Religious Institutions of all sizes should pay property tax

In my view, all religious establishments should be under the 501c3 umbrella like any other non-profit. They should be made to keep stringent accounting records and pay property tax like any other charitable organization.

The religious institutions have a privilege unlike any other because they were deemed for the public good 250 years ago. It seems that title has run out of steam and legitimacy when it comes to homophobia, anti-science, women, the poor, and especially defending the wealthiest at the expense of the poor. Those on the right with that doctrine have ventured away from charity, and toward social-Darwinism that they rabidly claim to despise. The religious right wing are using their political muscle, and their tax exemptions to gain a power that was never theirs to have alone.

The Burning of the Koran and Free Speech

He finally did it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-21-quran-burning-florida_N.htm 

Pastor Fred Jones at the Dove World Outreach Church (a tax-empt organization) certainly reached out to Muslims around the world. He presided as a (fake) judge in a mock trial that ended up with a burning of the Quran. Now I'm not against book burnings, it is an act of free-speech; Atheists could easily burn the Quran, the Bible, Bhagwad Geeta or even Dianetics if they so desired, but what is the point? All it does is stir the hornets nest of fanaticism that exists in all religions. It is only a symbolic act of ones desire to iradicate ideas that they don't like, it doesn't stop the ideas themselves. In fact it will breed resentment and then galvanize resilience for the offended party.

Several of my progressive friends were all up in arms about Jones' childish act, while at the same time they defend the 'Danish' Cartoons, which you can still find all over the internet (the greatest perveyor of free-speech known to humankind), and supporting Salmon Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses'. In what way is free speech in writing form different to a non-violent act of a book burning, or the burning of the star-spangled banner?

Because of Jones' action, people in Afghanistan have died (and been beheaded) at the hands of mobs, the Taliban and other crazies. Fundamentalist leaders of any religion always use these moments as an excuse to rile up their mindless base: You know the ones, every religion has them. They'll think anything their religious leaders tell them to think.

Though diplomatically Pastor Jones made a terrible choice to show his distaste for a competing religion, I support his right to burn the book. We cannot be held hostage by fanatics. The irony is that a religious fanatic burned the Quran, and incited other religious fanatics to respond with even worse atrocities. Reasonable people do not do this, they understand and measure the consequences of an action, and on the if on the other side of an non-violent offensive act they respond in a appropriate manner. In the USA American Muslims are disproportionately affected by religious persecutions, and this book burning is making it worse for them.

Finally, I think progressive Muslims should tolerate Jones' non-violent behaviour, especially in this country where the first amendment is considered sacrosanct (for the want of a better word). The Center for Islam Relations (CAIR) sent out a press release condeming the book burning and the fundamentalist Muslim response to it, but have not yet defended Jones' free-speech rights. That might go a some way in the repair of the tenuous relationships between members of both Abrahamic Religions.

I'll leave you with this relevent quote:

"Books won't stay banned.  They won't burn.  Ideas won't go to jail.  In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost.  The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas." ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959

The Audacity of Reality-Freethinkers Need Apply

Reality doesn't care, it is amoral. It happens; we observe and then make a decision on how to deal with it. Our decisions are quite often based on our personal world view and less often on the facts in hand. Reasonable and rational thinking are cast aside in favor of what an ideology wants. Politician's have boxed themselves into these ideologies to a point where freethinking is not allowed, or in some cases downright persecuted and the thinker ridiculed. I dislike this type of orthodoxy with a passion. It makes cowards out of politicians, and hands over the rod of fear to the demagogues. We should be free to think outside of our comfort zones, to experiment with ideas that may seem counter-intuitive or even counter to our current beliefs. Even in the atheist circles that I travel, certain dogmas prevail.

Jokingly, I used to label myself a fiscally conservative, progressive libertarian. To my eyes, this moniker is still too restricting. I am a progressive, there's no doubt about that. I am also an atheist; a liberal with a libertarian view, but I am somewhat of a socialist (as we all are to some degree). Every one of these nouns has been demonized by the far right-wing. I do not fear these labels, but many do, and will shy away from using them to describe themselves. So I think it is time to bring back the noun 'Freethinker' from it's Enlightenment roots in the mid 1600's. It hasn't been given the hot poker treatment by the Christian right-wing; well not yet. But give it time, and plenty of promotion, and it will be considered as evil as the phrase 'baby eater'. Now, more than ever, we have to own it, run with it, and run the promoters of Armageddon style fear mongering out of (Washing)town.

Although I haven't done a survey or study, I think there are many progressive Christians and perhaps even Muslims, Hindu's and other moderates out there who could consider themselves 'Freethinkers' as well. Many of them loosely associate themselves with their holy books, perhaps gleaning only the occasional golden nugget that appears between the thick, congested seams of the darker texts. Thomas Jefferson edited the four Gospels, taking out the miracles and the supernatural and calling it 'The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." He certainly got criticism for that, but he remained a Deist, which is about as close to a Humanist as one can get. Especially one who was instrumental in establishing our Secular Government.

Wikipedia has this description of what Freethought is:

Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.

The last sentence may be considered a game changer for atheist Freethinkers. How can we allow people, even with a very tenuous belief in the supernatural, into the Freethinkers club. The short answer is 'we have to'. Unbelievers are a minority group, and although we are greater in numbers than the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons of this country, we have very little political clout in the current climate. We atheists create our own wall of separation between ourselves and our progressive (spiritual) counterparts, who are a substantial percentage of the population. We need them, and we should be comfortable with sharing the word 'Freethinker' with them. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I am not comfortable in groups; The larger and more diverse the group, the more comfortable I am. Perhaps I'm just a hippy, only I shower more and am relatively clean from drugs.

Anecdotally, I have believer friends who barely give their Christian belief a first glance, let alone a second. They don't attend church, except for the high holidays (I like 'high' holidays too, but only spent on a beach with friends). They crave the community that their church gives. It's just a belief system that they were brought up with as a child. It gives them comfort. Why not? I say. Does it have to be a full conversion to atheism before we can accept them to Freethinking status. Which gets me back to the religious right wing. They are pulling their Shepherd's wool over our secular governments eyes, and gradually over its arms. Their intention is to constrict the social progress made for women, gays, and children made over the last forty years. They want to get to work and dismantle the Department of Education, which is too secular for them. I realize that many government departments and agencies are dysfunctional, but they stand between us and the extremism that we have in this country. When Obama took office, and even gave a shout out to 'non-believers', we thought we had seen the end of right-wing extremism, but they are stronger than ever before. They want to bring prayer back to school, take out the Theory of Evolution from the biology class and replace it with the seven day creation myth. We need to bring the Freethinking movement to the forefront of the debate, and we need as many people as possible to promote our agenda.

So a quick word to my atheist friends. Progressive religious people accept pretty much what we Secular Humanists believe. They want to help those who are different from themselves, and not convert them. Just plain, simple, pure, compassion. Like us, they want to share our fortunate circumstances with the world. They want freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. As Thomas Paine said, "My country is the world, my religion is to do good."

So What is Secular Humanism?

Although most people in the USA would not recognize the International Humanist and Ethical Union’s (IHEU) symbol of the Happy Human, as with any organization it is necessary to have some kind of distinguishing logo. This non-gendered human has it’s bat-shaped arms and legs thrusting in a life-affirming “Yippee!!!”. As opposed to the ubiquitous cross of Christianity which symbolizes a crucified martyr, hammered up in a T-shaped pose. Now, which one is more appealing to me?



The raised arms of the happy human could be construed as a human being under-siege from the attacks of religious fundamentalists. The humanist's logo could actually be an Evangelical preacher pointing a crucifix, like a gun, at the ‘hapless’ human with its wretched arms up in fear. You could put any religious symbol in the crucifix’s place; It could be Islam’s sickle, or even L. Ron Hubbard’s thetan testing machine attached to the nipples of the ‘zappy’ human. As we all know, fear sells when ignorance flourishes.



I have come to find that Secular Humanists are not trusted by conservative Christians because they deny the savior, the super-natural, and are guilty of self-love. Self-love has a masturbation connotation, which is something that no conservative Christian would ever admit to; unless they're caught. I'm sure they've got a camp for those offenders. The 'Idle Hands are the Devils Playthings' Camp. Lights out at bedtime must be a real drag.

Many of the scientific discoveries over the last 200 years have push the super-naturalistic brand names to the side lines of understanding our physical universe. We have found absolutely no evidence of an entity or creator in all of our endeavors, let alone that said creator is interested in meddling in human affairs. But the fundamentalists, have thought that when they didn't understand it then it's Gods will, or an act of God. As Bill o'Reilly would say 'Tide comes in, tide goes out; never a miscommunication'. The short and simple answer is ‘God did it, now don’t ask anymore questions’. The Christian right-wing leaders are not dumb when it comes to misinforming their church goers. They will use free-from-reality thinking to perpetuate ancient myths and superstitions of our world as 'fact'. The word 'truth' means nothing anymore, it's all relative these days. Stephen Colbert and his crack comedy writing team came up with the perfect word for this; 'Truthiness'. As Wikipedia states it' Truthiness is a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.' What a great new word for our Humansist lexicon. Truthiness  perfectly describes the way people obfuscate inconvenient scientific discoveries, both material and theoretical; What happens when the unstoppable force of reason and progress meet with the immovable object of religious dogma?

So, now that I have joined the AHA and Center of Inquiry, and recognize myself as a person with a Humanist philosophy, (with a helping nudge from the Christian right wing, and to Greg Epstein's wonderful book 'Good Without God'), I can no longer keep quiet. I have to be part of a group that pushes back on the religious right-wing's attempt to encroach into our public school curriculum and excessivly push their agenda in public life. I cannot be alone in my reaction to them, so I have to stand with a group that represents my philosophy and passion. That group seems to be Humanist.

Pushed into the arms of the Happy Human

Rejoice! Praise Humanity! I finally became a paying member of the American Humanist Association, and the Center for Inquiry in Los Angeles. As a non-believer/atheist/freethinker (I didn't have a simple word to describe what I believe until now), I had a problem joining any organization that would have me as a member. I am not sure we all feel like this, but is belonging to a group a freethinkers nightmare? Yes! Humanists are a group, now try and organize us. Someone is going to resist, just to show independence, and demonstrate the art of free-thought. We may have to resort to cattle prods to regain control of a meeting (but aren't we against torture?). Every question brings with it a whole plethora of other questions waiting inside of it, like an infinite Russian doll. Should we have tea? What kind? How much? Do we pass the hat and ask for a tithe? Then the meeting begins, and the questions never cease.

My “born-again” moment (please give me artistic license with that phrase) as a Secular Humanist did not come with any fanfare that one would expect at an Evangelical establishment. When a poor soul gets saved at a church, there is music, lights and a congregation of previously saved souls praying for you and with you. For a brief moment you are placed at the center of attention, the center of the Universe, and the center of God's affection. If only for a short while. Contrary to the believers conversion experience, mine was a lonely affair. There was no charismatic preacher pushing me down, driving Satan from my sinful soul; but I did rollover and click a shopping cart link on the AHA website. I did not submit to Jesus, but I gave over my credit card details (at least the level of protection assured by the security of the website was more tangible than what the good lord can offer me). I didn't receive divine revelation, but I was sent a confirmation email offering a dry congratulations and a 'thank you' for contributing.

I feel no different than I had before the transaction took place. So what now? Am I supposed to spread the 'good news' of my Humanism? Is it a freethinkers heresy to get others to join my group? Do I proselytize to my friends by saying “Hey, I'm going to see a re-enactment of Robert Ingersoll's 'Why I am an Agnostic', at the Center for Inquiry. Do you want to come with me?” Or, “Why don't you come to my Darwin study group this evening.” What I can do is support the advance of secular organizations such as People for the American Way & Citizen's United for the Separation of Church and State. I have to keep a vigilant eye on my school board, local Congressman, and Senators. If I want to help others in need, I should join secular volunteer groups and give back that way.

Now with my confession out of the way, I will tell you how I came to this point. Since emigrating from England in 1992, I have been an avid observer of the religious right-wing; from the 'frock' jocks of the Evangelical radio shows to the tele-evangelists on TBN. We do have these kind of people in my old country, but they are considered on the lunatic fringe and they are flat broke. I am shocked, that in this country, they are a powerful, and monied political group who would be more comfortable at the Salem Witch Trials, than at a convention for atheists, freethinkers and non-believers. I am shocked by their pseudo science to explain biblical miracles and creation myths. I am even fascinated about how they happily argue with each other in eschatological debates about the 'end times' discussing whether their genitals will survive once they are raptured. Obviously they will not need that sinful area when they get to heaven, but then none of us will be needing our wedding tackle after death. Shockingly, in the twenty first century, they have a fear and obsessional belief in modern day witches, and not just the supernatural ones. Many of them put their god, with no shred of proof of its existence, before the safety of their family. Faith healing is good medical practice for some sects, prayer is their health-care insurance policy, and scientific ignorance is their teacher. They believe that God gave us the internet, and laugh when Al Gore claims to have had a hand in its promotion and development. Isn't it a grand coincidence that the two industries that are of the quickest to embrace new media technologies are porn and religion. To be honest, I don't know what that last sentence means.

I admit a begrudging respect for their drive to change school text books, curriculums, history, and science to fit into the bronze-age literature of their narrow theology. That takes organization, and a lot of non-questioning foot soldiers for Jesus (we mustn't forget Muhammad, and the late grate L. Ron Hubbard). I have been standing idly by, as they used the White House for taxpayers funding of their proselytizing under the guise of faith-based initiatives. Despondent and jaded, I made a decision to have my voice heard, and shove back on this intrusion into common sense. I don't normally join groups, but the Christian right-wing pushed me into the arms of Secular Humanism.

Ezra

Next week-What is Secular Humanism