the sake of clarity without affecting the content.

***

On her experiences in math classes:

I had a really good Geometry teacher — that was the last time I really enjoyed math. but I remember asking him in high school the usual question: “When am I ever going to use this?” And he tried. He tried to let me know, but I thought I was going to be a writer and it would never be relevant. [Laughter]

…

I never liked math, but I’d always done well in it. I got straight As all through high school, and that includes my Algebra classes, but I didn’t understand what I was doing in Algebra class. To this day, I do not know how I got an A in Algebra class.

Teachers encounter this a lot. There [are] certain students — and I was one of them — … we test really well on standardized tests. We pick out patterns and we figure out what you want to hear very, very easily and it makes it hard to teach us. Teachers don’t understand that [it] actually looks like we’re learning and maybe we’re not, and that was what happened to me in math class. I knew I didn’t understand it and I was terrified of being found out. As a result, I had a huge amount of anxiety over that and it just colored my attitude towards math from then on.

[Because you could get by?]

Because I could get by and I felt there’s something wrong here. I know I’m getting away with something.

***

On her next book:

It’s gonna be quite different. But it grew out of [The Calculus Diaries] because one of the questions I had to ask myself while doing this was, “Where did that math phobia come from?”… Part of it was [that] there was a whole series of… factors that made me self-identify at some point as bad at math. There were lots of different things. It wasn’t any one thing. So I started asking questions about how we build identity and how that helps us and how that harms us, how it makes us hold ourselves back. So the next book is actually going to be looking at the science of self and identity… Me, Myself, and Why is kind of the working title.

***

On whether women have a tougher time excelling at math and why that might be the case:

It’s way too easy to just say, “Blame the patriarchy.” That is certainly part of it, though. I’m of a generation… where that was still very much an issue. And there’s also family, sibling dynamics that play [a role]. I have a brother who’s a year older and I was very, very good at music and writing and things like that. So my folks wanted us each to have our thing so they decided that my brother was good at math… and it was ironic that my brother was “good at math” when I was the one getting As…

[Was he not getting straights As?]

No! Plus, I was writing his English papers for him. [Laughter] But those little things all add up. Just little things. But the fact that numbers, perhaps, did not come as easily to me, I actually had to work a little at the math, and because I was very smart, I wasn’t used to it. So I felt, well, “I must really be stupid. I must be bad at this.”

… One of the most important things I learned was that every time I got a B, or failed at something, or felt like I failed, I learned more, because I was actually pushing myself. I realized that if you’re not slightly uncomfortable, if you’re not a little bit at sea, you’re not challenging yourself.

The first teacher who told me that changed my life.

***

On math books aimed at girls:

I love [Danica McKellar's] books. I know she’s been critiqued for “pinkifying” math, and I get that, but I think that there are girls who are pink. I have a niece who’s pink. I also have a niece who’s goth. So I think Danica is targeting an audience, a demographic, of girls who like those things. They’re girly girls. And she can speak to them and make math relevant to them in a way that most of us cannot.

I can make it relevant to Buffy fans and to people who dig zombies. So the goth group is my group… I think [Danica's] doing something very, very important. I think you need to look at who the target audiences are for [my own] book because no one book is going to serve every need.

***

Ouellette is the author of The Calculus Diaries and The Physics of the Buffyverse. She blogs at Cocktail Party Physics and is also on Twitter.

Last week, I had a chance to sit down with Neil deGrasse Tyson at The Amazing Meeting 9 in Las Vegas. We discussed the future of the space program and science education, among other things.

Excerpts from that conversation are below. The remarks are entirely those of Dr. Tyson, except for my own, which are [marked off in brackets].

I’ve edited our remarks for the sake of clarity without affecting the content.

***

On the lack of qualified science teachers and how to get more people interested in science:

While increasing the ranks of teachers, or making them better in the STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] fields… sure we need that. But I think it’s overrated in the impact it would actually have on the nation… What the nation needs is something to stimulate a sort of “STEM field zeitgeist” of the entire educational pipeline.

And when you do that, then everybody wants to become a scientist, and everybody wants to become a teacher, but to create a program to create more teachers is… was it Saint-Exupery who said, “If you want to build a better boat, don’t teach people carpentry. Teach them to long for the sea.”

[And they'll find a way to get there?]

Yes. And it’s the longing that innovates. It’s the longing that drives human emotion and human ambition… and that’s different from the teacher lighting the spark. Which, of course, you need, but the teachers don’t light sparks in everyone, maybe a few kids per class, at most. If you teach a person to long for the sea, they’re gonna beg, borrow, and steal to make a boat to get there. You don’t teach them boatmaking.

[Have we done a good job of teaching them that longing…?]

We haven’t done it since the 1960s.

[With the space program?]

Yes, that’s correct.

[What do you think is the equivalent of that now...?]

A funded space program. Going to Mars. If we did, and you choose the astronaut class — by the way they’d be in middle school today — you choose ones that are doing well in school, that are physically fit, that are kind, that’ll handle it… they’d be in Teen Beat magazines, they’d be interviewed on the evening news. It’d be cool again to be a scientist, to be an astronaut. It’d be our modern version of the Mercury Seven, who were paraded around the country as a next generation of explorers and discoverers.

…

You want better science? Create a project that is so compelling, that people will climb over the hill to want to become scientists. And create the compelling case to get the best teachers there can be in the service of that interest and that ambition.

***

On whether private companies can replace NASA now that its funding has dropped:

There’s been a misconception about the role of the private sector in this exercise. It’s been commonly thought that NASA is ceding the frontier to the private sector. That’s just not the case. There is no marketplace on the frontier of technology that has never been tested before. The scale of funding and the uncertainty of return of that funding requires governments to engage in it as an exercise… That’s always been the case.

…

The Dutch East India trading company was not the first to land in America. That was a government-funded project that sent Columbus, it sent Magellan… then, once you know what the dangers are, you can mitigate against them, you know where to go, you know where the cultures are, you know where the riches are. Then you can set up your business channels.

So the private enterprise, in the context of American space exploration, involves access to low Earth orbit, where we’ve been for the past 50 years. The entrepreneurial space is not to advance a frontier; it’s to gain inexpensive access to low Earth orbit, creating other business opportunities there. That’s what it’s gonna do. Meanwhile, NASA will continue, if it’s properly funded, to advance the frontier beyond that.

And you can imagine a day when NASA needs a lift to the Space Station. It doesn’t fire its own rockets; it rents a seat on a commercial vehicle. The US Postal Service does that. They don’t fly their own “postal planes”…

But the first person to do it, there is no business case for it.

If the government has foresight, it would do it because it would believe within itself that, one day, it would become a huge enterprise that it could then tax. That’s all there is.

***

On science literacy and whether it’s getting better or worse:

I’m neutral on that. There are pockets where it’s getting better and other pockets where it’s worse…

[Where are we good and where are we bad?]

With the explosion of the Internet, your access to good science sources is as never before. You don’t have to even get out of your butt — as in the old days, you’d have to go to a library if you didn’t have science books at home — you don’t even have to leave the easy chair to search on countable number of web pages that feature science content. Not only that, you can channel surf and find a station — multiple stations — given unto science-themed documentaries. When I grew up, you’d go months before you would come upon such a show.

…

You have access. But just as you have access to the good stuff, you have access to the bad stuff… there can be a mistake that’s published, no one knows how to judge it, and then it runs through like wildfire. Either because the fact is tasty, or very retell-able, or they want it to be true…

…

The easiest misconception is the fact that people don’t know how to ask for the meaning of information they’ve just learned.

There was a news article that said, “In August, 2003, Mars will be closer to Earth than it’s been in 60,000 years.” So do you freak out…? Or do you say, “How much closer will it be?” It’d be, like, a couple of inches closer than it was last year. Just because it’s a record doesn’t make it interesting. Just because it hasn’t happened in a long time doesn’t make it unusual… The alignment of the planets at any given instant — it’s not going to repeat for 200,000 years or more. So, “Wow, it’s rare, so let’s get a picture of this rare configuration!” Well, 5 minutes later, it’s in another configuration that’s not gonna repeat for another 200,000 years… it’s rare, but uninteresting.

Those things distort anybody’s understanding of how to interpret data, the meaning of a statement about a record.

…

I celebrate access to science that’s out there, but I lament the noise level of what can contaminate the really good sources [of information]…

***

On something — anything — that’s not cool about him:

My Achilles’ heel… hmm… I have some more TV work coming in the fall and I’ve gotta get the TV weight going… The camera puts pounds on. I want to look as good as I can… whatever is possible given my age and body type and whatever… just because then it’s, in television, it’s writ there forever, and so you want to at least look your best, as they say. So I’ve got some pounds to lose, I think. I want to lose at least 30 pounds, possibly as much as 50. That’s a lot of weight. So I’m Chubby Neil right now.

But wait till the fall! It’ll be Six Pack. Ripped. Back up when I walk into a room then!

***

Tyson is the author of The Pluto Files and Death by Black Hole. His next book, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, is slated to be released in 2012.

Daniel Fincke, who writes the always interesting and challenging blog Camels With Hammers recently interviewed me via instant messaging for a few evenings. He will be publishing it in installments over the next several days.

You can read the first installment here, where he asks me about my background, the development of my atheism, and how the Ask Richard column got started.

In the next section he will ask me about anger in families divided over religion, and I also talk about effectively communicating with theists.

Future installments, probably one each day, will include:
Atheism and Religions As Bases For Identities
How Atheists Should Respond to Alcoholics Anonymous, and How Personal Values Influence Professional Therapy
The Ethics of Lying To Stay In A Protective Closet
How Atheists Should Confront And Replace Religions
Whether Believers and Non-Believers Should Avoid Marrying Each Other
Whether Believers Are Literally Deluded
Mistakes Atheists Make

Dan asks wonderfully evocative questions and he had me working hard, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Whether or not you agree with some of the things I say, I think the interview will stimulate some useful thinking as well as positive dialogues between people.

You all contributed over $15,000 toward a scholarship to help Damon out. Even after several days, I can’t get over that fact when I look at the number. Thank you to everyone who contributed. If you’d still like to chip in, you can do so until the end of the month:

You can also make a donation on behalf of Damon to the ACLU of Louisiana and FFRF.

A lot of readers have been curious about how Damon is doing. I sent along your questions to Damon and his brother Jerrett, and they were nice enough to offer responses:

What was Damon’s motivation for emailing his principal about the prayer?

Damon: I felt as thought it was a direct violation of the First Amendment, aside from being blatantly disrespectful of other religious views. A prayer at graduation to one specific god does nothing but separate the class into religious groups, anyway. The class of 2011 can’t unite under one specific view if they don’t all carry that view.

…

What’s the current living situation with Damon? What are his plans for the coming months and the next school year?

Jerrett: Damon is currently living with my sister, Heather. She’s in a 1-bedroom apartment in the Dallas area. This summer, I will be helping him register for classes, getting him a cheap car (because you just can’t live without a car here in Dallas), getting all his important documents from Louisiana, and, of course, we are looking into our legal options against Morehouse Parish.

As far as school is concerned, I will be setting him up with Dallas Community College to get some of his pre-reqs out of the way and helping him possibly get signed up for the University of North Texas in the Spring. This would all depend on what he actually wants to do with his life. I’m a firm believer that he shouldn’t go to a 4-year school without knowing exactly what he wants to do.

…

What are Damon’s college ambitions?

Damon: I’ve been looking into a few different things, but I can’t say with 100% certainty. I do plan on going to college soon, though.

Jerrett: Damon has mentioned to me that he wants to be a game programmer, but at this point I think it’s most important to focus on the core credits until he figures things out 100%.

…

While all this controversy was going on, did Damon have any student or teacher support at his high school (even in private, if not in public)?

Damon: I did. Though they didn’t agree with me, a couple teachers did show that they were proud of me for standing up for what I think is right.

…

Not to get into family gossip, but why were your parents mad about this particular incident? Was that out of nowhere? Was it building up from other things? Have they always been very religious?

Jerrett: My parents can be a little unpredictable about things. I heard rumors that they fully blame me for everything that my brother did in the last several months, from admitting that he’s an atheist to the school prayer incident.

It probably has a lot to do with the email I sent my mother when I was 23, after I left home to go to school the Dallas area. She kept trying to rule my life, asking me if I found a church in Texas. I finally got tired of it and told her, in a lengthy email, that I am agnostic and there is no way I’ll ever go back to Christianity. She tells me that I’ve gotten too smart and that because of that I have turned my back on God. Apparently, to her, there is a such thing as “thinking too much.” I think out of a reaction to what I did to her years ago, she’s lashing out at Damon. It just gives her an excuse to hate, to cut people off. It’s sad, but I can’t really do anything about it. All I can do is move on with my life. If she wants to be part of it she’s got to do a lot of apologizing, not only to me, but to my brother and sister as well.

…

Do you think reconciliation with your parents is possible?

Damon: I can’t say. It doesn’t seem likely at this time. Maybe in the future.

Jerrett: She needs to do a lot of make-up work if she wants to be in my life again.

…

Has Damon considered starting an atheist group at his college?

Jerrett: Both of the colleges that Damon wants to attend have secular groups already.

…

How can all of us help?

Damon: Really, any support is great. I never asked for much. When I posted that Reddit article, I was only looking for a little motivation and support because I knew I wouldn’t get any locally. I’ve gotten more than that and I’m very grateful for it. I thank all who have given their support, even if it was just a few seconds out of their time to tell me that they’re behind me on this.

Jerrett: My biggest fear is that, since this is the Internet, people will find other places to focus their attention. This is going to be a long and drawn out battle and there is little we can do to make it go faster.

The support so far is amazing, more than I could have ever imagined, however, I hope that the support doesn’t go away. We need the community behind us so that we have the strength to follow this through. This isn’t just for us, this is for everyone out there as well. Anyone who’s hurting, marginalized, ignored because of their lack of religion or religious preference. My dream is to see this through and to have full support all the way.

…

Is there any thing you both would like to say to readers that hasn’t been said already?

Damon: I would like to say that I will continue the fight. I’m not backing down, and I will continue to stand for Constitutional rights as long as they’re violated. They’re there for a reason.

Jerrett: I would just like to reiterate that we really need the community to support us. This is a long battle and it’s not going to be easy. Please don’t be “Internet forgetful” about this. People are marginalized every day and we have to fight so that future generations can feel more free than us.

For anyone interested, after a conversation with Jerrett about what to do with the donation money, we’ve decided that I will send him the money straight-up and they will figure out the best way to make use of it. Since Damon’s college plans aren’t solidified yet, and the tuition wouldn’t go to just one school, this plan works for all of us.

I’ll provide proof that this transaction took place as soon as I can. Jerrett told me he will provide updates about the money on the Support Damon Facebook page.

While we’re mentioning interviews today I wanted to pass along that I’ll be on FOX News’ Alan Colmes Radio Show tonight at 10:30PM EST to discuss the Secular Student Alliance’s recent success in helping secular high school students! It should be positive – yes, it’s FOX, but it’s Alan Colmes who I suspect will be friendly to our message.

I’m never sure what to expect, though. (Hemant has been burned by this before, too.) I’ve had pretty good experiences in general. I was interviewed on Faith Talk Radio earlier today – an evangelical show – and we had a polite and respectful conversation.

If you get a chance, tune in!