…

I corresponded with cadets at West Point (The United States Military Academy), involved in their Secular Student Alliance (SSA). They are, like the secular group at the Naval Academy, unofficial. They too, have encountered obstacles in group formation. The following is an interview with a member of the executive board:

A few members of West Point Secular Student Alliance

Tell me about your group.

We’re affiliated with the SSA.  We were established in the Fall semester of 2011.  Last year we were fairly active, with about 4-5 members showing up to each meeting.  We made one attempt at starting a reading list, but there wasn’t much interest (largely because not many cadets have the time to read a book a week).  Other than that, we’ve had one public service trip, where three cadets spent a day at a food shelter.  Each attempt to get another trip approved was shot down by USMA leadership. 

We did have a lecture by Dave Silverman and Jason Torpy, which had great turnout (probably 30 or so people).  A lot of the attendees were religious cadets who wanted to see “the other side” and ask questions.  This year we’ve had much higher attendance at weekly meetings, but haven’t had any large events.  We made requests for trips to Rock Beyond Belief and the Reason Rally, but weren’t able to do either.

Are you recognized by the Academy? If so, how was that process? If not, why, and what has been your experience?

We aren’t.  Our first attempts at official recognition were shot down outright.  The former director of cadet activities did not want to support any secular organization, and didn’t see the point of our existence.  Our last club president described him as “blasé and a stalwart in his opposition to us forming.”  This semester, we developed a formal request for recognition memorandum and sent it to the office of the Commandant.  This memo outlined several of the ongoing instances of intolerance at the Academy, and the importance of being recognized.  Afterwards we were directed to speak with the new director of cadet activities, who has been very helpful.  Although he appears uncomfortable with us forming, he is a professional, and is not allowing his personal beliefs to get in the way of his duty.  He has given us reason to believe that we will be recognized sometime in the near future.  Currently, the Academy’s club program is being revised.  After the revision process is completed this summer, we will know if our efforts were successful.

Are you able to post advertisements, host events, and travel with the same freedom as other groups of your size?

No.  We aren’t allowed access to the same resources as other clubs.  We have been denied many requests for trip sections, and are not able to take part in Club Night, where recognized clubs are able to recruit members by tabling.  We have been denied use of the mess hall slides as a means to advertise for the SSA in the past.  After some of our leadership met with the deputy Commandant, we were assured that we would be allowed to use the mess hall slides to advertise if we ever have another event to publish, but without resources or authorization to host large events, it’s not particularly useful.

What’s been the best and worst experiences you’ve had as a secular group at the Academy?

The best have been our weekly meetings and summer program.  Those of us who have taken part in weekly meetings have had great times bonding with one another, sharing ideas, watching movies and videos, and just generally being a group.  Our introduction of NTCT [Non-Theist Chaplains Time -- see next question] last year provided cadets who would otherwise be required to choose between church and humiliating work details, with the opportunity to enjoy the same environment of camaraderie and relaxation as their theist peers.  As far as I know, this is the first place that this has happened in the military.

The worst experiences we’ve had have been repeated denial of equal opportunities for travel and activity as other clubs.  We have been denied the ability to take trips, and even had a policy written as a response to our desire to advertise, which effectively made it possible for us to be formally shut out from access to the mess hall slides.  Most of our members have experienced some form of direct discrimination.  The most common was harassment during Cadet Basic Training, although there have been other instances in the classroom, and in professional situations.

You mentioned NTCT, Non-Theist Chaplains Time. What is that?

Until last year, there was no alternative to religious services during Basic Training. [Kate says: Religious services provide some kind of snacks and dessert. This is the only time during basic training for sweets or snack food, and open to only those who attend have attended the services.] In regular [non-West Point] basic, I’ve never heard of any alternative, and we had some trouble getting one set up here. There was a decent amount of resistance from the chaplain’s office, but eventually they let us have it, as long as we had a chaplain’s assistant sit in on all of our meetings. They sent a VERY Christian staff sergeant, in uniform, to oversee and make sure that the religious voice was present, and we weren’t encouraging the new cadets to be atheists. Overall it was a good program, and this summer we’re trying to make it a permanent part of cadet basic. We have one chaplain that fully supports us, but one isn’t enough in a complex bureaucracy.

What are the West Point SSA’s goals?

Our goals are to be able to provide non-theist cadets of all sorts with a community of acceptance, while ensuring that the culture of the academy at large shifts away from its current state of religious exceptionalism.

So why have students joined West Point SSA? [This question was open to all members of the SSA]

“I feel like I’m constantly surrounded by fundamentalists. I know this isn’t necessarily true, but that’s the feeling I get. I work to censor myself most of the time because I know being too vocal could be a detriment, even if it is minor.”

…

“I want to see it grow so that nontheists have a larger voice and so that they don’t feel like they can’t associate themselves with such an organization for fear of reprisal”

…

“To show a stereotypically conservative culture that atheists don’t have horns and dance around a flaming pentagram under the full moon. Also because I enjoy hearing different viewpoints and learning about why people think the way they do.”

…

More about religion at West Point can be found in this research by cadet Blake Page.

The interview with Naval Academy Atheists and Freethinkers is available here.

NOTE: A number of cadets contributed to this post, on condition of anonymity. They are not speaking in their official capacity. Statements are not intended to reflect official policy.

One of them, Stacey Pritchard, attempted to defend her pastor’s comments on CNN last night. Anderson Cooper threw her softball after softball and she completely whiffed on every single one of them. This is seriously mind-boggling to listen to:

Blogger John Shore has a very calm-but-frustrated take on the whole video. He tries really hard to understand where people like her are coming from…

I’m not saying this pretty woman is stupid; she doesn’t seem particularly organically stupid at all. But that’s she’s pretty dramatically uneducated is painfully obvious. She seems to have almost no capacity for the most elemental kind of reasoning — the kind of reasoning that is the first and primary benefit of even a solid elementary school education.

And her anger is palpable; she positively radiates hostility. And I don’t blame her for being angry. It’s a terrible thing to even say, but the truth is that the world is generally a terribly harsh place for people who are uneducated. When you don’t know how to at all reason — not to mention when you’ve been trained to believe there’s not really much you personally can do to impact the quality of your life — your world gets real small real fast.

…

People like her get me itchy. They make me want to start storing food and buying weapons. And I’m not sure that here in America today we’re producing any more of any kind of person than we are people like her. I think she’s the norm these day. If not, she’s way too freakin’ close to it.

I agree — this sort of hatred against gay people is the norm. Certainly in the Christian community. They won’t all be that extreme, but the Christians who claim to “love” gay people are the same ones who want to deny them equal rights, who fight against anti-bullying legislation, who don’t even want others to bring up the word “homosexual” (because, you know, that’s how teh gey is spread).

Those Christians will be quick to denounce Pritchard, Worley, and that entire church. Meanwhile, their own pastors cloak their bigotry in less outward hate while saying virtually the same things… but they’re totally fine with that.

…

The Naval Academy Freethinkers and Atheists (NAFA) formed two years ago, partially after then-midshipman Cameron Thornberry noticed the Noon Meal Prayer, a practice the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union have both protested.

From one student (emphasis mine):

The chaplain is different everyday but normally four Christian speakers and a Rabbi present throughout the week. Some use it as a moral ethical lesson for all (notably recently-retired Rabbi Phillips who was NAFA’s Officer Representative) and really don’t mention a specific deity while others will sing a prayer or say [one deity] specifically. Occasionally professors speak out against it.

While the Noon Meal Prayer still stands at the United States Naval Academy (though the Military and Air Force academies have both abandoned the practice), these and similar impositions of religion in official activities sparked Thornberry’s interest in groups for non-theists in the military academies and lead to the establishment of NAFA. Thornberry served as its first President.

I spoke with both the 2011-2012 executive board as well as leaders for the 2012-2013 school year:

Naval Academy Freethinkers and Atheists with PZ Myers (third from left)

Tell me about your group.

Our group is an open and welcome community for nontheists that focuses on science, philosophy, religious education and tolerance, and pertinent constitutional issues, while providing an open venue to fellow nontheists to express their opinions, beliefs, views, etc. We also enjoy each other’s company and love low key meetings as well – where we relax, eat pizza, and watch relevant movies/video clips. We currently have a member list of approximately 110 midshipmen but approximately 40 active and passionate members.

We came into being last spring, where I actually discovered comparable groups such as the USAFA Freethinkers and West Point SSA that were staunchly supported by Jason Torpy and MAAF. I knew then (February 2011) that Navy needed a nontheist group as well, and by the end of the semester I had coordinated an initial interest meeting and readied our group for the upcoming school year. During the summer, NAFA coordinated a plebe summer program with the local Unitarian Universalist Church of Annapolis (UUCA), thanks to the hard work and support of Rabbi Phillips at USNA and Cliff Andrews at UUCA. Cliff and two other UU’s led Sunday morning meetings for all interested nontheist plebes and we saw an average attendance of about 10-15 plebes every Sunday.  These meetings were a place to relax, affirm nontheist identity (a bit intimidating when starting at a military academy), and discuss science, philosophy, etc., similar to NAFA’s school year meetings.

During the start of this past school year in the fall, we received lots of help through the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), the UUCA, and affiliated ourselves with Center For Inquiry and the Secular Student Alliance. The resources and support provided by these organizations truly helped launch NAFA into the academic year as an organized group. Since we weren’t officially recognized this past year (I’ll explain in the next question) we weren’t allowed higher profile speakers (e.g. Roy Speckhardt), but we did bring in local speakers like Brian Engler (CFI) and various Academy faculty such as Rabbi Phillips to discuss the Jewish faith or CAPT (retired) Talbot Manvel to discuss Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. We also went to several local CFI events in D.C. (e.g. a Q&A with Richard Dawkins) and, of course, the Reason Rally.

Are you recognized by the Academy? If so, how was that process? If not, why, and what has been your experience?

Not yet. We put in the paperwork in April and expect to hear back in the coming academic year, though the paperwork process is slow for all groups, regardless of whether people like our group or not. This past year and summer we operated under the auspices of the Jewish Midshipman Club (JMC) led by Rabbi Phillips. One quick word on the Rabbi — he was truly instrumental in supporting our organization and was entirely in favor of our rights as a “religious ECA” [extracurricular activity] and our right to assemble.  Although our group has not been “official” for this past year — it was due to the fact that all prospective ECA’s must submit paperwork for official review every year in April — no other opportunities are afforded, our group included. Our group will find out our status when the Brigade returns for school in the fall.

Are you able to post advertisements, host events, and travel with the same freedom as other groups of your size?

We can’t send out Brigade-wide emails because we aren’t officially recognized. As for advertisements, we haven’t had much to advertise as of late, though I think we could. We can host events, but just have to go through the same bureaucracy as everyone else on that. Finally, once we are recognized we should be able to travel as freely as everyone else. It’s just part of being at USNA.

What have been the best and worst experiences you’ve had as a secular group at the Academy?

The best experience was probably the Dawkins Q&A. It was an awesome experience to meet the people whose books you read, videos you watch on YouTube, and articles you see in the paper. It also should help provide us with great connections for events in the future.

Worst experience: Having Roy Speckhardt get denied to speak because we were not an officially recognized ECA. This is on track to change for the next academic year.

What are your goals?

Our goals are simple, really. NAFA seeks to provide and maintain an open community of nontheists that discusses relevant religious, philosophical, and constitutional topics.

We also seek to foster greater awareness of the nontheist community and visibly demonstrate that our nation’s military leaders can be good without god by committing to community service and attending outside events in the greater Annapolis-Baltimore-DC area.

So why have students joined NAFA? [This question was open to all members of NAFA]

“It’s important to continue to seek answers and share questions, and NAFA provides a forum for that discussion.”

…

“What do I get out of the group? A great feeling knowing that some of our leaders had the balls to make a group like this even though we’re a minority.”

…

“A disturbingly large number of people believe something I do not and I feel unwelcome whenever my views are found out.”

…

“The ability to laugh about those jokes that wouldn’t be kosher to many of our former monotheisms. And occasionally pizza.”

…

“The members of NAFA are the very few people who can understand what it is like to take that first leap of unfaith in the midst of our lives here at USNA.”

…

“It really makes me sad when people are intimidated to be out when we are all supposed to be morally sound leaders regardless of creed… I have also heard of a known atheist who was told “If I put a gun to your head right now I bet you wouldn’t say you were atheist.” Which is truly disturbing. But as a generalization the staff and faculty here are very accepting but the students are more hesitant.”

…

“I have found a group of midshipmen who take what the world presents them and make decisions based on the evidence at hand. I have found a place where intelligence trumps stalwart idealism. NAFA gives me hope for a time when our nation’s leaders will recognize the foolishness of taking advice from scripture written for a different time and a different place.”

…

Further interviews with secular students at the Naval Academy can be found on the MAAF website.

NOTE: Approximately ten midshipmen contributed to the production of this article, answering questions and proofreading, all the while getting ready for the end of their year, and in some cases, graduation. Further thanks are extended to Jason Torpy, MAAF President, for his assistance. These students commented on the condition of anonymity. They are not speaking in their official capacity. Statements are not intended to reflect official policy.

One of the most spectacularly homophobic was the response of Mississippi State Representative Andy Gibson (Republican… of course):

Look at that part. How can you not trust a man with that deep a part?

Rep. Gipson came out with an impressively transparent reaction to Obama’s pro-gay marriage stance.  He didn’t initially masquerade behind the whole “it will confuse and destroy children” argument or even “Next stop: Man On Chipmunk!”  He went straight to the source:

Been a lot of press on Obama’s opinion on “homosexual marriage.” The only opinion that counts is God’s: see Romans 1:26-28 and Leviticus 20:13. Anyway you slice it, it is sin. Not to mention horrific social policy.

I don’t think I need to clarify which passages he is referring to, but for those of you new to the party, here is Romans 1:26-28 (KJV):

²⁶ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

²⁷ And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

²⁸ And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

… and Leviticus 20:13 (KJV):

¹³ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Now, do I actually think that ole Andy is saying that we should put gay people to death?  I doubt it.  But this is a case of a representative putting his religious bigotry over the civil rights of his constituents.  The only opinion that counts is God’s?  I think some of the voters would beg to differ.

But don’t worry, everyone.  The Gipsonator clarified that his view isn’t just Biblically based!  It’s based in “facts”!

Sorry I’ve been busy and not had a chance to reply. David, in addition to the basic principal that it is morally wrong, here are three social reasons it’s horrific social policy: 1) Unnatural behavior which results in disease, not the least of which is its high association with the development and spread of HIV/AIDS; 2) Confusing behavior which is harmful to children who have a deep need to understand the proper role of men and women in society and the important differences between men and women, and fathers and mothers; and 3) Undermines the longstanding definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, a definition which has been key to all aspects of social order and prosperity. Anytime that definition is weakened our culture is also weakened. And yes, that is also true for other conduct which weakens marriage’s importance in society.

I don’t think I need to explain how most of that doesn’t really mean anything.  

“Anytime that definition is weakend, our culture is also weakened”?

“… children… have a deep need to understand the proper role of men and women in society”?  

Citations needed.

I think Unity MS puts it best: 

Mr. Gipson needs to realize he represents all of his constituents. He should not cherry-pick which constituents he wants to work for. He should also realize his positions are neither popular nor Republican. LGBT individuals, couples, and families help pay Gipson’s salary. It’s important that he remember that.

If you live in Rankin, Smith, or Simpson country, we urge you to contact Representative Gipson and let him know he represents you. If you choose to contact Gipson, please be respectful. His contact information is below.

• 601-359-3770 (Capitol when in Session)
• gipson.andy@gmail.com
• agipson@house.ms.gov (e-mail)

What you might not expect is that the good guy in this story is the religious leader.

In 2009, an 11-year-old girl told her mother that, two years earlier, her 15-year-old male cousin had raped her (when she was nine). The facts in the case are horrific:

The victim awoke in the middle of the night when defendant pulled down her pants and underwear. He then penetrated her rectum with his penis. When the victim tried to yell, defendant allegedly pushed her face into a pillow and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The second night of her visit, [the victim shared a bed with defendant's sister] H. The victim alleged that defendant came into the room in the middle of the night while H was sleeping. Defendant allegedly put his hand inside the victim’s pants and fondled her buttocks and vaginal area.

Upon hearing this, the girl’s mother informed the police, her husband, and the pastor of the church which — as it turned out — both families attended. The pastor, Rev. John Vaprezsan, knew the defendant well and asked him and his mother to come to the church to speak with him. He didn’t tell them what it was about.

Rev. John Vaprezsan

During that meeting, he elicited a confession from the defendant. Later, he told the victim’s family what the defendant had said. The family, in turn, told the police what had transpired.

While this sounds like an open-and-shut case — we have a confession, after all — it’s not quite that clear-cut.

In court, the defendant said that the pastor’s testimony could not be used against him because he had made it in private to an acting member of the clergy. There’s precedent for that — many states agree that when a person tells their pastor (or priest or whatever) something that is necessary to allow the pastor to fulfill his function, that statement is considered confidential.

It didn’t matter here. The trial court allowed the pastor’s testimony to stand. To no one’s surprise, the ruling went against the defendant.

So there was an appeal. This time, the new court said that it was wrong for the pastor to testify because the defendant’s statements had been made within the clerical-congregant relationship and were therefore privileged, meaning that the court cannot compel the pastor to testify, and the defendant can prevent the pastor from testifying.

Normally, if another “unnecessary” person is present during what would otherwise be a confidential communication, the privilege is destroyed. For instance, if I bring my sister with me to see my lawyer and I tell the lawyer I committed a crime, the lawyer could potentially divulge that to the police. I said it in front of someone else, after all.

But naturally, if the person making the statement is a minor, the rules are different. It’s pretty important for parents to be allowed to accompany their children during important conversations (like police interrogations, attorney consultations, etc). So, in this case, having the defendant’s mother present didn’t break the “confidentiality” rule.

The Appeals court essentially ruled in favor of the defendant. Even though a confession happened, it was considered confidential. It couldn’t be used against him. They excluded critical evidence in the case of an abhorrent crime.

…

This leads to some important questions: Is this really the morally correct thing to perpetuate in our society? Should there be a special privilege that’s based purely on religious views and hinders the prosecution of horrendous crimes?

The answers to these questions are complicated. The privilege is rooted in the Free Exercise Clause. That is, courts have found that it would violate the First Amendment to require clergy to violate their conscience by betraying the confidence their parishioners place in them. On the one hand, I have no desire to see First Amendment protections reduced in any way. On the other hand, we infringe on people’s rights all the time in order to serve some greater societal good.

The way most other privileges work (physician-patient, attorney-client, psychotherapist-patient) is that the professional in question may not reveal statements about past crimes. If someone tells their lawyer about a crime they’re planning which involves serious harm to another person, in some states, the lawyer must tell the authorities. But, if the crime occurred in the past, then the statements are still privileged.

We often require “violations of conscience” where they would serve a public good, like when we punish parents for withholding medical care from their children. Because of this, the Free Exercise issue pales in comparison to the cost in this case: A child rapist walking free.

The only remaining consideration, then, is whether there are any other reasons to respect the confidentiality of the relationship between a pastor and his flock. We protect communications between the other professionals and their respective clients/patients because we believe that frankness is crucial to those relationships.

Without believing you could privately tell your doctor the truth, you might not get the proper treatment. Without being able to tell your lawyer the full truth, no lawyer could adequately represent you. Does the same principle apply to clergy? Well, if you’re religious, I’m sure it does. I presume that the members of that church believe that their ability to receive spiritual counseling depends heavily upon the degree to which they can be sure it’s confidential. The question is, to what degree should a secular society be concerned with the spiritual health of church-goers, when it potentially has terrible consequences for crime victims?

Personally, I’d rather put this on the list of Free Exercise rights that are not absolute than allow such critical evidence to be excluded. The benefit of respecting the sanctity of that relationship just doesn’t rise to the level of overshadowing the benefit of putting a child-rapist in jail.

Would your cost-benefit analysis be different?

***

On May 3^rd of this year, a monument of the Ten Commandments was unveiled at the Bradford County courthouse in Florida. The $20,000 monument was a gift from Lee Anderson of Lake City. Anderson gave a similar “gift” to Dixie County a few years ago. The Dixie County monument was ruled unconstitutional in July of 2011, but still stands today as the county appeals. The Bradford commissioners knew about the state of the Dixie County monument before they agreed to acquire their own. Lawsuits are nothing new to the city of Starke (home of the Bradford County courthouse). In March of 2007, a federal judge ruled that the crucifix affixed to the city’s water tower (and was even illuminated at night) was unconstitutional and had to come down.

Here is the Ten Commandments monument unveiling ceremony that took place a couple of weeks ago:

On Saturday, May 19^th, about eighteen atheists traveled from all over Florida to protest the newly-erected Ten Commandments monument. The Bradford County Courthouse is located in Starke, Florida, a small north central city that straddles U.S. 301 with Camp Blanding to the east and Florida State Prison to the west.

As the protestors proceeded from the parking lot to the front of the courthouse, they passed a circle of thirty bowed heads that were praying for strength and courage. Several people took turns leading the group in prayer, and many prayed for the hearts of the atheists to be turned over to Jesus.

The woman above was saying, “Father God, we’ve remained quiet for too long. We will let your word be heard, Father God.”

Another group of counter-protestors were in a similar circle in the courtyard of the U-shaped building where the Ten Commandments monument stands. By 11:00a, the scheduled start time of the protest, the atheists were lined up along the sidewalk facing U.S. 301, and the counter-protesting group was growing. A headcount at 11:30a revealed that there were 100 counter-protesters and about 18 atheists.

Both groups were in good spirits and relatively peaceful towards each other. However, I overheard Ken Weaver, a Bradford County resident who led the dedication of the monument on May 3^rd say to his friend, “They’re not arguing against Church and State; they are arguing about our religion being a myth.” His friend responded, “They’re just a bunch of damn Democrats,” to which both men chuckled.

I briefly interviewed Laura Finley, who was the National Day of Prayer organizer for Bradford County. When asked if there might be a more appropriate place for the monument than the courthouse lawn, she said no, as it represented the word of God, the person who created us. She continued, “We would be kind of like… animals who have no souls” without it. “The protestors here today,” Finley continued, “they don’t have any beliefs in anything.” Finley was quick to point out that she was not at the event to counter-protest, but rather to share her support that the monument had a right to be there.

Early in the event, an unidentified preacher in a gold vest started to encourage the crowd to sing and pray. He utilized an interesting tactic to decipher who was there to protest and who was there to counter-protest. After leading the group in singing “Jesus Loves Me,” he asked participants to shout out if they love Jesus. He then asked them to raise their arms in the air if they love Jesus. He tried to corral the counter-protestors away from the atheists by saying, “Come on people! You’re talking to the wind!” A big circle was formed around the Ten Commandments for more prayer.

The atheist protestors came from all over the state. Nathaniel Hall, a member of the Tallahassee Atheists (in the red shirt below), was the first to break the invisible barrier and converse with counter-protesters.

Melody Delaney, another member of the Tallahassee Atheists and founding member of the Tallahassee Secular Chorus, shared her reason for coming out to protest: “We are not trying to disparage anyone’s religion… we just believe in separation of church and state as Constitutional law.”

Sean Fraser traveled from Crystal River wearing two hats, one as a protester and another to cover the story for a blog he writes. When asked if he was surprised by the turn-out he said, “Of us? No. Of them? Yes.” This was Fraser’s first protest as an atheist, but he said he’d like to attend more.

Brandi Braschler, president of Freethinkers FSU, was not discouraged by the small turnout or the lack of press coverage. She was part of the group that “unannointed” roads in Polk County earlier this year. “No one was out there, but everyone posted on it” afterwards. As we spoke, a counter-protester (the woman above who was praying to “Father God”) interrupted our conversation. She said, “We don’t want tax payers dollars!” She continued on about “people like you” when Braschler calmly responded, “The First Amendment says a lot of things. But it’s up to the courts, the judges, to interpret what the Constitution means.” This made the other woman walk away, which I observed several times when the counter-protesters had no rebuttal.

I asked David Silverman (who was quick to point out he is not that David Silverman) why he traveled from his home in Jacksonville to protest. “I feel strongly about this and decided to give up a day’s work for this.” He was surprised by the massive monument that was erected and that it was actually a “solid, fixed display.” Silverman (holding the sign in the picture below) added that he had a “long, interesting talk with a Christian and I think I planted a germ.”

Rob Curry (in white shirt), president of the St. Petersburg chapter of Atheists of Florida, speaking with a counter-protester

Bridget Gaudette (right), Florida state director for American Atheists and organizer of the protest, chats with fellow protester in Starke, FL

A member of the motorcycle group 'F.A.I.T.H. Riders' waves his bible in the air at the Bradford County Courthouse

What surprised me most about the event was that this was not about religious rights, but strictly about Christianity. There was no attempt to pass this new monument off as representing a generic god that many could relate to, this was all about Jesus. I asked one counter-protester how he thought a non-Christian in his county might feel about the monument. He couldn’t see why they would care. “I don’t bother them and they don’t bother me” was his response.

The counter-protesters were giddy with delight in their numbers exceeding the protesters. One man yelled out to the crowd, “There’s more preachers in Starke than there are atheists today!” which very well may be true. But what failed to impress them was the great distance the protesters traveled to be in Starke today. Driving for a few hours (as opposed to walking down the street) requires a bit more dedication to a cause. As the sun rose directly overhead, the breeze died down, and stomachs started to ask for lunch, the majority of the counter-protesters drifted off to go about their life. When I asked Brandi Braschler how long she would be there, her response was, “I’m planning to stay here all day.”

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

…

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

In other words, scientists ought to be applying the ideas of logic and reason to religion, just like they do everything else. Trying to mix science and religion means you’re doing both of them wrong.

(via Letters of Note — Thanks to Amanda for the link!)

A long time ago, there was a small band of cavepeople trying to survive in a harsh world. Their two best hunters, Grog and Zog, had been tracking prey together for years. Among the many things Grog and Zog had learned was that when they worked together, they were more likely to catch the meat that helped feed themselves and their band, and to get all sorts (yes, all sorts) of adulation and affection as a result.

One morning, Grog and Zog were out hunting when a bear ambushed them. Grog knew that if he sprinted away, he’d probably survive, but his trusted friend Zog would be killed. Zog knew that if he bolted, he’d be the only reliable hunter left in the band, the thought of which saddened and terrified him. Whether they realized it or not, there was a good chance they would both survive if they both stayed and fought. For whatever reasons, they stood their ground together, fought off the bear with their spears, and lived to hunt again.

And hunt they did, that very day. They used their imaginations to “think like a deer,” employing that early form of empathy to track a big buck and eventually kill it. But soon after they hoisted the carcass onto their shoulders, a large man they’d never seen appeared on their path. He was just one man, but he looked strong, and he had a club. With the bear incident fresh in their minds, Grog and Zog decided to play it safe, stick together, and kill the man before he could hurt them.

As night fell, Grog and Zog returned to the cave to much drooling and cheering. The two hunters relayed the story of that eventful day while the others shouted and danced with abandon. Everyone ate as much as possible while the food was available. The old man of the clan, perhaps feeling left out of the hunt, warned the others not to get too happy because The Spirits could take everything away. After all, that had happened to a less-cooperative clan in the next valley: their single best hunter had been hit by lightning, and the little band had perished the following winter.

And now back to modernity.

Polls show that most Americans are people of faith, and that those who aren’t comprise the least trusted group in the nation. Among people of faith, the most persistent obstacle to entertaining the possibility that a moral nonbeliever could exist is the widespread and intuitive assumption that nonreligious equals non-moral. (If experience or careful thought hasn’t yet brought you to this conclusion about our faithful friends, take it from a writer who lives in Alabama.)

So, given this reality, wouldn’t it be useful to have a simple, reproducible way to explain how and why the baseline of human morality stems not from religious belief or ancient texts but from a natural process? What if this secular humanists’ teaching-aid was a four-paragraph story that could be read or told in roughly two minutes, with perhaps another minute of explanation if necessary?

That additional explanation, by the way, might go something like this:

Imagine the events in the story of Grog and Zog repeated hundreds, thousands, millions of times down through the generations, wherever there were people. Which individuals would last long enough to reproduce? Which would reproduce more while alive? And which types of bands were more likely to survive? (Further hints here could include the words strength, intelligence, imagination, cooperation, nurturing, and trust, as in trust in your teammates in the game of survival.)

Of course, true biblical literalists — the hardcore “New Earthers” — wouldn’t accept the point of the story because it doesn’t jibe with their archaic conceptions of the age of the universe. But in this real world of limited time and resources, it’s not the thumping thoughtless fundamentalists whom we secular humanists should try to convince of the possibility of our being moral. It’s the relatively reachable and reasonable middle – the thoughtful people of faith who sometimes ponder morality on a level deeper than “God says X” or “the Bible says Y.” To believers or nonbelievers who’ve kept up with recent science on genetic altruism and the like, and to people with the most basic grasp of human history, it’s clear that small bands of weak, slow, tiny-toothed, nearly clawless early humans couldn’t have survived and thrived in an indifferent world without working together. And the Parable of Grog and Zog — a simplified fusion of relevant events that must have happened to our ancestors countless times — offers a snapshot of how. But in this case, the snapshot comes before the bulb flashes: once a reader or listener understands that cooperation and altruism (not just fear, aggression, and greed) have worked for us through the ages, it’s a tiny leap to grasping how, over time, basic human morality came about through a natural process independent of religion. It evolved, even if that e-word is something to avoid with certain audiences.

An understanding that morality has natural roots would undercut the no-religion-means-no-morals equation. It would also help chip away at one of humanity’s most persistent sources of division, at belief systems that undoubtedly contain lots of wisdom (which can be retained) and lots of nonsense, and at the mindset that most causes humans to shirk ultimate responsibility for what happens here on Earth.

More specifically and locally, the knowledge that morality has natural roots would counteract the self-fulfilling and institution-serving notion that a newborn baby is a somehow a “sinner” — a sick, damaging concept that persists despite a growing body of research that shows humans are born with an urge to help others.

As freethinkers around the world know consciously or intuitively, and as the Parable of Grog and Zog demonstrates, basic morality is human, not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist. This is not to say that religious belief hasn’t been beneficial to humanity and therefore bred into us also (there is such a thing as a helpful misconception), only that human morality — which of course is shaped, molded, undercut, or bolstered by our physical and cultural environment — evolved long before the faiths we know today. It’s sad that the idea that morality evolved is so out-of-left-field, so alien to most believers, though that mental block makes perfect sense when you’ve been taught since toddlerhood that God/Jesus/Allah/etc is what makes you and life good, or provides just a chance to be good. The lack of the knowledge that morality evolved — and is therefore shared — is the main barrier to a less superstitious view of the world, and to a less judgmental view of people who don’t buy into a particular orthodoxy or believe in a warden in the sky. The assumption that the good in humans comes exclusively from God (and the bad from nature) will always trump anti-religion metaphysical arguments about the universe. So we have to address the questions, “How would I live without my faith? “What would be my guide?”

Luckily, stories have power (see Bible, etc), and a simple tale that shows how natural processes account for the roots of human morality is no exception. The parable even illustrates how positive and counterproductive aspects of human nature — seemingly opposite traits — arose from the same process: some of what worked for us a long time ago, including preemptive aggression with spears, in generally unhelpful today. It’s a simple and elegant explanation that has the added bonus of being true. There’s no need for a God as interpreted by fallible primates in explaining the origin of morality, or for God’s horned opposite — tellingly, often a symbol of nature — in explaining our worst behavior. There’s also no need for the futile mental gymnastics required to rationalize a moral, omniscient, and omnipotent God currently allowing a starving girl to be raped and butchered by drug-addicted child soldiers. (One’s revulsion at that has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with being a human who hasn’t been made into a killing machine by horrendous external factors and/or abnormal wiring.) The believer’s Problem of Evil is sidestepped, its burden made moot by basic and increasingly verifiable knowledge of ourselves.

Nature has long been blamed for the Hobbesian nasty, brutish, and short aspects of human existence but is only recently getting credit for the other traits that have made us human, not to mention humane. Our natural heritage is complex, and it’s our job — our job — now to decide which traits to try to perpetuate and reinforce (cooperation, empathy, altruism, curiosity?) and which traits to try to mitigate or outgrow (aggression, prejudice, fear of the other, gluttony?). It turns out that the Big Ethical Question isn’t, “which faith must win out for us to live in peace?” but, “which human traits are still desirable, and which are now counterproductive?” I think most people would even agree on the answers, once the right question is asked.

Imagine a world where the vast majority of people — religious and otherwise — understood that the baseline, if not the particulars, of morality itself was something that grew out of our long history of working together, that it was something shared throughout humanity. That’s not an anti-religion idea. It’s a unifying, pro-human concept regardless of one’s faith or lack thereof.

So with that in mind, go forth, my brothers and sisters. Spread the word. Tell it. Copy it. Paste it. Post it. Email it. Snail mail it. Put it on T-shirts. Inject it in one form or another into the body societal. Make it a meme. Make it a vaccine against the insidious equation. Plant a seed of self-knowledge that sprouts up through the orthodoxies that seal off otherwise fertile minds. Go forth, fellow secular humanists, and spread the Gospel of Grog and Zog. Given a wide audience and time, it could help us all.

Reprinted with permission from the April-May 2012 issue of Free Inquiry, the bimonthly journal of the Council for Secular Humanism.

My favorite part, talking about what atheists believe (starting at the 5:41 mark):

We believe there is no rational basis to discriminate on the basis of race or gender. We believe our sex live are our business, not the government’s. We believe life has the meaning we give it through increasing happiness and decreasing suffering in the world. We believe healthcare is our decision and our doctors’, not the bishops’. We value teaching how to think, not what to think. We value science, over the supernatural, as an explanation for the world around us. We believe, and value, forming opinions based on reason, not authority. We believe moral principles are tested based on their consequences, not on the dictates of ancient books and preachers. We believe we should change our beliefs based on evidence, not make them immune to questions. We believe marriage should be based on love, not hate. And most of all, we believe freedom is based on “We the People,” not “They the Clergy.”

Damn, there was a lot of rain that day…

When I posted about it then, I had no idea what prompted his deconversion.

Roy Culver recently caught up with Barnes and asked him about what made him walk away from his faith (and, therefore, his band) and what it was like telling the people close to him:

And what began that journey to begin thinking more objectively about Christianity? Did that present a crisis for you?

Well, for me it was just bound to happen. I am the kind of person who needs good reason and evidence to believe something, and it became increasingly difficult to square my Christian worldview with reality. The amount of mental gymnastics I had to put myself through to keep rationalizing my religious faith started to get really old. There seemed to be a mental mechanism that I was employing that felt dishonest and didn’t allow me to really address challenges and questions about faith. Once I decided to be completely honest about what I believed to be true and where the evidence pointed, religion naturally dissolved for me.

…

How has your family dealt with your departure from Christianity?

That was actually the most unpleasant conversation — nobody wants to make their mother cry. The bizarre part of it is, I didn’t do anything wrong, you know? I was just being honest. I would imagine gay people deal with a similar coming out process.

The good news is that Jason has moved on and he’s with a new band (called, appropriately perhaps, On the Shoulders of Giants). Check out the rest of Roy’s interview here for more of the details.