Secular Morality is Superior to Faith-Based Anything

What does atheism have to do with LGBTQ issues, abortion, voting rights and other issues? Freedom and better outcomes is what.

As President of the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers, from time to time I’ll get asked “what does atheism have to do with X issue?” to perhaps justify IAF or our members dropping out or away from any given cause or signing on to one. Most often this is brought up in regard to support of LGBTQ rights, but also on issues like abortion, voting rights, education issues, and even American foreign policy. The question is usually, but not always, asked by someone who has a position that is counter to a position that IAF may hold or different from a statement they may have seen secular leadership at both the state or national level have made.  I understand why folks want to speak up on many of these issues, but I also want to make it clear as to why groups like IAF and myself consider our position a direct result of our atheism and value of secular reasoning.

Unlike opposition to groups like IAF, particularly the religious and faith based groups, atheists are free to think for ourselves.  Most of the assaults on our liberties and our ability to use evidence and science to come to better conclusions are based in faith traditions that consider new information harmful to their core belief structures. This means we are not constrained by faith based thinking or folksy wisdom as stand-ins for critical thinking or uncomfortable truths about the actions of our government and other actors. It is a special type of freedom to look at the world as it is, using science and reason and coming to conclusions without the monkey of spectral authority on our backs. 

It also gives us the freedom to be wrong on things and to change our minds. This is not a method that is available to those that think all morality and wisdom were figured out thousands of years ago. Instead, those who believe in ancient scriptures risk finding themselves outside of the orthodoxy with reinterpretation or reimagining of texts, often twisting themselves into pretzels to do so.  This leads to the very kinds of schisms that we are all too familiar with: accusations of heresy, rifts between families and communities, churches and institutions splitting up and spinning off, and yes, ultimately in holy wars.

Rejecting the entire premise that a timeless and spaceless god has demands upon us immediately defuses these kinds of conflicts. It is a tough discussion for a theist to have when the very people they oppose on moral grounds are using the exact same basis for their position: a holy book.  This is why you find religious people on both sides of these issues: not because of an inherent goodness or badness of their scripts – remember they are often literally the same scripts - but because of their ability to use empathy and reason against those that rely on faith beliefs that drain them of that very empathy.

Rejecting faith-based reasoning frees you from this dissonance and more.

This also means that we find less reasons to distrust and dehumanize people that may be different from us.  It allows us to embrace our empathy and look for the consequences of our actions rather than how we feel about doing certain actions or other people’s actions make us feel if they don’t impact us. It isn’t our business what other human beings do with their bodies, just as we wouldn’t want anyone to impose their beliefs on our bodies. Thus, we find no motivation to invent reasons to control others via some kind of group enforced invisible morality. When it comes to actions of our governments be it foreign or domestic, atheists must find a secular reason for doing things, and the consistent person rejects those that have no evidence. This means taking into account historical data or setting aside this or that groups moral claim or tradition.  This means considering the consequences, unshackled from decisions or moral teachings from people who are wholly separate from the issues of today.

While we do stand on the shoulders of giants, we also find wisdom in not consulting those same giants on the issues of today.  This would be as if we were to consult Henry Ford on how best to maintain the latest electric vehicle.  He would be of no help and likely even detrimental to the maintenance and operation of such a vehicle, so too is this true of our moral and civic responsibilities. If we leave behind our faith-based morality, we find ourselves free to make better decisions and seek out better outcomes and make our lives objectively better. From these ancient scripts and teachers, it allows to take what is good and leads to better outcomes, better societies, and leave in the dustbin of history the detrimental, the unscientific, the bigoted, the misogynist, the harmful.

But you can only do that if you don’t believe they have any kind of divine authority because such an authority clearly does not exist.

This is why the issues that are brought up are so important to secular folks and free thinkers. There are no secular reasons to invade the uterus of a person or diminish their right to their own body carte blanche. There are no secular reasons to say this group of people has equal rights, but this other group doesn’t because of who they love or how they look like.  There are no secular reasons to turn away from teaching the cornerstone of biology, evolution. There are no secular reasons to support foreign wars unconditionally nor to cause mass starvation or subjugation.   These are in the realm of faith and fear and a foreclosure on a better world.

Taking a stand against the demon haunted world is what has made us a better species and what has made our societies better. Being an atheist is standing up and saying, “I don’t need divine intervention or instruction to care about my fellow human beings”.  It cuts away the baggage and makes our moral and civic choices stand entirely on our own shoulders.  We reach conclusions that we come to through collaboration and looking at results, not by glancing backward to ensure we’re “doing it right” for fear of being out of step of ancient words. It places the humanity of our fellow human beings front and center, not to the side or behind any holy edict.

This is why atheists and secular humanists and freethinkers must take a stand on these issues. This is why it is important for atheists to speak up and speak out about things like equality, like civil rights, like education, like healthcare, like government programs, like democracy. Otherwise, we cede all morality to those that think they had it al figured out 2000 years ago and are still struggling to make it make sense. We know how that turns out for human progress, how that turns out for the LGBTQ community, how that turns out for women, how that turns out for science.

Lets not go back into that darkness.

Guest Post - Mike Messina - A God By Any Other Name

Far be it from me to bitch and complain.  HOWEVER, I can’t get it out of my head that Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers are having a “Winter Solstice” celebration.  Winter Solstice? Really?

Why is it that IAF wants to celebrate a holiday that has roots in ancient observance of the darkening and rebirth of the sun.  Its no accident that the Roman church celebrates the birth of sweet baby Jesus on the same day as the Roman celebration of Saturnalia, a week-long festival, honoring Saturn, the god of agriculture, included feasting, gift-giving, and social role reversals.  I could go down a long list of ancient celebrations of the darkening of the sun and anticipation of spring.  Christians, Celtic, Norse, whatever.  A god by any other name…

In an article published in Free Inquiry (vol. 42, no. 1), Tom Flynn wrote of solstice celebrations:  “What do we gain by ousting one outmoded superstitious observance from our lives if we replace it with an even older superstition?”  A god by any other name…

Are we some kind of new age — spiritual but not religious — one with Mother Earth — religion?  If that’s what people want, fine but be aware of the slippery slope.  The winter solstice is so tied to humanity’s childhood when there was a god behind every tree and under every rock that a solstice celebration is just a way to have a Christmas party without a Christmas party — a loophole if ever there was.  We don’t need a god by any other name…

In my essay, The Baby and the Bathwater, I quoted Tom Flynn ‘s argument that holidays, in general no longer make much sense.  An additional reason why holidays were so important to ancient people has to do with the perception of the passage of time.  Think how your own perception has changed from when you were a child when a day seemed like a week and a year was a life time.  Today, as an adult, a week seems like a day and years spin by before we know it.  Most of us have our feet in multiple centuries.  My grandparents were born in the 19th century.  My parents were born in the early 20th century and lived into the 21st.  Children born now will very likely see the 22nd century. In a time when most people lived for 25 or 30 years, life was short but working days were 16 hours long, work injuries debilitating if not fatal, disease not understood, child birth frequently fatal, &c.  It was no wonder that people yearned for pie in the sky.  Such superstition no longer makes sense.  We no longer need to pay homage to the gods of our ancestors.  A god by any other name…

Okay, I get it, it’s cold outside; everyone else is decking the halls, singing schmaltzy Christmas carols, drinking eggnog, exchanging useless gifts, &c; why can’t we have some fun once in a while.  We have tossed the bathwater as well as the baby — scroll down, past “older posts” to December 14, 2023 to see my essay on this very topic — but we still feel the need to fight for our right to party, as it were.  But a pre-Christian, Christianized religious holiday?  Come on, can’t we do better than that?  A god by any other name…

Why not, then, celebrate the amazing things humans have achieved, all without the aid of any of the gods — we simply have no need of that hypothesis.  Right out of the gate I can think of three examples of events, all of which occurred around this time of year, all of which are worthy of commemoration, and all three devoid of the stench of superstition, ancient or modern. We don’t need a god by any name…

On January 1, 1925, in Washington, D.C., Edwin Hubble announced his groundbreaking discovery that the universe is expanding.  What a great theme for next year’s winter celebration.  I would not think it too hard to find someone to appear and discuss this exciting moment from a hundred years ago.  Solstice, Schmolstice, give me a lecture on the day we found the universe.  

Next, Sir Isaac Newton was born December 25, 1642. I could envision a pot luck with speakers who can explain the laws of thermodynamics.  They are some of the most elegant expressions of reality ever propounded.  I think a professor of physics could give a talk which would leave the listeners intellectually intoxicated.  Who could ask for more.

A third idea,  the James Webb Space Telescope was launched December 25, 2021.  We put a telescope a million miles from earth powerful enough to “see” all the way from here to the big bang.  If that doesn’t make your spine tingle, I don’t know what will.  

These are three ideas for winter celebrations commemorating events based solely in reason and science.  We’ve thrown out both the baby and the bathwater, if we want to fill the tub again, lets fill it with water of knowledge, not from the shadows of the past.  A god by any other name smells just as odious. Let’s throw open the windows, throw out the bathwater of gods, by whatever name, and let in the fresh air of reason and science.  It’s so much more elegant and poetic.

Did I mention that atheists celebrating the winter solstice is just a feeble attempt to celebrate Christmas by substituting Sol for baby Jesus, or frosty the snowman.  Give me a break, A god by any other name…

Mike Messina

Most Religious Exemptions Exist Only to Protect Bigotry

Christian Nationalism has seen so many victories with the makeup of the highest courts at both the state and federal levels. Time and again right-wing courts seem poised to enact theocracy by privileging religious belief over equality under the law and even basic human and civil rights.

These rulings and opinions are never based on reason or evidence but rather are special pleading for some vague “sincerely held belief” that seems to act as a get-out-of-jail-free card for religious individuals and organizations that circumvent civil rights laws. There are many examples in the not-so-distant history that point to this creeping assault on equal treatment under the law, but also rulings just this year that many people would likely be surprised to hear about.

Recently, a Virginia school board agreed to pay a high school teacher $575,000 to settle a wrongful termination lawsuit and purported free speech violations. In this case, said high school teacher refused to use the pronouns and name of a student because they were different than what was printed on their birth certificate.

The teacher, Peter Vlaming, cited his religious and moral objections to using the desired pronouns as that would be a “lie,” despite the school policy of using preferred pronouns to ensure all students felt safe and respected. Because of his repeated refusal to follow this policy and refer to a student by their desired name and pronouns, the district terminated Vlaming in 2018. He took the school board to court and his case was dismissed, as this was a clear-cut case of failure to follow school policy and to show respect to all students.

However, after some publicity and a renewed effort by the Alliance Defending Freedom (a theocratic legal organization), the Virginia Supreme Court reinstated the lawsuit. The school district then settled with Vlaming to avoid codifying this kind of religious supremacy into law, since they were now operating in a more hostile legislative environment under a rightward shift in the state legislature.

In this case, there was no threat against any religious creed, nor was the teacher singled out for his faith. The school had a reasonable policy—one the teacher had followed prior to this incident—that everyone should be called the name they wish to be called by and not have to attend a public school in a hostile environment.

The interesting thing is that the teacher, citing his faith and placing it above the respect of his students, ensured that he was in violation of the policy. He would rather cause distress and harm to children than exercise empathy and adhere to the school policy of equal treatment to all students. These facts were not in dispute in the case on either side. Yet right-wing judges felt compelled to protect this kind of behavior, not because it results in better schools or better outcomes, but because there was insufficient deference for Christians to ignore laws they may not like.

The judges saw fit to rule that Christian faith ought to be protected over secular policy because they inherently believe that it should be. This is how Christian Nationalism operates and how the wall between church and state is eroded: by using sectarian faith-based grievances to carve out equal or greater protection of theocratic and faith-based doctrine over the success, access, and well-being of our public institutions.

I am not the only one raising alarm bells regarding this kind of theocracy. To cite the dissenting Virginia justices in the case, this ruling “establishes a sweeping super scrutiny standard with the potential to shield any person’s objection to practically any policy or law by claiming a religious justification for their failure to follow either.” Essentially, once we open the door to a religious excuse from observing the law, we will not be able to close it. If religious belief is equal to or greater than any secular law passed, then there is no law that can’t be ignored in favor of religious belief.

Historically, the main avenue to avoid civil rights laws has been citing religious exemptions or “sincerely held beliefs.” We more recently saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic as churches used religious exemptions to continue holding Sunday meetups, refusing to take precautions against the spread of the deadly virus. How many more people fell ill or even died because religious groups were exempt from some pandemic orders?

In states like Arizona and Iowa, we see religious exemptions for public school attendance, that provide public dollars for sectarian private schools. If students see their public school closed and are required to attend a private institution specifically founded to avoid observing civil rights laws, what happens to those protected by those laws? Does it not raise an alarm that organizations and politicians are perfectly fine with revoking the rights of the public in the name of protecting and privileging religious belief? Remember, an entire denomination (Southern Baptists) exists largely because of a desire to avoid observing integration laws.

Where do these carve-outs end when we have a judiciary that privileges faith over facts? Every time we see an expansion of the rights of faith, why does it seem to always come at the expense of other groups, public institutions, or the public at large? Why do activist religious legal groups seek out these rulings? Why is this all coming to a head now?

The answers seem to lie in the judiciary and with stories like that of the Virginia school teacher. Religious groups know they will not be able to persuade the majority to support their right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ groups or defund public schools. But they can get their arguments in front of sympathetic judges who do not have to justify their decisions. Their goal isn’t to win every case. The goal is to stymie a small school district here, a state-funded program there. The goal is to throw out the use of reason and instead enshrine faith as a last resort of discrimination by attempting to codify it beyond reproach.

This is how Christian Nationalism takes root and why it is extremely important to call it out, stand against it, and vote against it. We must take notice when faith is being used as both a weapon and a shield in undermining the rights of our society and our ideals such as freedom of and freedom from religion. We must take notice when our courts seem more and more willing to give in to empty arguments from religious groups that if they can retreat to faith then they can retreat from observing the law.

Secular governance is the cornerstone of our democracy, and we must keep our government secular if we want to keep it a democracy.

Guest Essay - Mike Messina

In the newsletter e-mail dated September 4, 2024, there are at least two references to “Satanists.” One an opportunity to view a movie, the other a news story about the efforts of the Satanic Temple to read John Milton’s Paradise Lost in the Iowa State Capitol.  I cannot miss this opportunity to discuss what atheists are and are not.  

We did not “become atheists” in order to reject god, or because we became mad at, or disappointed in, god. We are not atheists because we prefer one god over another. 

Simply put, atheists are people who do not accept that there is anything other than the natural world.  Everything in the universe is the result of natural processes and events, all of which can be understood.  While there are mysteries yet to be solved, we know that there is a natural, scientific, explanation for everything — for that which we know, for that which we know we don’t know, and even for that which we have yet to discover we don’t know.  This has been phrased, knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.     

Religion, on the other hand, holds that the universe was created by a supernatural being — there are disagreements about its exact nature —through an act of will. Religion holds that this supernatural being has it in it’s power to suspend the laws of science and perform miracles. It is thought that the being demands worship and obedience.  Rewards are bestowed upon the faithful, and punishments are imposed for infractions, or to test the strength of faith. In addition to THE supreme being, there are other supernatural beings including, but not limited to angels, devils, ghosts &c. Many, inhabit a realm known by several names, one of which is heaven.  Devils, led by satan, inhabit a netherworld known as by various names such as hell.  Strange as it may seem, there are still people who believe such things.  

There was a time in the history of the human race, particularly in the deserts of the Middle East, when the theistic view was the only imaginable explanation for the “creation” of the world and the condition of people.

Little by little, however, that which was unexplainable was explained.  In 1543, Copernicus demonstrated with objective evidence that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the cosmos.  About a hundred years later, Kepler worked out how the planets are kept in motion around the sun.  Galileo looked through a telescope and saw mountains on the moon and wonder of wonders, moons going around the planet Jupiter.  From then on it was “Katie bar the door” discovery after discovery explained how the universe functions.  Charles Darwin explained how species develop through a process known as evolution by natural selection.  Just about a hundred years ago, Edwin Hubble discovered that the cosmos is composed of numerous galaxies and George Lemaître solved Einstein’s equations in a way that demonstrated that the universe in which we live came into existence about 14 billion years ago.  

All these discoveries demonstrated that the universe can be understood without any need for divine intervention —as Pierre-Simon Laplace told Napoleon: we no longer have need of the magical hypothesis relied on by iron age people.  Today, just as we would find it odd for a teenager who believes in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, so too it’s odd, is it not, to know that there are adults who believe in gods or demons. 

I suspect that the aim of the Satanic Temple is to demonstrate, in a tongue-in-cheek way, why the practice of religion has no place during civil functions such as meetings of the legislature or public schools. Whether or not those efforts are effective is not something I will argue about here.  I think, however, there are better ways to address the issue than by giving the impression that the alternative to deity worship is demon worship.    

As Christer Sturmark Wrote in To Light the Flame of Reason, Clear Thinking for the 21st Century:  

“In a naturalistic world, not only divine beings are implausible, but so are supernatural forces, occult phenomena, and New Age claims. In compensation, though, in place of such imaginary “magical” stuff, when one ponders the natural world’s enormous subtlety and beauty, one feels a powerful sense of awe and fascination, without any need to resort to supernatural interpretations or explanations.”

Guest Blog from Mike Messina - Thoughts on the Iowa Secular Summit

I had the privilege to attend the Iowa Secular Summit on June 22, 2024.  Three of the four speakers were excellent.  

Dr. Emily Boven presented information about the challenges being faced by reproductive health providers and patients.  We live in the 21st centruy but roadblocks to health care are being thrown up by those who want to live in a delusional fantasy land called religion.

Ryan Dudley, from Freedom From Religion Foundation, presented us with information about the dangerous ideas being put forward by the Republican Party if they win the election in November.  Their plan is called Project 2025 and is a blueprint for dismantling the government of the United States.  They want to fire all, or most, civil servant and replace them with party loyalists who have no understanding of the agencies of which they will be in charge.  All one needs to do is recall the chaos caused by a government shut down to know how dangerous the implementation of Project 2025 would be.

Brooklyn Evan Walker presented an interesting talk about Christian Nationlism based on political science data.  

An hour, or the better part of it was consumed by David Goin from an organization called Ranked Choice Voting for Iowa.  The idea being proposed by Goin’s organization is that primary elections should be open to all candidates.  The voter, who would not need to declare a party affiliation,  would rank each candidate in order of choice.  The top two candidates for each office, regardless of party, would stand for election in the general election.  

In my opinion this is a terrible idea.  

Frankly, I’m not even comfortable with primary elections.  If I had my druthers, all candidates, and platform planks, would be chosen at party conventions.  Neighbors would gather for precinct meetings and elected delegates to a county convention, &c, &c.  At each conventions candidates would either be nominated or delegates elected to the next level.  Who better to decide which candidate best represents the positions of the party than the leaders of that party.  Why should the general public, even those who have registered as members, have a say in the internal workings of the party?  After the party decides what they want to accomplish, and who will best accomplish it, then the general public can cast a ballot on Election Day for the candidate of the party that reflects each voters interest.  Although more than one party may be in the race (in 1948 there were four viable parties) either the Democrat or the Republican will win (the Democrat won in 1948).

My druthers notwithstanding, the parties have elected to choose the candidates in primary elections.  Candidates of the same party campaign among their members and in the primary election the party members choose the candidate who they feel is best able to represent what the party stand for.  To vote in a primary election, therefore, the voter should demonstrate affiliation with the party.  It’s not difficult to— simply indicate on the voter registration you are a member of a particular party.  Why would people who are not party members choose the candidate?  If people are not satisfied with the candidates who run in the general election, they should ask themselves what they did to choose the candidate whose name is on the ballot.  It’s time people in the greatest democracy in history grow up and accept some responsibility for the government of, by and for the people of the United States.  The cliché that “I’m not interested in politics is obsolete.  Politics is the full time job of every citizen.  People are lined up at our borders to be citizens (they should be welcomed in, just as our governor did after the Vietnam war).  People have given their lives for our country.  

Just as in 1863 when it was four score and seven years since the beginning of the American Revolution, that Revolution continues today.  We still have a democracy — will we keep it?  As we get ready to celebrate this Independence Day, let’s resolve, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, to “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”