Palmer joins the “God Squad,” some christian ministers and a rabbi, to discuss the intersection of faith and morality. It’s not often that an atheist gets to advance the secular humanist cause in a big church to a crowd of believers. Thanks to Liz Joyner of the Village Square (tothevillagesquare.org) for inviting me on to the panel. Thanks also to the clergy for being gracious and honest hosts. Follow me on Twitter: @Atheist_Esq

This was a lovely experience in how far the media can miss the story. The Humanists of Florida Association, Tallahassee Atheists, Atheists of Florida, and the Freethinkers FSU went down to Polk County for two reasons:

1. To welcome all regardless of religious beliefs into Polk County because the Polk Under Prayer religious group’s oil ritual was to intended to bring those in Polk County to a “full knowledge of Jesus Christ” and to ask “God to have angels inspect every vehicle that travels into or out of this county” and “if they will not submit to God’s way of living, then the prayer is to have them incarcerated or removed from the county.”

2. To help the rest of Florida understand that the Polk Under Prayer Group praying for the incarceration of all who do “not submit to God’s way” is publicly endorsed by Lakeland Mayor Gow Fields, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, and Polk County Superintendent Sherrie Nickell in their official government capacities. Thus government and one specific flavor of religion become entwined setting up separate classes of citizens.

We’ve known for some time that Polk County government is behaving theocratically. But many of us only became aware of its explicit association with Polk Under Prayer earlier this month.

See the full story here, including the making good of that incarceration threat in the arrest of HFA President EllenBeth Wachs.

http://free2think.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1458

Also I discuss Florida Senate Bill 98 working its way through the Florida House now. It’s passed the Senate. It would (unconstitutionally) permit prayer in public schools. But with the most recent amendments, it would be Lord of the Flies style! Scary and hilarious.

Just as I finished uploading the latest episode of the podcast, I received a call from Asheville GreenWorks informing me that our WNC Atheists sign for Adopt-a-Street had been vandalized. To be honest, I’m more surprised that it lasted three months unscathed.

I was also informed that the city has received threatening phone calls demanding that our signs be taken down.

I’m happy to report that Asheville GreenWorks and the City of Asheville are firmly on our side. They have filed a police report about the vandalism, and they will be replacing the sign as soon as the new one is printed.

I’d like to publicly thank GreenWorks for the support they’ve given us, and for keeping me up-to-date about this whole affair. North Lexington is one the coolest streets in downtown Asheville, and we’re more than happy to keep it clean.

It’s a shame that vandals have to waste the time and money of GreenWorks, who put a tremendous amount of effort toward keeping this city looking beautiful.

UPDATE

I just found out that our other sign was vandalized as well. I’ve added its picture to the top of this blog post.

UPDATE 2

I’d like to amend this post with a correction by Eric Bradford, head honcho for Asheville Greenworks.

The City of Asheville prints, hangs, owns and pays for the adopt-a-street signs.  We merely oversee the administration part of the program.  The City requested that I file a report with the APD since this was damage to City owned property.

Good news, we only received one threatening phone call to remove the signs and that came to the Asheville GreenWorks offices and not the City of Asheville.

Good to hear. Thanks Eric!

UPDATE 3

I’ve submitted a letter to the op-ed section of the Mountain Xpress. I’m re-posting it here, in full, in case it isn’t printed.

Vandalism Makes a Poor Weapon in a Clash of Ideologies

I received a call from Asheville GreenWorks today, informing me that the Adopt-a-Street signs for the WNC Atheists, which were posted on both ends of North Lexington Avenue, had been vandalized and would need to be replaced. I was also informed that Asheville GreenWorks had received a phone call demanding that the signs be taken down.

I was not surprised by this news, nor were any other members of our atheist street-cleaning crew. It is simply a matter-of-fact that, in the United States, pro-atheist outreach efforts are commonly met with this sort of response.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the vandals: what were you hoping to accomplish? What does it say about your belief system that atheists are picking up litter while you deface city property?

The folks at Asheville GreenWorks spend a tremendous amount of time and effort to keep our city looking beautiful. New signs are already being printed. All you have done is waste the time and money of an organization that is trying to better our city.

I wish to extend an invitation to the vandals and to those making the threatening phone calls: if you truly believe that your worldview is superior, then prove it. There is no shortage of streets in Asheville that need litter control. Call Asheville GreenWorks and adopt a street of your own. Show us all that your convictions are so strong, and your constituents so dedicated, that you can keep a cleaner street than a ragtag bunch of atheists.

You’ll get your own signs, and we promise not to hurt them.

We discuss elevated experiences and Meaning with a capital M.

TMI: Mark dresses as a pretty princess.

SHOW NOTES

Ballotpedia.org Summary of the Florida Religious Freedom amendment.

Learn about “Faith Food Friday” interfaith bread breaking.

The separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an important founding principle of our nation. Our nation’s Bill of Rights guarantees not only that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also guarantees citizens’ rights to practice the religion of their choosing or no religion at all.

Throughout our history, people of all faiths – as well as secular Americans – have played an important role in public life. And a robust dialogue about the role of religion in public life is an important part of our public discourse.

While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.

When he was a Senator from Illinois, President Obama gave a keynote address at the Call to Renewal conference where he spoke about the important role religion plays in politics and in public life.

A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God’ in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust’ on our currency. These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life, while we continue to recognize and protect the rights of secular Americans. As the President said in his inaugural address, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” We’re proud of that heritage, and the strength it brings to our great country.

Condescension, hand-waving and double-speak, all wrapped up in one polite package!

Nobody is claiming that “there’s no role for religion in the public square.” We’re saying that there cannot be a government-sanctioned bias toward one or more religions.

As Joshua wrote, “context matters.” The context here is that it is nearly mandatory for every child that attends public school to recite the Pledge daily. This could not be a more clear “breach to the wall of separation.” Ask any school-aged child that is not Jewish or Christian if they feel that having to say “under God” brings them strength or instills a sense of proud heritage. It is likely that these children are ridiculed or teased for their minority beliefs.

So there’s our answer. The Obama administration is not willing to acknowledge this obvious entanglement of government and religion.

I posted this originally on 28 October 2011 and then received some feedback from John Shook.  I’ve tried to make some corrections (5 Nov 2011).

CFI Institute in Tallahassee was Awesome

Midway through the month I had the pleasure of dining with EllenBeth Wachs, Rebecca Watson, John Shook, and Richard Carrier after the CFI institute in Tallahassee. EllenBeth is not as well known on the national stage as the others, but her recent arrests by atheist-hating fundi-Christian sherriff Grady Judd did make the New York Times. It’s all thanks to EllenBeth, president of the Humanists of Florida Association, that I was invited to share in dinner. And it’s all thanks to Rebecca Watson that we persuaded the waiter to turn four free-glass-of-wine coupons into one free bottle of wine. It was something dark red, and delicious. But now, on to the Institute.

Richard Carrier threw some serious cold water on theistic philosophical arguments. Rebecca Watson told of how her love of science almost died in high school when her chemistry teacher codenamed “Mr. Gropey” was expectedly fired and replaced with a string of incompetents. Joe Nickell showed some lovely photos of charred and melted corpses, the remains of alleged spontaneous human combustion. Nobel laureate, Harry Kroto spoke of the interplay among science, education, and religion.¹ John Shook, the director of education at CFI, gave a presentation that lacked the crowed-engagement of the other speakers.  Initially, I was underwhelmed. But, on reflection what he said stuck with me. Over the last two weeks, I find myself mulling over Shook’s words far more than the others’.

Shook Talks Secularisms

Shook listed five different secularisms that dealt with the separation of church and state. Each shows an approach that a government might take towards religion. I’ll use his terms and definitions. Then I’ll follow them up with some thoughts of my own. These secularisms are:

1. Structural Secularism: Society’s core political, legal, economic, and educational organizations ought to be independent from religion.
2. Political Secularism: Government and religion are mostly separate. Government does not obey or endorse religion, but it may aid religions.
3. State Secularism: Government is completely separate from religion, and uses law to positively discourage religious belief and practice.
4. Ethical Secularism: Ethical principles guiding society’s welfare ought to be free from religious control or orientation.
5. Atheist Secularism: All political and social institutions should actively contradict, disparage, and discourage all forms of religious belief and practice.

This may be naive, but I’d never seriously thought that different secularists might want totally different versions of church/state separation. Nor had it sunk in that religionists might actually be portraying “Atheist Secularism” as the broad agenda of the Atheist/Skeptic/Humanist movement.

First, let me say that I am EMPHATICALLY AGAINST “Atheist Secularism.” I think most atheists are likewise against it. Such an aggressive, oppressive crushing of religious irrationality could not be properly bound to hazy philosophical concepts of “religion.” Setting up some kind of irrationality police state would put all of our activities under the judgment of a societal consensus view of irrationality, forcing us all to walk on eggshells lest our actions be deemed by authorities to be insufficiently justified (or sufficiently religion-esque). This is anti-freedom. Permitting others to act in silly, wasteful, disagreeable, insensitive, ugly, mercurial, and unhealthy ways is freedom. As I’ve said repeatedly, nobody needs a legally protected freedom to do what everyone agrees is acceptable.

“State Secularism” also goes too far in my opinion. Yes, the government should focus on problem solving that relies on evidence and the best science. Yes, government problem solvers should reject fairy tale based solutions offered by dogmatists. But, the government should not go out and punish people for believing in fairy tales. Again, we all do it. We all have our fairy tales and irrationalities. Lovers, children, money, hobbies, passions, addictions (legal and not), food, religion, and many other things lead us to act irrationally because we’re human. “Religion” is just too hazy a concept to single out as one irrationality to be disfavored. Protecting the freedoms of speech, belief, and association are too important to bother with official government discouragement of some unavoidably inadequate legal definition of religion.

“Ethical Secularism” is moral law divorced from superstition. And by law, I mean the government-enforced relationship between people and the government. If you reject god-decreed morality and you accept the scientific fact that all humans are humans, you are likely to embrace some approximation of humanism. While humanism is not the only possible foundation for Ethical Secularism, encouraging the societal embracing of a humanist ethic is my number one goal. Such an ethic should be promoted first in society by secular (and other) humanists themselves.

The vast majority of “right” and “wrong” deeds ever done do not rise to the level of entangling the doer in the legal system. Accordingly,  humanism must win the hearts of the people through the good works and words of humanists. Societal adoption of a humanist ethic will pave the way for humanist principles to work their way into the legal system through the legislatures and the courts. The advancement of gay rights over the last 30 years is an excellent example of this.  Racial rights and gender rights are examples of the same, a little further along. Change the people and the people will change the laws. In my estimation, broad societal internalization of humanist morality is the single biggest win the secular movement can have.

“Structural Secularism” is mostly in place now in the USA. Such independence is a good thing. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court as erecting a boundary between all religions and the government. This interpretation was forced on the states about 70 years ago.² Despite the desires of the ultra-religious, I think the USA is doing pretty well here. Thanks in part to Ethical Secularism and under the humanist ethic of equal rights, the younger generations are embracing a more pluralistic attitude towards various believers (including non-believers), which should over time enhance and protect Structural Secularism. A firm separation of religions from the government keeps all of us, religious and not, on more equal footing.

“Political Secularism” strikes a balance between the government protecting the rights of the religious to practice as they see fit while not favoring any one religion over others. Such is embodied well in the play between the Free Exercise Clause and the No Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Under Political Secularism, it is still possible for a government to treat all religions with preference over non-religious organizations, which is the case presently in the US.³ Many atheists are fed up with this and would prefer to fight back with a State Secularism regime; I would not. Rather, I would prefer a Political Secularism Plus regime. And, by “Plus” I mean that the government should merely be prevented from favoring religions over and above other nonprofit organizations.

Promoting Political Secularism Plus includes such activism as getting “In God We Trust” and “Under God” removed from official government speech. I am in favor of such efforts, but the hostility this work engenders from the generally religious super-majority and the relatively small potential payoff may make this activism a poor investment of limited time and resources. As I said before, promoting humanist Ethical Secularism should be the big goal. I believe all other serious issues will solve themselves in time if enough of society really embraces equal rights and empathy. Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign is probably the best example of such humanist activism going on today.

Can They Have Their Cake and Eat Ours Too?

What if we can’t get serious humanist buy-in from the people in the short term? Assume that the vast majority of folks presently remain dogmatic bigots (for religious reasons or otherwise) against people of other races, genders, orientations, or philosophies. Could it be possible to foster a cultural change where people who harbor beliefs that are anti-humanist also openly believe that under the secular law humanist morality ought to prevail? Let’s have an example of how this might look.

Imagine a Catholic. He is a believer. He believes in the Virgin Mary, the Trinity, and the Pope. He believes homosexuality is a sin. He believes that homosexuals will go to hell forever. But what if he is also an avid Ethical Secularist?  He supports full and equal rights of gays to marry and to be parents. There need be no contradiction there. He believes that it is not the government’s job to force everyone to be Catholic. He is happy about this.  He would not want the government to force him to act Mormon just because he lives in Utah.  Our Catholic believes Hindus are going to hell too but they should — like the gays — also have equal rights to marry. He believes strongly that the government and Jesus have separate functions; that governments are established by humans to support them as equal citizens under earthly law; and that Jesus has a different kingdom and His is not of this world (John 18:36).  Our example Catholic is content and prefers to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s (Matt. 22:21).

In my conversations and presentations with religionists, it is my hope to persuade the non-humanists to embrace such a division of private and public ethics. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Conclusion

People will leave their religions if and when they are ready. Societies, governments, and families should not force them. Societal buy-in of humanism should be the big secular goal. Even as religionists, the faithful may still adopt a humanist morality. And if they do not, they may still come to support humanist Ethical Secularism as an ideal of earthly government. This is the new substance of my interfaith dialogue.

So thank you John Shook for helping me to formulate my goals.  Although your talk lacked pizazz, it overflowed with inspiration.

- Palmer

1: See Human Tales 0007 podcast for the audio of Harry Kroto’s speech.

2: See Everson v. Bd. of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

3: The US government does not presently treat churches like all other nonprofit organizations under the tax code, but that’s for another post.

For at least two years now, podcasts have been my primary source of entertainment. The low barrier of entry allows podcasters to fill every niche of subject matter. My podcast feed is rife with shows about atheism, skepticism, science, politics, and religion. However, Human Tales was the first podcast I’d heard that focused primarily on the human experience from a secular perspective. It’s a niche that needs to be filled, both in podcasting and in the greater public forum.

I expect Mark will receive some well-deserved criticism of his choice for co-host. Listening to Episode 0008, I was surprised by how poorly I enunciated and how I sounded more like I was addressing an answering machine than an audience. I have plenty of practice and learning ahead of me. I hope listeners will find the patience to bear with me as I find my podcasting voice.

I also have a responsibility to find my own niche to fill. Mark’s legal background allows him to offer a unique perspective on current events of interest to secular humanists. My professional background is primarily web design and development. I’m looking forward to applying those skills to this website, but they won’t do much for my public speaking abilities. I have a new appreciation for the talents of many of my favorite podcasters. Their words and thoughts flow so effortlessly through their broadcasts that it is easy to forget how much work and preparation go into every episode.

What do I have to say that is worth saying? What do I have to say that is worth listening to?

I hope to find that answer soon.

- James

SHOW NOTES

David Hudson Jr. reminds us that profanity is usually protected free speech, but not always.

Rebecca Watson of Skepchick fame blasts theist for shirking government job to hate gays in the name of religious freedom.

FLORIDA: Dwarf Tossing may be coming back to the Sunshine State.

TMI: Mark Driscoll is a dipshit regarding masturbation and homosexuality.

SHOW NOTES:

Dr. Harry Kroto on Wikipedia.

Tallahassee Skeptics in the Pub on Facebook.

Jesus Camp Trailer: Organized Crazy.

Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) supporting murder of Salman Rusdie.

SHOW NOTES

Learn more about the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, of which Jason Torpy is president.

Read Jason Torpy’s article on Humanism and Veganism.

See Margie Phelps iPhone tweet re. Steve Jobs funeral protest.

Florida Open Government Watch: Christians must defend pluralism and the separation of church and state.

My much too kind response to this. She was a friend.

Strawman: A logical fallacy that attacks an argument that was never made:

“Atheism” says nothing about about the origins of the universe or life. Atheism is merely a disbelief supernaturalism. Atheism is disbelief in magic.

Atheism assumes natural causes and reactions but makes no claims about any theories of the origin of matter or of abiogenesis.

Atheism aside, science (including Evolution) says almost nothing about abiogenesis. Also, science has almost nothing to say about about what caused, what happened before, or what happened outside of the Big Bang.

A few theoretical physicists have advanced some quantum flux, spontaneous generation of matter/anti-matter, arguments. But these are untested and often untestable. Accordingly they are not scientifically factual.

Please don’t confuse atheism with science and please don’t mislead folks about what science or atheism claims.

An elevator speech is a little, informal speech that clearly and concisely explains a probably unfamiliar topic. By the end of this post, I intend to have a short, simple paragraph on Humanism. You and I can memorize the gist and blurt a blurb about it when the occasion arises. Said occasion may or may not occur while you’re on a elevator.

SECULAR HUMANISM

There are different kinds of “Humanism.” If you are both an atheist and a Humanist, you will obviously be of the secular sort. But any person, religious or not, may choose to follow a humanistic morality. So what is Secular Humanism? The International Humanist and Ethical Union wrote a Minimum Statement on Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

In other words, according to the IHEU to be a Secular Humanist you must at least espouse the above. I’m a lawyer, and so I tend to view human interactions in legal terms. By legal terms I mean government-enforced rights, responsibilities, and consequences. Of course you may be a Humanist regardless of the government of your country, but Humanism makes an excellent — in my opinion the best — legal framework. So, let’s start picking through that Minimum Statement and put it in legal terms.

DEMOCRACY

Humanism is a democratic stance.¹ Democracy is, at its core, that the people make the rules to govern themselves.² The governed are the governors. At it’s highest aspiration, democracy is the enforcement of the oft-invented Golden Rule: Treat everyone as you would be treated.

Assume the word “citizen” means a person who is free to participate in the lawmaking process of democracy equally with any other citizen. Expanding this concept of citizen to all humans who are able to participate is the democratic hope of humanism. It was not long ago, in the United States, that the rights of full citizenship were held only by one race and one gender. If you were not a euro-male, you could not participate. While this provided more stability and equality than a dictatorship (where the rights of full citizenship are held by only one person), it was not humanistic.

That “spirit of reason” bit from the Minimum Statement is important. In the USA, full citizenship is now legally available (almost unavoidable) to men and women who are at least 18 years old. Mental capacity (or age as a rough estimate of mental capacity) is still a discriminatory factor in granting full citizenship. But there is a reason. Those who are not mentally capable cannot comprehend the laws they are enacting or altering. The amount of melanin in your skin is not, however, reason to discriminate. Such discrimination would be without relevant justification.

At the risk of touching controversy, there is nothing inherently anti-humanistic with setting an education or literacy prerequisite to full citizenship. However, if such is cover for discriminating by race or other irrelevant factor it violates the very core of Humanism.

Democracy must be a tenet of Humanism, or Humanism would permit tyranny by the minority; one evil dictator in a worst case. And by “tyranny” I mean that there is enforced legal discrimination among human groups with no relevant, reasonable justification.

However, tyranny by the majority is the great curse of democracy, since in a democracy the majority makes the rules.  What is to prevent such tyranny?

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Fundamental rights are the common cure to tyranny by the majority. But first, what is a “right?” A right is an action³ that your government (1) permits you to do and (2) defends your ability to keep doing. In other words the government will punish others who inhibit your rightful action. The word “right” is frequently misused to mean “stuff you wish everyone had.” We do not have the right to get a gold brick on our birthdays in the same way that we do not have a right to free post-secondary education. You are free to argue that gold brick birthday pressies for all should be a right. But it’s not yet.

Fundamental rights are the necessary compliment to democracy in legal Humanism.  Fundamental rights are special laws. These laws are not alterable by the majority, but generally require a super-majority (often 66%). In my opinion, the fundamental rights⁴ of Humanism are:

• the right of free expression, including the rights to freely believe, speak, assemble and inquire,
• the right of equal protection under the law; laws will apply equally to all, and
• the right to be left alone by the government; a.k.a. no unreasonable meddling with, searching, or seizing people or their stuff.

Note that fundamental rights may still be altered or destroyed in a fit of tyranny by the super-majority, but such is less likely. I like to remind people that we could officially sanction the enslavement of all green-eyed people if a super-majority was so bent on modifying the Constitution.

ETHICS

Ethics or morality is what most Humanists think of when they think of Humanism. Equality, freedom, and empathy are the pillars of humanist morality. Do and say as you please, but don’t harm others; allow others to do the same. The freedom to pursue your interests and non-harmful passions is the good of humanism. To establish unequal rights or to harm other persons or their property is evil.

Some have criticized my view of humanist ethics for not focusing enough on altruism, going out of your way to do good to other people. But I believe that most humans — especially with the conviction that all homo sapiens are indeed humans — are naturally passionate about helping others and serving the good of mankind. Others are passionate about helping non-human animals. Others design elegant machines. Others paint. Others entertain us. I believe that when you maximize freedom while minimizing harm in the spirit of equality, there will be plenty of natural altruism flowing around.

Nobody needs to tell you to love your neighbor when you understand that we are all neighbors. Humanism fosters that understanding.

RESPONSIBILITY

Humanism embraces our responsibility to each other and our planet. Secular Humanists do not believe that there are any supernatural forces that can swoop down like a deus ex machina to save us from ourselves. The universe will not care if we eradicate ourselves in a nuclear holocaust or get obliterated by a supernova. While there’s nothing we can do yet about the later, the former is up to us. We will be our own salvation or destruction for as long as the universe will have us. We may choose to use our talents, reason, intelligence, science, and love to make this world an actual heaven. We do not rely on magical or mythical solutions.

ELEVATOR SPEECH

Humanism is a moral philosophy⁵ centered on reason, responsibility, freedom, equality, and empathy.

• Secular Humanists believe that we’ve only got one life to live and one planet to share and want to make the best of both.
• Humans alone have the responsibility to care for each other and our environment.
• Humanists support democratic forms of government that espouse the fundamental rights of free speech and equal protection under the law for all people.
• Reason, empathy, and the scientific method can over time provide the solutions to all soluble human problems.

CONCLUSION

Humanism puts species before tribe. Espousing Humanism allows you to take the moral high ground. Do so. I repeat, Humanism espouses reason, responsibility, freedom, equality, and empathy. Accordingly, to fight Humanism is to advocate for unreason, irresponsibly, captivity, inequality, and psychopathy. You’re welcome.

-

1: For breadth purposes, “democracy” includes representative democracies such as republics.

2: As an aside, remember that democracy does not imply an economic philosophy such as capitalism or communism.  The citizens of a democracy may choose either or another philosophy altogether.

3: “action” is used pretty loosely here. For example a right to receive money under a contract would be an “action.”

4: I am not arguing that all people fully enjoy these rights in the United States or other modern democracies. Just because the text of the law says one thing, does not mean it is enforced. These are, however, the rights we must seek and protect once we have them.

5: I don’t use the word “life stance” in an elevator speech because I don’t think most people understand it immediately.

SHOW NOTES:

Pakistani 8th grader accused of blasphemy

Hilarious Modesty Survey, and a funny CFI Blog Response

Christian Youth are Getting “it” on

Atheists are (surprise) less likely to go to prison, regardless of what the AnswersInGenesis folks want you to believe.

POINT 1: Blasphemy as a Crime is STOOPID

That’s right, with capital ‘O’s. It’s that idiotic. Blasphemy is nothing but mocking or denying the existence of somebody’s imaginary friends. That’s all. Generally the goal is not even to hurt the person’s feelings; it’s to point out the vacuousness or villainy of the pretend super hero. Blaspheming Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah is like blaspheming Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or Lucky, the General Mills leprechaun.

Some people probably believe in Lucky, but guess what? He’s fake! Take that Lucky. Oh, and if I offended you Luckyists, get over yourselves.

Now, even if you argue that your special flavor of deity/deities is/are “real” (usually meaning that you can “feel” him/her/it/them in your head), remember that even you generally agree that every other magic entity is baloney. False. Non-existent. Hooey.

We do not protect imaginary critters or imaginary super heroes from criticism. Why not? Well, I’m glad you asked. First I’m going to declare that Barney the dinosaur is REAL! And I worship him.  And I love him. And he taught how we all should live, and did a helluva better job of it than any of your gods. You BETTER not criticize Barney. You dare mock his music?  You don’t believe that dinosaurs were purple with flat rows of tooth ridges? Blasphemer! You keep your Barney-hate to your dino-damned self.

We would have to protect all supernaturalists in all their beliefs. No criticizing witches. No criticizing satanists. No criticizing psychics. No criticizing Fred Phelps. No criticizing the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s pastafarians. You can’t only protect the majority religion by law, right? Otherwise you get a theocracy. Welcome to the Taliban. If you protect all supernatural beliefs from criticism by law, you crush free speech on any subject that is sufficiently holy to any one individual.

Despite this there are blasphemy laws (at least on the books) in these countries: 1 Afghanistan 2 Algeria 3 Australia 4 Austria 5 Bangladesh 6 Brazil 7 Canada 8 Denmark 9 Egypt 10 European initiatives 11 Finland 12 Germany 13 Greece 14 India 15 Indonesia 16 Iran 17 Ireland 18 Israel 19 Jordan 20 Kuwait 21 Malaysia 22 Malta 23 Netherlands 24 New Zealand 25 Nigeria 26 Norway 27 Pakistan 28 Saudi Arabia 29 Sudan 30 United Arab Emirates 31 United Kingdom 32 United States of America 33 Yemen

Yup, even here in the good ol’ US of A. But thankfully, they are obsolete here (and in many other modern countries) and are unenforced. Everybody give me a “WOOT!” for the 1st Amendment.

Sheesh people, remember the old saying, “Sticks and stones …”  Blasphemy laws are appallingly stupid and appallingly common.

POINT 2: Religion is NOT Special

Religion is just some ideas and beliefs about magic stuff. That’s it. People actually do disagree about these magic beliefs all the time. Good. Disagreements about religion should be as common and as unsurprising as disagreements about political parties, economic systems, or rock bands. Get over yourselves, people. Your ideas are not specially deserving of tenderness. They’re ideas.  Throw them out there in the public field and let them get kicked around and studied and mocked and lampooned just like all others.

I think your abrahamic-god-concept is evil and stupid. And I don’t like cherry pop tarts. Welcome to my opinions. I’ve got more. You have some too? Good. Share them. I’ll mock them or support them or ignore them as I see fit. You do the same with mine.

SHOW NOTES:

• In Alabama, get Jesus or go to jail
• Your intuition generates god belief
• Jennifer Carroll, Lt. Gov of FL is a theocratic nut
• Soldier comes out

An elevator speech is a little, informal speech that clearly and concisely explains a probably unfamiliar topic. By the end of this post, I intend to have a short, simple paragraph of which you and I can memorize the gist and blurt a blurb about scientific skepticism when the occasion arises. Said occasion may or may not occur while you’re on an elevator.

I’m going to hang this whole post on Carl Sagan’s pithy quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”¹ This quote is the modern skeptical movement in a tiny nutshell. As a skeptic you need to know: (1) what an extraordinary claim is; (2) what extraordinary evidence is; and (3) why such a claim requires such evidence.

Extraordinary Claims

But first, what is a claim? Claims follow the pattern: Person1 asserts that X is Y. For example, Bob says that his shit don’t stink. Claims can either be ordinary or extraordinary. An ordinary claim is an everyday, nobody cares claim — a claim that whether true or false is unremarkable. Example: My underwear is blue. The skeptical movement could verify my underwear claim like any other but it wont bother because nobody cares.  Even my girlfriend doesn’t care about the color, though she does appreciate the man-kini shaped sort.

Extraordinary claims are game-changers. They assert realities that are either rare or bizarre. These claims, if true, open our world paradigms to vistas of new grandeur. “Extraordinary” is NOT just another word for “false.” Asserting that the earth revolved around the sun was once an extraordinary claim that went dead against intuition. The heliocentric claim asserted that your eyes are lying to you every time you see a sunrise. Further, this claim implied that the bible is not literally true. The claim met a lot of resistance, some scientific and some theological, but over time the evidence for heliocentrism was overwhelming; thanks in part to Mr. Sagan, we now have photographs to prove it. The new view prevails. Like heliocentrism, evolution by natural selection, plate tectonics, and Einstein’s relativity are extraordinary claims that defy intuition, which nevertheless have proven true again and again by mountains of objective evidence. The extraordinary claims of astrology, special creation, psychic viewings, and bigfoot have not fared so well.

Extraordinary Evidence

What is evidence? Evidence is objectively verifiable facts that tend to prove a claim more true or more false. Most ordinary claims require rather little evidence. If I tell you that I will buy you lunch tomorrow, my word alone is probably evidence enough for you to both believe me and to act accordingly. If instead I tell you that I’ll take you up with me next week to the International Space Station, my word will probably no longer suffice. Lunch is ordinary; a trip to the International Space Station is extraordinary. What would convince you I was telling the truth? A tour of the rocket ship? A visit with the captain? A bunch of NASA paperwork? An all-expense-paid astronaut training program? A power lunch with Barack Obama and Vladamir Putin corroborating my claim?

What if I told I can read your mind? I claim that if you think of a number between 1 and 100, I can tell you what that number is 100% of the time. Again an extraordinary claim. If true, science would assume that I have some brain function that can interpret others’ brain chemistry at a distance.  My newly discovered power would make all the major headlines around the world, not just the bottom-shelf tabloids. Do you believe that I have this amazing ability? Why or why not? What if you have a good feeling “in your gut.” about me? Does that convince you? I hope not. What is better evidence than a gut feeling? Perhaps I could actually demonstrate my ability in a controlled environment? If I can, I would earn $1,000,000. To prove this ability, I would not even have to explain why I could do it, but only demonstrate that I could.

Why is Extraordinary Evidence Required?

This should be obvious. If we do not require extraordinary evidence, we’ll get duped. There is an incentive for charlatans and delusionals to gain admiration, followers, and money from the duped. Testimonials regarding feelings are never extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, any claim could be proven by a handful of dupes. That a claim is old does not make it true. That a claim is exotic does not make it true. That a claim is made by a famous person does not make it true. That a claim is common does not make it true.

A claim is true (at least more true) if it objectively works with tight controls in place. Radio waves, though invisible, objectively transmit information regardless of your religion or culture. The scientific method is the tool to use to prove any testable claim false, and over time it can support the truth of a testable claim. Science cares about getting reality right, not pretending reality is the way we hope. As the Skeptics’ Guide folks attribute to Sagan: “Science delivers the goods.”

The Elevator Speech

• Scientific skepticism uses the scientific method to test extraordinary claims.
• Skeptics learn to identify testable extraordinary claims.
• We learn to distinguish relevant evidence from fake, pseudo-evidence.
• We learn the markers of trickery and self-delusion.
• Skepticism prevents you from wasting your life and money on charlatans and delusionals.

Let’s hear your elevator speeches on skepticism. Learn more about skepticism generally by reading Carl Sagan’s Demon Haunted World or by visiting the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Forum.

¹: I know others said similarly before Sagan did, but I like Sagan’s wording (and Sagan himself) more.