I can always tell that we’ve been mentioned on Fox when we start getting a particular style of email.  This one was too good not to share:

Message: The AHA is ‘Stalinistic’ in it’s hatred and almost genocidal tactics against the Boy Scouts of America.

The Boy Scouts have been around for 100 years, and now, these lovers [AHA] of filthy homosexuals, reprehensible atheists and other dregs to society, want to ‘rip it to shreds’ simply because the Boy Scouts of America excludes such undesireables. “HOORAY” for the Boy Scouts for doing the right thing – GOD bless them! “BOO-HOO” for AHA and the ‘dregs’ it panders to! Get over it! You lose!

RS

My goodness!  Do you want to know what “almost genocidal tactics” we employed?  We wrote a letter to then President-Elect Obama.

The letter, which we sent with 18 other nontheistic organizations, asked Obama not to accept the title of honorary president of the Boy Scouts.  As a private organization, they have every right to reject gay or nontheistic members.  They have every right to teach that a belief in God is necessary to become a good citizen.  But Obama doesn’t have to signify that he supports their discriminatory views.

At the moment, it looks like he’ll accept the position.  Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist wrote: “I’m waiting for Obama to be the president I voted for when it comes to social issues. He hasn’t been that person yet.”

I sympathize, but I’m slightly more optimistic (I’ve had my coffee this morning).  I didn’t really expect Obama to refuse, but our letter got media coverage and made sure our point of view was heard.

How ‘Stalinistic’ of us.

As a continuation of our unofficial John Stuart Mill appreciation week here on Rant and Reason, I thought I would reflect for a moment on a quote from On Liberty that I read this morning in the most recent edition of International Humanist News:

Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.

Ibn Warraq was quoting Mill to illustrate a point on free expression in his talk entitled Democracy vs. Theocracy, addressing the recent effort by many nations (most of them with predominantly Islamic governments) to curtail any criticism of religion by the newly formed UN Human Rights Council. I recommend following the link above and reading the entirety of his talk; the IHEU has been closely following this issue and speaking out in favor of freedom of speech and preserving human rights, including the right to speak out against abuses by religious and governmental authorities and the religious context within which those abuses take place.

But I am going to address the Mill quote in a different context, one that the American Humanist Association has been experiencing first hand recently here in the United States. As readers of this blog know, the AHA embarked on an advertising campaign in our nation’s capital, which is also where our offices are located. The advertisements, stating “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake” (see it here) appear on the exteriors and interiors of buses around Washington D.C. The ad campaign has received a lot of media coverage, and, predictably, a wide range of reactions. I wouldn’t expect anything less.

One consistent theme among many critics of the ad, though, has been that it is simply inappropriate or wrong to have it at all. For example, Deborah Simmons of the Washington Times wrote:

To even allow the specter of belief to be questioned on a public bus system that is heavily subsidized with public dollars is blasphemy.

That’s a really interesting connection she makes there. Apparently, in her view, public buses have an obligation to maintain religious correctness at all times. Indeed, allowing an expression of dissent to what she regards as the prevailing majority view is “blasphemy.”

Another comment, addressed to Metro and quoted by Human Events, illustrates my point even more directly:

Your city represents the United States, and to turn your system into a billboard for this organization is offensive to me and most American People. There is free speech but there is also responsibility to not offend a group of people in this country. Your acceptance of this advertisement is offensive to me as a Christian and I strong urge you to take them down.

That is exactly the attitude that Mill was addressing in his quote. To that commenter, free speech is all well and good, as long as it does not offend him or her. Again, he or she demands religious correctness and deference to the majority religion, simply because it is the majority and will not brook any dissent. This is a very flaccid definition of freedom of expression, essentially, “You are free to say anything you like, as long as you don’t offend me.” But it seems rather obvious that this is not the freedom of expression that Mill visualized. For what does free speech mean if it is to be regulated constantly by the will of the majority?

Of course, as I said, there has been a wide range of reactions, including the following:

A stay-at-home mother of four is poised to start a Metrobus ad campaign to counter ads from the American Humanist Association that question a belief in God.

JoEllen Murphy, a 39-year-old Catholic who lives in McLean, started a grassroots Internet campaign after hearing about the humanist ads that started appearing last month on Metrobuses.

Murphy’s ad shows an image from Michelangelo’s “The Creation of Adam” on the Sistine Chapel ceiling with the slogan: “Why believe? I created you and I love you, for goodness’ sake. – God.”

She says that she was offended by the AHA ad campaign, and decided to counter it by organizing an ad campaign of her own. In other words, in response to speech that she disagreed with, she decided that the answer was more speech and more debate in the public forum. That is freedom of expression at work.

When you see or read something that you strongly disagree with, then your best redress is to respond. Demands to censor the cause of offense are misguided and ignore Mill’s admonition that free speech must stand even in extreme cases if it is to mean anything at all. Certainly, debate can get messy at times. And I feel that there is a legitimate concern about access, because not everyone would be able to start a bus ad campaign in order to make their thoughts or concerns public. But free and open public debate beats the alternative, which is to bow to the majority or some kind of governmental standard to ensure that no offense is caused. That would render the First Amendment meaningless.

Today the American Humanist Association was at the National Press Club in Washington DC to launch our latest campaign: godless advertisements on local Metro buses that state, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

The advertisement directs people to the website www.whybelieveinagod.com. Our press release was issued this morning:

Already appearing today in the New York Times and Washington Post, the message will soon be blazoned on the sides, taillights, and interiors of over 200 Washington DC Metro buses.

It’s the first ad campaign of its kind in the United States, and the American Humanist Association predicts it will raise public awareness of humanism as well as controversy over humanist ideas.

“Humanists have always understood that you don’t need a god to be good,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “So that’s the point we’re making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn’t come from religion. It’s a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience.”

At a press conference today launching the campaign, large displays were featured showing the ads in today’s New York Times and Washington Post, the bus posters, and how the posters will look mounted on the side of a bus and inside, behind the driver’s seat. The exterior posters will appear on buses in Northwest Washington starting Tuesday, November 18. The interior posters will begin December 1 in Northwest and Southeast.

“We expect these bus signs to generate a lot of public interest,” said Fred Edwords, director of communications for the American Humanist Association. “Some folks may be offended but that isn’t our purpose. We just want to reach those open to this message but unaware how widespread their views are.

The “goodness’ sake” ads and posters direct people to a special Web site at www.whybelieveinagod.org that helps people find others of like mind in the Washington, D.C., metro area and nationally. The site also informs the public about humanism and answers common objections to the slogan as well as to the appropriateness of running the campaign during the holidays.

Such high-profile promotion isn’t new to the American Humanist Association. Throughout 2008, humanist advertising has become more visible across the nation. In particular, highway billboards have been erected just outside of New York City, Philadelphia, and other major cities. They read: “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”

“Those billboards,” Fred Edwords added, “started raising the profile of our movement and generated an avalanche of responses, both from people who realized that they, too, were humanists as well as from those who disagreed with us. But everyone heard our message loud and clear. And this is what it takes for us to reach our audience.”

What do you think of the ad? Let us know in the comments section!

Today, I circulated a press release with information about the Star Hill controversy. This concerns the Village of Holmen, Wisconsin, which decided to sell to the local Lion’s Club a small patch of public land on which a cross and a star are erected. The Lion’s Club will pay $600–despite the fact that the American Humanist Association offered $1,000 and the Freedom From Religion Foundation offered $1,200 for the land. This is because the Lion’s Club will keep the cross and star in the midst of government-owned property while the AHA and FFRF won’t. (Those of you who have followed the San Diego Mt. Soledad case should be pretty familiar with this new tactic.)

As an AHA staff member who deals with public policy, I’ve sent out quite a number of press releases during my tenure here. I’ve rarely ever received editorializing e-mails back from media people. However, today I received two of particular note:

From Daniel S. Brandenburg, Publisher/Editor of the Marion Advertiser

“Three Cheers for the Village of Holmen. I think I’ll use this as an editorial to give these leaders the credit they deserve.”

From Ingrid Schlueter, co-host of VCY America Radio Network

“Ha Ha Ha. This is great. Long live the Lions Club and kudos to the village board of Holmen, Wisconsin. God bless America.”

Clearly, we have a lot of church-state educating yet to do.

This past weekend, the Boston Globe Magazine featured an excellent article on the rise of non-theists in America. What’s even more refreshing is that the article took the time to point out the distinction between atheism and humanism.

Particularly encouraging was the article’s focus on the increasing attraction of young nontheists to organized secularism. For example, the article points out the following statistics:

The number of campus groups affiliated with the Secular Student Alliance, for example, has increased by more than 50 percent in the past two years, to more than 80 groups, says August E. Brunsman IV, executive director of the Albany, New York-based alliance.

I can certainly attest to this trend just by looking around the AHA’s offices. More than half of our staff is under the age of 30. It is certainly interesting to wonder why this might be the case. Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that this generation—the children of the Baby Boomers —have grown up seeing the perverse side of religion. This includes most notoriously the attacks on 9/11 and the rise of the Christian Right here in the U.S.

But, as the article also goes on to state, the rising tide of nontheists (or “nonbelievers” as the article uses, a term that I, personally, dislike) has drawn criticism for what others see as a bombastic and anti-religious nature. Personally, I don’t see a problem in pointing out the failures of religion, but if others feel threatened by nontheists/Humanists, then perhaps they need to look deeper into their own belief system and question it themselves.

What do you think? Should Humanists tread carefully when pointing out the flaws of the religiously-inclined or should we go full force ahead?

The Humanist movement lost a visionary this weekend. Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine, the creator of Humanistic Judaism and the 2003 Humanist of the Year, was killed Saturday, July 21, in a car crash while vacationing in Morocco. He was 79.

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association said:

“[Rabbi Wine] taught that values such as reason and compassion were humanity’s saving grace, not adherence to religious dogma. He knew that we must live our one and only lives to the fullest, and do as much good as possible in the limited time we have on this earth.”

Rabbi Wine founded several humanist organizations, such as the Center for New Thinking, the Society for Humanistic Judaism, the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, and the Humanist Institute. In addition, he lectured and debated frequently, taking on such fundies as Jerry Falwell and Meir Kahane. He will be deeply missed, but his legacy will live on.