Stephen Colbert hasn’t called me! Ever since he started his 35,000 part series way back in early 2008, “Better Know a Lobbyist,” he has featured the gay lobby and the marijuana lobby, but there is a deadly silence in terms of the nontheist lobby. What’s up with that?

It’s time for the Secular Coalition Nation to rise up and ask Mr. Colbert why he hasn’t introduced the Colbert Nation to the nontheist lobby. I’ve appeared on Papa Bear’s (Bill O’Reilly’s) show four times now, but have yet to have the pleasure of taking on his better half and mirror image, Stephen Colbert himself.

So, all you friends (and foes) of Colbert, lets start a campaign to get the Colbert Report to cover this important lobby representing humanists, atheists, and other Americans who don’t hold a belief in deities. If we let our voices be heard by Comedy Central, we can convince Colbert to have the Secular Coalition for America on his “Better Know a Lobbyist” segment.

Here’s the place to write: http://www.colbertnation.com/cn/contact.php

In the March issue of the Atlantic, Walter Russell Mead suggests that evangelicals in the U.S. are becoming more moderate as they mature into the mainstream, shedding their more strident tone as their influence grows in politics and society. One example of this, of course, is the move beyond the longstanding focus on gays and abortion, toward “creation care.” This past weekend, writing in the Washington Post (registration required), E.J. Dionne Jr. proclaims the death of the culture wars, not because one side or the other has finally emerged victorious. Instead, as we head to presidential elections this fall, voters simply have too much on their minds — for example, the liberation of Iraq, the state of the economy, the place America stands in the world—and don’t have the time to be worried about “values,” like they could in the past.

It’s too early to tell if this really is the trend both authors see it to be (just between reading this blog and the Humanist, it seems a case can be made that the religious right is not mellowing out that much). But if we grant the authors their assumptions, what does it mean for the humanist movement? Of course, on a philosophical level, humanism is so much more than just a reaction to religion. But when it comes to day-to-day activism in the public square, not only are we out there pushing our worldview forward, we’re doing all we can to push back against most everything the religious right is spewing out. What would happen if evangelicals continue proselytizing on an individual level, but no longer tried to impose their views on the rest of society through legislation? Or, what if they started promoting viewpoints that our movement could support?

Something the humanist movement has never openly and honestly articulated is the ideal role we envision religion playing in society. Do humanists only seek to reduce the influence of the religious right in the public square, ensuring a secular society where religion holds no particular sway? Or do we intend to continue to push, to try and root out religious thinking in society as a whole, and create a world full of humanists? Is the latter even possible? Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be? Does making common cause with religious believers on shared issues of concern mean an end to the critique of the irrationality of a belief in a god?

This is an issue that we already face as we work with religious liberals on those issues of common concern. But our agreement on various issues are arrived at by very different means, and very different routes. If we truly are facing a trend of a religious right that is more moderate, or of a religious right that is simply less relevant, the question then becomes where does that leave us, and where do we go from there?

As I left the Fox Studio in DC after taping last Friday’s O’Reilly Factor (see here), I felt pretty good about the appearance, but as always, I thought of a couple of additional things I should have said. Then I thought, “Hey, I can continue my answer on the Humanist blog.” During a four minute segment, it’s important to streamline answers and get the message across quickly. Four minutes is also not sufficient to send lots of different messages or to go in-depth on anything complex. Better venues for more in-depth information include half hour radio appearances and podcasts.

So here’s the main piece that really could have used one more line: When Bill O’Reilly asked me if it would have been alright had Mitt Romney, instead of claiming that Americans believe our liberty is a gift from God, had said “most Americans” believe that. I answered that it would have made the statement more accurate. What I should have added was, “…but it would have been just as irrelevant. He didn’t single out any other majority. A candidate doesn’t need to say, ‘most Americans are white.’ A candidate for president ought to agree to represent all Americans, including minorities.” OK, there may not have been enough time to get all of that in, and quite frankly I’m surprised that O’Reilly let me get in as many comments as I did.

Of my four appearances on his show, this was my favorite. And Fox’s hair and makeup people even perked me up after a very bad hair day. And at the end of the day, isn’t that the most important thing?

Oh Bill, why haven’t you called? Last year at this time – and two years ago as well – you welcomed me onto the O’Reilly Factor to discuss your all-important Earth-shattering “war.” That’s right, I used to be your worthy opponent as you fought a culture war over whether store clerks should enforce a “Merry Christmas!” message on customers, and whether evergreen trees should be called Christmas trees (as opposed to holiday trees, Hanukkah bushes, or in the style of Monty Python – shrubbery.)

But alas, November has come and gone with nary a call from you, Bill. For a while I suspected that you had decided to call a ceasefire in your war. After all, it had given an immense amount of fodder to comics throughout the land, and made you look even more foolish than you generally seem. Then, a couple of weeks ago, I read that you had taken up verbal arms again in the Christmas war … only this time your focus was on what color lights would be used in decorating government buildings. I had no idea, but you informed the public that white lights were SEC – YOU – LER (with an emphasis on the “sec”). And the true symbol of Christmas is colored lights.

Well, OK. I’ll assume that the reason I missed the part of the Christmas story in which the three wise men bring the gifts of red and green electric lights to the baby Jesus, is because I’m Jewish. I’m certain that my Christian friends and family members learned about the sacred colored lights. But I’m offended that you denigrated decorations consisting of snowflakes and penguins. I love snow. And I especially love penguins. In fact, this year, I’m hoping for a “white Christmas.” Bill, if you’d take a walk with me through freshly fallen snow under the evening street lamps in our nation’s capitol, you might notice how beautiful and perhaps dare I say it – sacred – the quiet of a snowy celebration of this beautiful solstice season can be.

Happy Humanlight to all.

It just wouldn’t be the holiday season without Bill O’Reilly and his contrived ‘War on Christmas,’ would it?

The Fox News pundit is back again to yabber on and on about our attempts to “diminish Christmas for secular progressive reasons.” Apparently, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado, and their decision to choose white lights over the “more Christmas-y” colored lights has really gotten Bill all riled up (a video of the segment posted on the blog Think Progress can be seen here).

Despite what O’Reilly would have you believe, we Humanists do respect Christmas, as we respect Hanukkah, Kwaanza, Eid, and other December holidays (we even have our own in HumanLight). Every religious and nonreligious holiday in the month of December celebrate similar themes: happiness, peace, love, joy. However you want to celebrate is up to you.

O’Reilly is the only one fighting in this so-called ‘war.’ For someone who cherishes this time of year so much, his hate-filled mongering is about as un-Christmas as you can get.

There’s been much talk in the blogosphere about the upcoming release of The Golden Compass, a new film based on the children’s trilogy His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman–a known atheist. A chain email is rumored to have been passed around to thousands of parents encouraging them to not let their children see the movie’s supposed anti-religious themes. And the Catholic League will be conducting a two-month protest of the movie, claiming the book is “overt in its hatred of Catholicism.”

So what does Pullman have to say about his attempt to indoctrinate little children to the evilness that is atheism? Quite the opposite, actually. When asked if there was an underlying message promoting atheism in his books, Pullman stated:

As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded inquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.

Sure, Pullman has also stated in a 2003 interview with the Sydney Morning Herald that, “My books are about killing God.” While not the most ideal choice of words, there’s nothing wrong with what Pullman is doing. C.S. Lewis did the exact same thing in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe on behalf of Christianity (and you didn’t see atheists collectively protesting that movie when it came out two years ago).

What the Catholic League is attempting to do through its protest is equate atheism with immorality. (I find that funny, in light of the hundreds of Catholic clergy abuse cases going on in the world.) But I’m more offended that the Catholic League implies that atheism is dangerous to children. Pullman’s books, as the author has stated himself, promote intellectual curiosity. Let the kids decide for themselves.

Sam Harris and Ellen Johnson are at the center of the latest sparring match between rationalist thinkers. Sam Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation) gave a speech at the Atheist Alliance International conference this past weekend and made a rather astounding claim:

We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

. . . [R]ather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general.

As a Humanist I’m all for being decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them, but I think now is the worst possible time to go under the radar. With the religious right trying to make even greater inroads into our political and legal system we have to stand up and be counted, now more than ever. We also can’t go underground at a time when we are the most untrusted group in the country. Only visibily can change those statistics.
Read the rest of this entry &raquo

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 National Secular Society of Great Britain reported that Prince Harry “declined the opportunity to give a religious reading” at the 10th anniversary memorial service for the late Princess Diana, opting instead to give a personal eulogy. The text of his speech contains no overtly religious themes—or even a reference to God.

But does that mean Prince Harry—third in line to the British throne who would also hold the title of “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” if he were to become King—is an atheist?

Well, let’s not be too quick to claim Harry as “one of us.” His elder brother, Prince William, electing to read Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians in the Bible. Perhaps there was no need to give another, and Harry instead opted to give a special, more personalized tribute to his mother, making the NSS’s wording of Harry “declining the opportunity to give a religious reading” questionable.

Maybe it’s just better that we only call someone an atheist if they’ve stated—loud and clear—that they don’t believe in a god.

A recent Henry Payne cartoon depicts a news editor shouting to his troops “I want that family-values hypocrite senator’s head on a platter…unless he’s a democrat in which case stay out of his private life!” I bet Bill Clinton and Gary Hart wish that were true.

Outing Republicans as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users has become modern sport for hypocrisy hounds and general muckrakers. It’s almost replaced outing celebrities as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users. Unfortunately, it very definitely has pushed aside some other real news and seriously altered the public discourse.

I mean, why are so few people asking, Why are undercover cops hanging out in restrooms instead of looking for terrorists? Did word come down that we are done looking for terrorists and I missed it? How about solving real crimes like burglaries and murders? And while everyone is busy being disgusted and disappointed with Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), why don’t we issue the same level of vitriol at the war in Iraq, or Alberto Gonzales’s failure to seemingly endorse rather than expose the criminal behavior emanating from the White House. Are we not disgusted by that?

Humanists would do well to focus their energy on trying to change the discourse of media spin and restore some reason to the general debate. Is the issue that Senator Craig is a possibly a homosexual or that when he was caught breaking the law, he tried to hide it from his constituency and even his family? Are police officers in public restrooms engaging in a form of entrapment or is it a necessary and legal means of protecting the community? These are the real questions of the Larry Craig scandal and the ones that should be getting the most air time.

As titillating as it is for progressives to watch Republicans implode, is there a way to find something there that brings people into reasonable and rational discussion about Humanist issues such as justice, quality of life, and bringing our abilities to the greater good of humanity? If there is, how do we influence the discussion? If not, how do we move the discussion in new directions?