A lot of us are on vacation this week, so blog entries will be rare until we get back.  In the mean time, the board may elect a new president in the next few weeks, so please take this as a suggestion box.  What would you like to say to the next president of American Atheists?

American Atheists: Utah Crosses Case, Kentucky Homeland Security, Muslims v. Christians, and Other 2010 Issues
Frequently Asked Questions

August 2010 CE

—by Ed Buckner (reviewed by other American Atheists leaders)

We have lately received many, many e-mails, telephone calls, and comments from inquirers all over the US (and beyond) about several events in the news over the last week or two, especially regarding two of our lawsuits, one in Utah and one in Kentucky. We’ve also had inquiries regarding the “Ground Zero” mosque, burning of Qur’ans by Christians, and other, related matters. And we have gotten, as we always get, questions that may or may not be related to current events, such as why we don’t believe in God, since there’s nothing to lose and everything to gain thereby (variants on Pascal’s Wager). Many of these inquiries have been rude or insulting, vulgar both in language and in sentiment, and short on logic. Some of the messages, including some of the rude ones, seem to have genuine misunderstanding of our position as at least a partial basis for questions. Many questioners, whether in calling in to right-wing radio shows or in sending e-mails from phony e-mail addresses, cannot be answered directly. Some have been too crude to deserve any answer at all. Some, including some of the garbled or somewhat illogical messages, have been grateful, supportive messages, including at least a few from religious people who believe in prayer or religion but (wisely) fear government support or endorsement of their views. We are quite grateful for the support we have received, from members and from some others. We are glad of the opportunity to learn and to educate others—that is and always has been our core educational purpose.

We could not reasonably get around to providing a personal reply to every question even to those who gave us an actual e-mail address, so we’re posting (and in some cases sending) this to attempt to answer questions more generally.

We appreciate the chance, using these Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) with our answers (below) to respond to most of the questions. Some questions would take books (we can recommend many—and have published many ourselves), not mere sentences, to answer. More detailed answers to some of these questions can be found at www.atheists.org . If anyone sends us a relevant question that is not addressed below or on our website and that can be answered quickly, we will attempt to reply and perhaps add it to a future FAQ list.

Thanks for your interest.

—Ed Buckner, President (retiring soon), American Atheists
ebuckner@atheists.org

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. “Why does American Atheists oppose people’s right, including the legislators in Kentucky and the families of fallen troopers in Utah, to express their religion as they choose? What makes your beliefs more important than the majority? Stop forcing YOUR beliefs on others.”

We don’t oppose anyone expressing their religious beliefs—we do oppose, vigorously, anyone’s attempts to further their religious beliefs using government resources. Religious liberty, certainly including the right to pray, put up crosses on private land, call on “Almighty God” for protection, etc., is important and worth protecting. Such liberty is also a fundamental American principle, protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by the Constitutions of most states as well—including Kentucky’s and Utah’s. Most if not all members of American Atheists think that prayer does little good beyond occasionally helping the person offering the prayer to think more carefully about something, and few if any of us agree with or think worthy other religious expression or symbols. But we value religious liberty for all, including for those who disagree with us. What we have sued over and vigorously disapprove of is having elected officials, secular governmental leaders, engaged in religious promotion or having explicitly religious symbols—like 12-foot-high white Roman crosses—placed in a manner that suggest that they represent government-backed religion. No such official, including executive or legislative officials in Kentucky or Utah, in this nation has the right to make any religious decisions on behalf of American citizens.

Any citizen, including any such official, has the unquestionable right to pray and to engage in similar religious practices—but they must do this as individuals, not as representatives of all citizens. Try a simple thought experiment: imagine in the future a Governor is elected who is an Atheist (or perhaps a Muslim or some other non-Christian). Would he have the right to post a sign at the state capitol or beside state highways and proclaim that “CHRISTIANITY IS A MYTH” and “NOTHING FAILS LIKE PRAYER”? After all, just because the Governor is a representative doesn’t mean his freedom to ridicule religion should be taken away, right? We assert that the hypothetical Governor has no right to do that, for exactly the same reason officials in Utah and Kentucky have no right to erect large religious crosses or to declare that there is no security without “Almighty God.”

2. “Why is American Atheists determined to keep the Highway Patrol of Utah from honoring the troopers who gave their lives as they protected Utah citizens? Don’t you realize you’ve accomplished nothing but hurting the families of heroes who deserve to be able to grieve in peace? It’s a shame that your REAL obsession with hating God has caused you to REALLY do a disservice to the Peace Officers in Utah. These people should be honored, and I think that Shurtleff said it best when he said that you don’t drive down the freeway and see that cross and think to yourself, Gee Wiz, Jesus Christ must have died right here. Everybody knows what it means, it’s a symbol to recognize someone that has served their community. Do you also not believe in principles? It is NOT your job to take peoples beliefs away from them, if you don’t like the crosses don’t stop and look at them.”

As irrational as some of the questions (like this) get, in some ways it really isn’t far from the arguments heard in Utah. The legislature there actually tried to pass a resolution declaring the cross is a secular symbol, not a religious one. We find it somewhere between amusing and astonishing that we’re the ones joining Christians who claim that the central symbol of their religion has the power to affect people. It must be abundantly clear to anyone who reflects on this even briefly that we’re not objecting to religious crosses being erected “in public places”: all over America it would be hard to travel far without seeing crosses at public intersections or alongside roads on private property. Some Atheists may indeed be offended at seeing a cross anywhere, but no reasonable Atheist argues that government should protect him from being so offended. It is the presentation of a cross in such a way that a reasonable, neutral observer could conclude that it represents government endorsement of a religion that is offensive and unconstitutional. Despite weird claims by some to the contrary, the crosses in Utah were quite readily distinguishable from telephone poles.

And it is malicious nonsense to suggest that we sued to interfere with honoring state troopers who gave their very lives for citizens. We applaud erecting appropriate secular monuments in honor of these public servants. We understand that families of the troopers may in some cases want to erect religious symbols in honor of their fallen loved ones—and we would never consider taking steps to interfere with appropriate memorials.

3. “Since you sued to keep the Highway Patrol of Utah from putting up crosses, what’s next—suing to remove crosses in Arlington and other cemeteries?”

Cemeteries like Arlington National consist of thousands of individual plots honoring individual people. The symbols used there—not all religious and certainly not all Christian—do not convey to any reasonable observer government endorsement of religion. An instructive example is the grave marker of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, though he is not buried at Arlington. His grave is marked not with a religious symbol but with the five stars that signify his rank. See http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=2153 . Amazingly, there is something close to mass self-deception going on related to this. Military cemeteries in the US, with very few historical exceptions, do not display “rows and rows of crosses,” though such displays can be found in Europe. (And US media have used footage of crosses from Flanders field in Belgium, apparently intentionally and deceptively, to portray US cemeteries.) At Arlington, as in most military cemeteries in this country, tombstones—not crosses—are used to mark graves. These tombstones have inscribed on them a wide variety of symbols, including crosses but also including symbols of many other religions and, we’re proud to say, the symbol of Atheism designed by Madalyn Murray O’Hair as well. And see at the very bottom of this FAQ document a more detailed declaration regarding our case in Utah.

4. “Don’t you realize that you’re just playing in to the hands of activist judges who want to take away our religious freedom? This is a Christ-Centered Country founded on the Word of God. Learn the facts before you speak. You are clearly ignorant.”

It is our experience that judges are generally called “activist” when they rule contrary to whatever an observer wants them to rule. We certainly don’t always agree with judicial rulings, but we know of no judge out to undercut religious liberty. And it is a bit startling to be called “ignorant” by someone who obviously does not know that the U.S. Constitution invokes democratic authority as its ultimate source (“We the People…”) and not any supernatural authority at all. If ours is really a “Christ-Centered Country founded on the Word of God,” why is there nothing in the constitution that is prescribed in the Bible? The original Constitution did, admittedly, protect biblical principles like slavery and oppressing women—but we have since amended it to eliminate slavery and have at least extended the vote to women.

5. “Why is American Atheists so arrogant as to oppose Kentuckians being able to declare that their security depends on Almighty God more than on mere governments?”

We don’t oppose any such thing. Religious liberty, certainly including the right to pray for everyone who believes in prayer, is a fundamental American principle, protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Our entire objection in the Kentucky case is that the legislature passed a law (and the executive is enforcing it) that requires all Kentuckians, through their state government, to declare that the security of Kentuckians depends on “Almighty God.” Many Atheists in Kentucky and probably some other Kentuckians as well believe no such thing and are directly harmed by having the legislature declare such a thing in their name. If the government of Kentucky has the right to do this—it does not—it would by the same principle have the power to declare that Kentuckians deny the truth of Christianity or of Islam, etc. The government of Kentucky lacks such power.

For more on the Kentucky case, please e-mail ebuckner@atheists.org or edwinkagin@fuse.net and ask for a copy of our brief submitted recently in the case.

6. “Why does American Atheists only attack Christian symbols and Christianity but lack the courage to attack Islam? ”

We oppose all theisms—Judaism, Christianity (Catholic or Protestant [all varieties]), Islam, etc.—with equal disagreement and equal commitment to displaying the irrationality and dangers of religious thinking. We certainly find some theists more pernicious, more of a danger to our rights and reputations than others. In the U.S. it is far more likely to find Christians trying to violate the First Amendment and enlist government as their religious agents than other sects, so it is far more likely that we’ll be suing—as we did in both Utah and Kentucky—over Christians violating the Constitution. But we never back down from a good argument with any theists. We have published books critical of all religions—like David Eller’s Atheism Advanced—and of specific theisms other than Christianity.

As president of American Atheists, I have been in six formal debates this year—one versus a Catholic attorney in Georgia, one against a Protestant preacher in Ohio, and four—in four days—against Islamic representatives in the United Kingdom. VP Dave Silverman has vigorously criticized Islam, Judaism, and Christianity on our blog and on our TV show (The Atheist Viewpoint). Dave led our efforts to participate in Draw Muhammed Day; Edwin Kagin, our National Legal Director, has led our extensive efforts to oppose blasphemy laws and attack any who want special government protection for their beliefs. Kagin is also the author of Baubles of Blasphemy, a best-selling book published first by a local group and now by American Atheist Press. We don’t hesitate to debate, orally or in print, all defenders of religion. If there arises a clear violation of separation of church and state by a religion other than Christianity, we will fight that in court as we have violations like those in Kentucky and Utah. We are strongly committed to debate, writing, protests, and legal actions—and we vigorously oppose violence, book-burning, or unconstitutional efforts.

7. “Why can’t you scumbags understand that a loving God just wants you to obey and to worship Him?”

Do please understand that angry, illogical declarations similar to this do not make us more likely to believe that your religion makes any sense or is worth adopting.

8. “Why don’t Atheists understand that the price for not believing if we’re right is to burn in a lake of fire forever, while you lose nothing at all if you believe and Christians are wrong?”

The short-hand description for the claim behind this question is “Pascal’s Wager.” Blaise Pascal, French philosopher and mathematician of the 1600s, gets credit for this one, though it probably was asked in various forms long before him. The essential claim is that we should all believe in God, since not believing can cause us to go to Hell if we’re wrong, while believing is harmless if we happen to be wrong in doing so.

There are many problems with this claim so there are many answers to the question:

• It’s not really a fifty/fifty choice at all. There are thousands of religions/gods, and presumably you’d have to pick the right one if there is a right one. So your odds are thousands to one against you, no matter what the truth is.

• Belief is not really something you can simply choose to have or not have. Any omniscient god worth his salt would know if you were just pretending to believe, and surely that would void your contract, as it were. Sincere belief can only be held by someone who has been convinced (by evidence, emotion, or just by not questioning what one was taught as a child).

• There is in fact a great deal to lose by believing in a non-existent god: aside from time and money wasted in religious activities, self-delusion can be quite destructive, potentially leading to many mistakes, lack of self-reliance, and considerable unhappiness in one’s life. If we only have one life, we can make the best of it only by recognizing that.

• And my favorite answer, initially implausible but in fact no more illogical than Pascal’s Wager: What if “God” in her almighty wisdom only wants to have in her heaven (to keep her company and entertain her) curious, skeptical, intelligent beings? People who are wise enough to not accept her existence without good reasons or evidence? Then, of course, all of us Atheists and secular humanists and freethinkers will be “in” while D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson will only make it if they are in fact charlatans who don’t really believe any of the baloney they peddle.

For more on the subject, see Section II, pp. 55-104, in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein and published by Prometheus Books, 1980.

9. “If you are so opposed to religious displays in public, why don’t you sue Muslims who wear headscarves and the like to work in a public agency?”

Religious displays in public include church signs on church property at street intersections all over America and some version or another of “The Ten Commandments” stuck on a stake in someone’s front yard. The First Amendment protects such expression, as it does a Muslim wearing a head scarf, and we have no intention of attempting to interfere with individual free expression. If an employee in a government agency wears a cross or a religious symbol in such a way that a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the government endorses that religion or that non-adherents would be treated as second-class citizens there, lawsuits or complaints would be appropriate. If anyone wears religious clothing or symbols that interfere with the person being able to perform the job, complaints would be appropriate, though not primarily on religious liberty grounds.

10. “Why aren’t you suing to stop the Muslims from building a mosque at Ground Zero?”

We think freedom of religion, as described in the First Amendment, is of prime importance and we understand that freedom means nothing unless it includes freedom for those who do not accept the majority’s beliefs or opinions. We have vigorously opposed book burnings, violence, and persecution of anyone based on beliefs, even as we demand the right to openly argue against those same beliefs. If a lawsuit were brought to stop the building of a religious center based on the religion, that lawsuit would fail. And it should fail. We strongly oppose government support for religions, including tax dollars being spent to relocate for religious reasons a religious center—an Islamic one or a Greek Orthodox church. We are foursquare against the adoption of Sharia in any society for exactly the same reasons we oppose the establishment of Christian Dominionism or any other theocratic, anti-secular, anti-democratic rule. We are determined to oppose by legal and intellectual means any such establishment, by any religion. Where anyone anywhere wants to resort to war to further their religious hegemony, we will join in opposing them by whatever means may be required.

11. “If you don’t believe in God or religion, why don’t you just ignore all the religious stuff? You obviously are just pushing your own religion instead.”

As my good friend the late Clark Adams often noted, “If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease.” As Clark’s wording and other, similar formulations (“If Atheism is a religion, baldness is a hair color,” or “If Atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby”) make clear, we Atheists do not accept the frequent assertions by some theists that we, too, follow a religion—or that it takes faith to be an Atheist. A key starting point that Atheists usually make but that Christians seem usually to reject relates to requiring evidence in proportion to beliefs, as David Hume (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 1748) suggested.
But it is nonsense to suggest that the reasonable, logical course for Atheists regarding religion is for us to quietly and respectfully stand aside while the religionists do whatever they wish. We have no intention of going door-to-door inviting people to come to their senses and reject theism. But if theism’s blandishments and outright lies are brought into the public square and presented as true, we have not only a right but a duty to point out the lies, to expose the illogic, to argue against and even to ridicule—in the right time and the right place—the foolishness we see and hear. Our very freedom may often be at stake if we fail to stand up for our ideas and against those that at best make no sense and at worst threaten us.

12. “Our country was founded on Christian values and it was out of these values that our constitution was born giving YOUR ORGANIZATION the right to believe what you want. Tolerance means that everyone tolerates everyone!!!! Just because you don’t like the cross as a symbol for death does not give you the right to define what it means for EVERYONE ELSE!!! Your organization is destroying our country! Instead of removing everything like crosses etc that you find to violate your views why not try finding a way to incorporate your symbols and views with the rest of our country. Teach your views along side everyone elses views so people can make a decision for themselves. Freedom means being able to make choices and respect other peoples viewpoints regardless of how we may feel personally. Does that cross along the roadside in Utah, Oregon or other states that use the symbol really cause you that much grief. Really!!! why not find a better more productive way to spend all that money you have that will help your fellow US citizens as your beloved founder would have wanted!?”

Rants like this one hardly qualify as questions, of course. Along with great Americans of the past like Baptist preacher John Leland and Thomas Paine, we greatly prefer liberty for all to toleration. Assuming the “beloved founder” alluded to here is Madalyn Murray O’Hair, those who knew her well unanimously attest not only to her courage but also to her unyielding commitment to protect our rights and religious liberty and to her consistent willingness never to shy away from offending religious sensibilities when that is necessary for freedom. Those who falsely claim we act out of oversensitivity ourselves, that we do so because we’re offended by the mere sight of a religious symbol, are trying to create straw men. Oddly—at least to people such as the ranter quoted here—the religious liberty we contend for is the liberty of the Christian fundamentalist and the Muslim imam as well as our own.

13. “I think your lawsuit is petty and asinine. How are you negatively affected a by a cross on the road. Your organization is despicable!”

We disagree. But thanks for your thoughtful, enlightening comments.

14. “Why do Atheists hate God?” or “Don’t you realize you’ll all wind up roasting in hell if you mock God?”

We don’t. We don’t see any good reason to believe any god exists. We know we’re in the minority in America—but majority votes cannot settle religious questions and individual religious rights of each citizen outweigh majority votes. We’re certainly aware of the interpretation of many fundamentalist Christians that suggests that God is a petty, spiteful tyrant who will arrange for eternal, horrific punishment for people who dare to say the emperor has no clothes. We do not accept the conclusion that there is a god—but it seems even less likely that any god who might exist would be so absurdly human in his pettiness. It is in any case a risk we take openly and knowingly, and we wonder why anyone thinks his “all-powerful” god needs help harassing us.

15. “Why should anyone pay any attention to a small group of troublemakers [that was one of the more polite names we were called] like American Atheists members?”

Religious liberty is important to everyone, no matter what their beliefs or lack of them. It is worth defending even when unreasonable people call you names.

16. “Don’t you know that separation of church and state is not even in the Constitution; and besides, that it only means that government cannot interfere with churches or choose denominations?”

This question is based on common but thoroughly discredited notions that imply that constitutional concepts can only be represented by the short-hand labels often used to express them and that religion can get government support under the Constitution. Crucial constitutional principles are often not addressed in the Constitution with the precise words that we usually use for them. Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a carefully worded formal letter sent in 1802, not long after the First Amendment was ratified, popularized the words we now use for the constitutional protection of religious liberty: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The words “religious liberty” or “freedom of religion” are also not in the documents, along with many other ideas of the most basic importance to our rights as U.S. citizens (a right to privacy, a right to vote, “innocent until proven guilty,” etc. Any who want more examples and more details (and discussions of each of them) can go to www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html .

Baptist preachers were among the fiercest, strongest advocates of separation of church and state in the 1780s and 1790s. One, John Leland, wrote in 1791, “Let every man speak freely without fear—maintain the principles that he believes—worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions.” The principle plainly precludes a government official from making religious decisions for citizens of his state, especially in light of the 14th Amendment. These ideas are well-established constitutional law—and even the words are in some state constitutions, such as the Georgia Constitution.

17. “Haven’t you got anything better to do? Why don’t you get a life?”

It strikes us as odd that someone who takes the time and effort to rail against us in outrageous ways believes it is we who need to get a life. Most American Atheists generally have rich, fulfilling lives—and protecting religious liberty and our right to live free of government-sponsored religiosity is one of the many reasons we think our lives are worthwhile.

18. “Do you really think the world would be better off without religion—what about morality?”

Yes. Much good and much evil is done in the name of religion and in the name of other absolutist orthodoxies, but we like what Nobel-Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg said: “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.” To those who claim that reliable, consistent, absolute morality can only come from a god, we ask why the moral standards (not just the moral behavior) of religious people vary so widely from group to group and historical period to historical period. For example, the great majority of Christian preachers in the American South in the 1840s and 1850s preached, loudly and frequently, that human slavery was an institution provided by and approved of by Almighty God. They easily produced many biblical verses to support that assertion. Contemporary Christians nearly all reject such a claim, as we do. And apparently sincere modern Christians disagree, as we do, on abortion, capital punishment, gun control, war, stem cell research, death with dignity, and much more.

19. “Why don’t you answer my question?”

We have a small paid staff, plus many volunteers. We have tried to answer, here, most of the questions we’ve received. Some questions have been so utterly groundless—like “Why do you people hate America?” or “Why does American Atheists support terrorism?” that they don’t deserve answers. Some seemed not to be seeking answers at all—like “Why don’t you bastards go f**k yourselves?” Some few would take many books—books that are in fact readily available—to answer.

But if we missed your sincere, relevant question, please try again.

On our Utah case:

The Utah Cross lawsuit was brought because the State of Utah gave special preference and endorsement to the Roman Cross, the symbol of the Christian faith. The State denied that it was a poignant religious symbol and claimed it was now secular like a Christmas tree. They did so in order to allow its display on the front lawn of a government building and adjacent to state highways as memorials to Utah Highway Patrol Troopers killed in the line of duty. These crosses were not in cemeteries; had they been, this lawsuit would not have been successful.

The State prohibits the general public from erecting small informal crosses where family members have died in highway accidents but allowed the Utah Highway Patrol Association to erect the twelve-foot-tall stark white crosses emblazoned with the official UHP logo. The UHPA was given special privileges not allowed to others.

The lawsuit is not about free speech of the family of the deceased Troopers. The State’s position is that only the Roman Cross could be used by the UHPA as the memorial. If a Jewish Trooper were killed in the line of duty he would be memorialized only by the symbol of Christianity. Utah dictates the religion of memorials to be used by the families of deceased troopers.

Even after the 10th Circuit decision, the families may continue to remember the troopers in the manner appropriate to their beliefs. However, they should not do so with the assistance of government and on government property when doing so endorses Christianity. The crosses can be displayed on private property.

At Arlington National Cemetery, the families are allowed many different religious symbols to be placed on the headstones of the veterans. The federal government does not mandate that only a Roman Cross may be used on the headstones.

The family of these Utah troopers have every right to honor these troopers. Let’s do it in a way that does not involve endorsing religion and especially not endorsing one religion.

Moving these memorials to private land in no way harms the memorials. The original program and the first few crosses erected were on private land.

Making the memorials non-religious in no way dishonors the memories of these troopers. There is a beautiful memorial at the Utah State Capitol grounds honoring all fallen law enforcement officers that is not religious in nature. The Viet Nam Memorial in Washington, D.C., is non-religious.

UHPA and the State of Utah were asked to reconsider the design of these memorials shortly after the program began and long before the lawsuit was filed. They chose not to.

The Roman Cross is a revered and poignant symbol of Christianity that should not be displayed in a prominent and exclusive manner on government property. It belongs on private property. If the current 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision stands, the UHPA crosses can be moved to private land and the official UHP logo can be removed. The memorials will not be destroyed, they will be moved.

　The appeals court rejected the state’s blasphemous claim that the cross had lost most religious meaning. Questions of religion are not based on majority vote. That most Utahns may not use the cross as their religious symbol does not mean that it is no longer a poignant religious icon. The Star of David is not found in Mormon chapels but that does not mean it is now a secular symbol.

　These deceased troopers should be honored. They gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to the people of Utah. They can be honored in such a way that does not emphasize religion or one religion. A new non-religious design should be found. All wise Utahns, religious and non-religious, want to and should honor the troopers. The current memorials give the impression that all troopers are Christians. The current memorials give the impression that only Christians are honoring the troopers.

Small homemade roadside crosses erected by private citizens are prohibited next to Utah highways and are ordered to be immediately removed by the Utah Department of Transportation. These large UHPA crosses are given special permits to be erected on the state right of way.

John Q. Public is oblivious to church/state issues as long as and especially when he is comfortable with the religion at issue. “I’m in favor of public prayer, as long as the prayer is to my God. I sure as hell don’t want anybody praying to Satan before a city council meeting.”

　The First Amendment protects everyone’s rights by keeping church and state separate. Government must stay out of the business of religion. That ultimately protects all religions and all who practice religion or no religion. Government property must not be used to endorse religion or one religion. If these crosses are allowed to remain on government land, what’s next?
　

The following is taken from the appellate brief we filed with the 10th Circuit Ct of Appeals; the citations are to the record of the trial court which was submitted as an Appendix (Applt. App.) to the Appeals Court.

Arlington National Cemetery has a web site with extensive photos which demonstrate a lack of crosses; similarly the US Military Cemeteries outside the United States (mainly WW II sites in Europe) have web sites with extensive photos. Those cemeteries have extensive crosses with some Stars of David here and there. Most of the citations to the Applt. App. are photos from those web sites.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/phto_gallery Arlington Web site

http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries.php Non-US Military Cemeteries Web site

The current grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery are not crosses but more traditional tombstone shapes and contain small religious (or non-religious) symbols selected by the deceased’s family and made part of the marker. There are currently ~39 different symbols that may be selected, including one for atheists. http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp

***************************

CEMETERIES IN UNITED STATES DO NOT CONTAIN ROW UPON ROW OF CROSSES

Row upon row of uniform small white crosses are found in certain United States Military Cemeteries located outside the United States. Applt. App. 483, Exhibits 5 (A) – (X). Similar rows of uniform small white crosses are not used in United States Military Cemeteries in the United States nor at the National Cemetery at Arlington, Virginia. Id.; Applt. App. 619, ¶ 16; Applt. App. 533.

The graves of Jewish soldiers in United States Military Cemeteries located outside the United States are marked by the Star of David and not by Roman crosses. Applt. App. 488 (Ex. 5-C ); Applt. App. 506 (Ex. 5-L); Applt. App. 509 (Ex. 5-M); Applt. App. 521 (Ex. 5-S); Applt. App. 525 (Ex. 5-U); Applt. App. 531 (Ex. 5-X).

White crosses are a time-honored medium to memorialize Christian soldiers. Applt. App. 484 (Ex. 5-A); Applt. App. 488 (Ex. 5-C); Applt. App. 506 (Ex. 5-L); Applt. App. 509 (Ex. 5-M); Applt. App. 521 (Ex. 5-S); Applt. App. 525 (Ex. 5-U); and, Applt. App. 531 (Ex. 5-X).

A Roman cross as a grave marker instantaneously conveys the religious affiliation of the deceased. Applt. App. 717-718, ¶¶ 6-7; John Gary Brown, Soul in Stone: Cemetery Art From America’s Heartland 20 (Univ, Press of Kan. 1994).

*************************

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to make decisions that could end the lives of their terminally ill patients, compared to doctors who are very religious, according to a new study in Britain.

Dr Clive Seale, a professor at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, conducted a random mail survey of more than 3,700 doctors across Britain, of whom 2,923 reported on how they took care of their last terminal patient.

Many of the doctors surveyed were neurologists, doctors specializing in the care of the elderly, and palliative care, though other specialists like family doctors, were also included.

Doctors who described themselves as “extremely” or “very nonreligious” were nearly twice as likely to report having made decisions like providing continuous deep sedation, which could accelerate a patient’s death.

Read More

It’s always been among the most preposterous of church positions that death for terminally ill patients must come naturally, even if it means extended pain and expense for the patient and the family. Laws against DWD are a perfect example of the church inflicting itself on the lives of unbelievers (although religion is not the only supporter of such laws), and I am glad the atheist doctors are ignoring or avoiding such a backwards mentality.

For more information, please contact:
Ed Buckner, President 908-499-9200 (cell) or 770-803-5353 (office/fax)
Dave Silverman, Communications Director 732-648-9333

ATHEISTS ON CHURCH BONFIRE TO BURN QU’RAN:
BOOKS ARE FOR READING, NOT BURNING
Group Issues Short Recommended List For Readers

An Atheist advocacy group today denounced plans by a Florida Christian group to hold a mass burning of the Qu’ran to mark the 9-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla. has been denied a permit or its planned “International Burn a Qu’ran Day” protest, but threatens to proceed with the event. The burning has been condemned by secular and religious groups throughout the country.

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, said that while everyone must have the right to free expression, burning books is a universal symbol of intolerance, ignorance, and hate. As a result, he said, American Atheists is urging Atheist, Freethought, Humanist and other secular groups to encourage reading about different religions, and hosting discussion forums, debates and other exchanges of ideas leading up to and on 9/11.

“ In addition to studying the Bible, the Qu’ran and other ‘holy books,’ we’re recommending a brief reading list people may want to delve into,” said Buckner. “And when you finish those, we can recommend many more. Read, don’t burn. Think, don’t swallow what anyone else is telling you.”

The suggested titles include:

WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN by Bertrand Russell
WHY I AM NOT A MUSLIM by Ibn Warraq
WHY I AM AN ATHEIST by Madalyn Murray O’Hair
ATHEISM ADVANCED by David Eller
BAUBLES OF BLASPHEMY by Edwin Kagin
GOD IS NOT GREAT by Christopher Hitchens
THE GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins

“We’re also encouraging groups to have open debates and discussions between religious and secular Americans in hopes of casting light — not heat — on religion.

Dave Silverman, Vice President and Communications Director for American Atheists said that book burning is a “dangerous, downhill slope.”

“Today it’s burning books like the Nazis did; tomorrow it’s banning them outright, and maybe burning the people who believe in something the majority does not want to tolerate.”

AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists, Freethinkers and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church-mosque-temple and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

Islam and Christianity are heating up against each other, between the NY Mosque and this idiotic book burning, and we are getting caught in the middle.

Of COURSE Islam is a lie, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to have books. Of COURSE a substantial segment of the Muslim population are literally terrorist-supporters, but that doesn’t mean we should feed into that by telling all Muslims where they can have a mosque. Of COURSE Christianity has similarly-barbaric roots and is a force for evil in this world, but that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable for them to use the god-hate to make matters worse.

This is about to escalate. The Muslims will strike back against the Christians. They won’t take the high road. When Muslims take the low road, I get worried.

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has overturned a decision that allowed the display of roadside crosses in honor of Utah Highway Patrol troopers who have fallen in the line of duty.

The 10th Circuit Court also ordered Judge David Sam to order the crosses removed. Sam ruled in favor of the UHP crosses in November of 2007, saying the crosses did not represent a religious symbol, but a proper memorial.

This win is particularly sweet, although we are going to get dragged through the mud for this one.

The Utah Highway Patrol had a policy that allowed ONLY 12-foot-tall crosses as roadside memorials for fallen officers. The reason they used only crosses, they asserted, was that crosses were not Christian, that in fact they are secular.

Right. Like a Jew, a Muslim, and an Atheist would want a big cross as a memorial to them.

I will be on Fox News tomorrow on “Happening Now” at 11am to talk about this. I will be in the unfortunate situation of going up against fallen cops, for whom I have the deepest respect. However, no matter how much respect I have for fallen officers, I must remind the UHP that the fact that these officers died does not give the UHP the right to break the Constitution (for which the officers died in the first place). Indeed, some might allege that certain Christians were using these fallen officers as a method to secularize the cross — a truly repugnant but very real possibility.

Religious discrimination is just that. Equal access is just that. If the state of Utah wants crosses on their roadsides, they have to allow other religious and secular symbols too. Allowing ONLY crosses with the justification that crosses aren’t Christian is against the law, and we hope the UHP will erect proper memorials to her fallen officers that respect the diversity of the police force and the population of this country.

Our convention this year will be in Des Moines, Iowa.  More details at the convention page

NEW YORK — Retired hedge fund titan Robert Wilson lost his faith in God years ago, yet he believes in Catholic schools and gave $5.6 million to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York this summer.

It’s the latest of many gifts from Wilson to the city’s Catholic hierarchy and educators, this one aimed at funding the Catholic Alumni Partnership, a program he founded that helps elementary schools track down their 750,000 alumni and recruit them as donors.

“Most of what the Catholic schools teach are the three R’s,’’ said Wilson, 83, referring to reading, writing and arithmetic. “And they do it better than the union-controlled inner-city schools.’’

read more

While clearly an anti-union move, and not a pro-religion move, this donation demonstrates wrong thinking. He could have given the money to charter schools or any of the other major causes which don’t subject children to recruitment, hate, divisiveness, prejudice, or worse. He could have even started his own endowment, complete with staff, which would grant scholarships to needy kids or money to needy schools. Instead, he supported the richest and most corrupt organization on the planet with his donation.

The effect of this donation will be very small — they will use the money to call more people to ask for money. What a waste. With a 5M donation, American Atheists could have helped the country progress. Now, his money will help the country stagnate.

By Conrad Goeringer

PATTERSON: STATE ASSISTANCE FOR ISLAMIC CENTER IF SUPPORTERS
WILL RELOCATE MOSQUE PROJECT
Atheists: Schema is Unconstitutional, Taxes
Nonbelievers to benefit religion

New York Gov. David Patterson has announced a quid pro quo plan
that would offer state aid — including a discount on the price of
public land — if Muslims seeking to build a $100 million Islamic
Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan would move their project to
appease opponents of the project.

“If the sponsors were looking for property anywhere at a distance
that it would be such that it would accommodate a better feeling
among the people who are frustrated, I would be looking to provide
them with the state property that they need,” Patterson declared. The
so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” is a 13-story Islamic Cultural Center
called Cordoba House, that would include meeting rooms, performing
arts center, restaurant, swimming pool, gym, basketball court and
a “prayer space” — although some are denying that the site would
be a mosque. The project recently cleared another hurdle when the
city’s Landmarks Commission ruled that there were no historically
significant structures on the property. The site is about two
blocks from the Ground Zero location of the former World Trade
Center, and was previously home to the Burlington Coat Factory.

Legal experts gave Patterson’s surprise proposal a chilly reception,
pointing out that the scheme violated the constitutional separation
of church and state.

“They’re really giving government aid to religion,” waned Boston
University School of Law Professor Jay Wexier. “The aid is the
break between the fair market value and whatever they’re selling
it for. That’s almost like giving a bunch of money to a mosque.”

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, also warned of
legal difficulties with Gov. Patterson’s proposal. “Whatever his
intentions, Governor Patterson has no right to use public money or
other taxpayer resources to assist ANY religious group to build a
house of worship”

“Government must stay out of the business of subsidizing mosques,
churches, temples, and synagogues. This amounts to imposing a
‘religion tax’ on the public, including on millions of Atheists,
Freethinkers, agnostics, Humanists and other non-believers. In
fact, the various income and property tax exemptions afforded
religious organizations are already massive–and we think
unconstitutional–subsidies of religion.”

Indeed, Patterson’s offer further muddies the political waters in a
already-complicated and emotionally charged situation. Opponents of
the mosque project have staged vocal protests at government meetings,
charging that the project insults the memory of the thousands of
people who died in the 9/11 attacks. The planned community center
has been described as an affront to the country, in part due to its
proposed location; but mosque construction has come attack across
the country from Virginia and Tennessee to California. Construction
sites have been threatened, and angry crowds have spoken out at
local government meetings against the proposed projects.

Patterson’s offer, though, has been viewed as a sort of mediation
between project managers and opponents. Unfortunately, his plan
appears to violate the constitutional separation of government
and religion.

I just thought I’d write today about my personal experience.

I started wearing atheist shirts in public 15 years ago. The broad reaction was negative. Although few people said anything rude to me, I always heard them talking about me (just loud enough for me to hear), and about how wrong atheism is, and how much their god meant to them, etc., behind my back.

That was then, and this is now.

I took my daughter to Six Flags earlier this week, wearing my “Proud to be an atheist” T-shirt. We were in this crowded park for 8 roller-coaster-filled hours, and NOT ONCE did I hear anything negative. Not one dirty look — and I was looking. Four people, however, asked where they could get a shirt like mine.

Have you worn your atheist garb recently?

I truly can’t stand it when atheists get sick and rumors fly about conversion. I find it insulting for theists to imply that common sense is so weak that we abandon it in grave situations (atheists in foxholes).

It isn’t. Facing death is something atheists do every day, and will continue to do for the foreseeable future, and the fact that death is inevitable doesn’t mean we should pretend it doesn’t exist just to placate ourselves.

Death is real and it’s lousy; death by cancer is worse. Hopefully Christopher will survive and tell us all about it at some future Atheist convention, but at least we know he is fighting for truth and honesty as he fights for his life.