• A legacy that teaches those who listened to him to use faith rather than reason as their guide,
  
• A legacy that pretends that one can be learned and religious without one biting into the other irreparably,
  
• A legacy that fosters doctrinal divides among an already divided church in the name of "biblical scholarship" and "being led by the Holy Spirit",
  
• And most importantly, in my opinion, a legacy that says it is good to spend one's life in trying to understand a book that, by nature, can never be internally consistent with itself.

I’ve been away for awhile and wanted to apologize for the lack of posts. I hope to change that over the next few weeks. When faced with ignorance, bigotry and religious idiocy, there is only so long one can remain silent.

The article to which I owe my current ridicule is found at NARLA’s Religious Liberty site (here). And it pushed me over the edge because in it, author Alan Reinach takes the time to assert the ludicrous idea that same sex marriage actually threatens religious liberty!

Despite his organization’s usual attempt to strengthen the hand of the persecuted minority which would, in turn, strengthen his own hand (he is, after all, a minority too), Reinach appears to have let his jealousy in seeing the small successes of a group he secretly opposes get the best of him. Hell hath no fury like a bigot scorned.

We’re already off to a bad start when he begins his piece with the usual platitudes of “hate the sin, love the sinner” and “I’m not attacking gays as people because Jesus died for them too, [but boy have they got a surprise in store when Jesus comes again]”. But really, when it comes down to it, what do you say to someone who feels morally smug in his own sexual fantasies but still demonizes those whose urges are different from his own? I had to look at my calendar three times while reading his article and remind myself that it wasn’t 1950.

Reinarch makes his point by pointing to a few examples and asking us to take pity on those “persecuted” religious groups like the Catholic adoption agencies that were forced to extend the same rights to homosexual couples wishing to adopt children that they extended to heterosexual couples wishing to adopt after Massachusetts passed a law enabling equal standing for homosexual couples more than a year ago. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, Vatincan head of the Pontifical Council for the Family was quoted by the Fides news service at the time as saying that allowing homosexuals to adopt children, “would destroy the child’s future, it would be an act of moral violence against the child.”

Notwithstanding his wish that this were so (hint: it isn't), how does any of this qualify as "persecution"? Why don’t we ask him where he got this information? What statistics did he present? What case studies was he referring to? The answers may shock you: it doesn't, nowhere, none, and none--he is simply pulling this opinion out of his ass which was, in turn, brought about because he believes the words of a book that tell him homosexuality is an abomination to the supernatural Being who makes universes.

Reinarch asks us to ponder the question of why this case had to be a zero-sum game. Couldn’t the state have made homosexual-friendly adoption agencies available to the public while allowing private religious groups their right to deny the children in their care access to homes owned by gays? Aside from the absurdity of the idea (a foster care home that doesn’t put its kids into homes), another dimension of the anti-gay argumentation comes to light: if this had been another protected class denied access to services (even privately) because of their gender, race, etc., it would be relatively easy to find the agency withholding the service guilty of discrimination.

For example, could we forgive a Catholic adoption service that refuses to serve blacks? Hell no! How about a Pizza Hut that refuses to serve women? Get outta here! Though farfetched given what homosexuals have had to go through, we may one day even see a situation where a heterosexual couple is denied services on account of their heterosexuality. And, if so, the couple should rightfully win. Why? Because sexuality, whether homo or hetero, is and should be a protected class.

So when Reinach proceeds to tell us that it is wrong to equate the moral position of religious groups with racial segregation in the 1950s, we know he is talking out of his ass. Anyone who has even remotely read speeches and sermons by religious leaders surrounding the “separate but equal” days knows well that many, many Christians felt very comfortable with the ideas presented to them in their Bibles regarding ownership of slaves and the subjugation of races. Indeed, the Bible is rife with such examples and only a modern eye used to having his dogma spoon-fed and interpreted for him could claim otherwise. The analogy of Christian-sponsored segregation/subjugation of 60 years past is a good one because it shows us that religious ideas change in response to public pressures. The pro-racial segregation pushers of yesterday have become the pro-homosexual segregation folk of today. Eventually, even these will migrate to another forum where they can sell their wares of bigotry.

Eventually, Reinach comes clean, albeit through the cloak of religious sentiment. He reveals to us his intentions for homosexuality to not be granted certain fundamental rights. He prefers the practice of private faith to trump the rights of humans wishing to love and be loved. He even smugly hopes that, “Californians will have the opportunity to reaffirm that marriage consists of a man and a woman,” when it comes to the ballot in November.

But why? Why can’t he disagree with homosexuality as a moral position and yet extend to them the same rights that he himself enjoys? If pushed, I have no doubt that he would admit that we live in a secular nation with a secular constitution. And because of that, he would agree that many various activities should be legal even though he wouldn’t do them himself. So why is it so hard for him to empathize and do unto his fellow man what he would wish to be done to himself?

Christianity is indeed bankrupt.

• the Constitution has been trashed and must be restored

• the U.S. has supported and committed torture and it must end

• the economy has been wrecked by the power elite in both government and corporate America and that greed will stop, regulations will be enforced

• the Iraq War has been a disaster and we need a way out while acknowledging that we bear responsibility for bombing that country back to Ur

• universal healthcare is a human right and we’ll find a way to provide it

• our infrastructure - bridges, roads, water, sewer systems - will be fixed

• No Child Left Behind will be canceled and we’ll figure out how to improve our schools

• unwarranted searches and surveillance of citizens will stop

• there will be no more fooling around about the environment

• a fair solution will be found for immigration

• government ethics legislation will have real teeth

• separation of church and state will be restored

• every last political hack (thousands of them) appointed by the Bush administration to government agencies will be fired, replaced with non-partisan competents

• earmarks will disappear entirely from legislation – let them be properly legislated

• the wealthy elite have had it their way long enough, reaping collective trillions of dollars on the backs of the middle and lower classes and now it is their turn to pay it back

“...once one realizes the Bible is not the word of God, one should go on to establish a positive philosophy of life and not worry much about that book. That approach is obviously outside the scope of BE's calling. I'm finding the goals of (several groups are mentioned--Ed.)...of much more interest than debating fundamentalists. But I wish you good luck at freeing more minds from the myths of Biblical inerrancy, and I'll keep reading BE to see what luck you are having.”

You have touched upon one of the most divisive issues in the freethought movement, DW. Do we directly confront and challenge the supporters of religion and the Bible or do we go our own way by setting a good example and developing a positive philosophy and let them go theirs? The approach of the freethought organizations you mentioned is contrary to that of BE's.

This [country] is composed of millions of people whose support for the Bible ranges all the way from lukewarm to fanatical. In numbers and wealth their dominance is overwhelming and easily proven. One of their spokesmen alone, Jimmy Swaggart, has a yearly budget far in excess of that of all freethought groups and publications combined.

The disproportionate relationship between the forces is tremendous and that's why television exudes so many people who belong in the Middle Ages. We are told to turn off the set or change the channel if we don't like the program, but isn't it about time they started changing the TV, not us. Even the government buttresses them. If I was told I would no longer be taxed or subject to financial audits while my neighbor continued as before, that would be positive assistance, not just hands off.

Atheist, humanist, and other freethought publications have provided more than enough proof to show the partition between church and state more closely resembles a back door screen than a wall. This situation must be altered. Establishing a positive philosophy of life is commendable, but what follows? What do you do with it? Do you rest on your laurels and hope religionists will follow your example? How could that happen when they don't even know you are an atheist? In effect, the status quo would remain as before with biblicists dominating the scene.

Two crucial questions must be faced by all freethought organizations: (1) Why should religionists, biblicists, and apologists come to the freethought movement when they are convinced they already have the truth and (2) why should these same groups listen to anything the freethought movement has to offer when they have been taught from infancy that atheism, humanism, agnosticism, etc. are works of evil? To some they are the devil incarnate.

The only way to dispel people of these illusions is to go on the offensive, which few freethought organizations and publications are willing to do. Some even admit their reluctance. But, the fact is that a major reason the Bible is so all-pervasive is that millions of its supporters have taken their case to others. Missionaries have traveled the world and converted millions as Christian dominance is Latin America domonstrates. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have not become rapidly growing sects by sitting at home praying the world will see the wisdom of their ways and beat a path to their door. Aggressive proselytization is their hallmark.

Your tactics of adopting a "positive philosophy of life" actually amounts to nothing more than assuming a defensive posture, i.e., accepting conditions as they are, and is doomed from the beginning. You don't win on the defensive. Most freethought organizations and publications are not significantly converting people to their point-of-view but only picking up those who have rejected religion and/or the Bible for reasons of their own. Members of the religious/biblical community must be re-educated from the ground up. Most have been programmed from birth and it's up to us to deprogram.

Although important, battles over prayer in the schools, nativity scenes, "In God We Trust" on the currency, etc. are essentially secondary. As long as people believe the Bible is God's word, conflicts of this kind will continue unabated and remain an understandable by-product. Once people no longer believe the Bible or have their allegiance to it dramatically shaken, their interest in these secondary issues will naturally fade. That's why BE teaches a kind of Sunday-School-in-Reverse. Our program is one of going back to the basics, starting over, and exposing all the facts that should have been heard in Sunday School but weren't. But we can't do it alone.

You mentioned "luck," but that's not what matters. Thousands of knowledgeable people willing to put in the needed time and effort are what count. Serious and intense effort over many years in a protracted struggle are mandatory. Anti-religious humor, denunciations of the religious mentality, exposures of corrupt ministers or popes, and comparable tactics are subordinate, [if] not superficial, and easily countered.

Your statement with respect to fundamentalism missed the mark, DW. BE merely seeks to debate those most supportive of the Book while all others observe, so views can be sharply delineated and many may be moved further from the Bible by having their faith weakened. Converting a fundamentalist in a dialogue is of far less importance than influencing the audience.

BE doesn't exist to debate fundamentalists. Millions of people in this [country] are not fundamentalists or atheists but lie somewhere on the long spectrum [in between]. The common denominator is that nearly all support the Bible to some degree.
Many people have no strong views one way or the other but are just listening. Your poignant letter deserved an extended reply.

1. Grab the nearest book (that is at least 123 pages long).
2. Open to p. 123.
3. Go down to the 5th sentence.
4. Type in the following 3 sentences.
5. Tag five people.

Islam is at once the most and the least interesting of the world's monotheisms. It builds upon its primitive Jewish and Christian predecessors, selecting a chunk here and a shard there, and thus if these fall, it partly falls also. Its founding narrative likewise takes place within an astonishingly small compass, and relates facts about extremely tedious local quarrels.