Muslim Reform Movement embraces secularism and universal human rights

Gabriel Glazer mentions an unusual and noteworthy event in which Muslims discuss the need for reform of Islam and are ready to act on this perception of the need to embrace secularism.

See http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/12/muslim-reform-movement-embraces-secularism-and-universal-human-rights which discusses a coalition of Muslim writers, activists and politicians has launched a "Muslim Reform Movement" rejecting violence and calling for a defence of secularism, democracy and liberty.

The reformers have issued a Declaration defending gender equality, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, stating that they are for "secular governance" and "against political movements in the name of religion."  

State constitutions, public office and people's belief in God

Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)

Roy Torcaso and I were friends. I met him shortly after moving to Maryland in 1966 to work for Americans United. I delivered a eulogy at his memorial service at his Unitarian congregation in Maryland. Roy was a very gutsy guy.  His Supreme Court case, Torcaso v Watkins, was a great victory for church-state separation and religious freedom.

That said, it is important to comment on the Dec 7 NY Times story.

(see http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/In-seven-states-atheists-push-to-end-largely-forgotten-ban-285005441.html)

1.      Yes, there are statements mandating certain religious beliefs in order to hold public office in MD and several other state constitutions. However, thanks to the Torcaso ruling, these are all inoperative museum relics,  dead letters. But, then, many state constitutions are crammed with such inoperative relics, such as one state’s ban on a guy kissing a woman in public on a Sunday., and other nonsense.

2.      Can these relics be removed? Very unlikely. And attempts to do so will surely fail. Not only  will they fail, but they could well generate backlash that will actually harm the secularist cause. Further, tinkering with a state constitution could open a real can of worms, whether through a legislatively proposed constitutional amendment or a state constitutional convention. The result could be constitutional changes that divert public funds to faith-based private schools, further restrict abortion rights,  allow “creationism” to be taught on public schools, or cause other mischief.

3.      Let’s note that the US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, still contains language that says that African Americans only count as 3/5 of a person for determining the composition of the House of Representatives. This was rendered inoperative by the 14^th Amendment, but it’s still in the Constitution forever.

4.      Attempts to remove these offensive provisions from state constitutions will not only fail but will distract attention and energy from dealing with really important hot issues like climate change, right wing attacks on public education and reproductive choice, the transfer of wealth to the top 1% from the rest of us, and other matters.

5.      Instead of wasting time, energy, money and good will on a lost cause, secularists need to be broadminded and practical enough to work with others across the religio-political spectra to accomplish important  goals on the issues that really count.

(Edd has been a Full time church-state activist for the last 50 yeara)

Washington Area Secular Humanists on Wikipedia

By Gary Berg-Cross

Just as Humanlight commenced in December, 2013 and the year was ending we got word that WASH now has a. entry on Wikipedia - see our page. Thanks to  WASH Board member Phil Kalmanson for taking on this effort and hanging in there thru several seemingly contradictory directions to add or delete details to satisfy the Wiki criteria.  We tried not to take it personally.

The page is a nice summary place and will perhaps help build the community. It’s much bigger than pages for things like Humanlight.  Bu there are still things to do.  Now that we have a page I added WASH to the list or secular organizations listed under Secular Humanism.

Perhaps others will find some things to add and places to add info.

Luis Granados June talk

by Gary Berg-Cross

Luis Granados a Washington, DC attorney and a student of the scandals of religious history will speak Saturday June 2nd at Wheaton Library about his "God Experts" blog & his first ebook, "Damned Good Company,"Damned Good Company – A ‘Profiles in Courage’ for Humanists” - a collection of stories of humanist heroes through the ages who bucked the prevailing God experts. See http://www.facebook.com/events/155686517896346/

“Damned Good Company,” an ebook, tells 20 stories of individuals who stood up against the prevailing religious wisdom, from Socrates to Frederick II to the housewife who nearly nipped Mormonism in the bud. His talk will focus on one of these stories: the conflict between Manuel Azaña, leader of the secular Spanish Republic in the 1930s, who was brought down by Benito Mussolini, the lapsed atheist who collaborated with the Catholic Church to chase his dreams of empire.

Luis' weekly God Experts blog relates a current headline or anniversary to a curious episode from the past.

An Open Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury

The Telegraph reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury wants Christians to argue their side more forcefully:

Clergy are to be urged to be more vocal in countering the arguments put forward by a more hard-line group of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who have campaigned for a less tolerant attitude towards religion.

A report endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, warns that the Church faces a battle to prevent faith being seen as "a social problem" and says the next five years are set to be a period of "exceptional challenge".

Dear Dr. Williams,

This seems as good a time as any to repeat what Christopher Hitchens wrote in the introduction to his anthology, The Portable Atheist:

A terrible thing has now happened to religion. Except in the places where it can still enforce itself by fear superimposed on ignorance, it has become one opinion among many. It is forced to compete in the free market of ideas and, even when it strives to retain the old advantage of inculcating its teachings into children (for reasons that are too obvious to need underlining), it has to stand up in open debate and submit to free inquiry.

I, for one, welcome better arguments from believers, and I suspect that many atheists and humanists do, too. But then, a lot of us argue ideas for fun and to get at the truth by knocking down bad ideas.

And the fact is that an awful lot of apologetics is of very low quality. You might be surprised at how often we're offered Pascal's wager, C.S. Lewis's Liar, Lunatic, or Lord, arguments from ignorance, and even "you just have to have faith" come up. Evidently a lot of theists have no idea how comically weak these arguments are. If you could educate them, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Over the centuries, religion has erected a protective wall around itself: blasphemy laws, intimidation, social taboos against criticizing religion (often in the name of ecumenicalism), mean that religious ideas have been insulated from criticism for a long time. And as a result, many theists have very little experience defending their ideas against rational arguments. And now that atheists are speaking up, and things like free-speech laws prevent religions from silencing dissent, this fact is becoming more and more apparent.

But if I may, I'd like to offer some advice on arguing with atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, as well as lesser luminaries like PZ Myers and Matt Dillahunty, and even rank-and-file atheists like myself.

The key is to realize that our commitment is to the truth, not to any given set of ideas, tenets, or dogmas.

Philosophers and scientists have done a lot of work in figuring out how to figure out what's true, and how to avoid coming to incorrect conclusions. It is easy to find lists of logical fallacies. You may want to educate your coreligionists on these fallacies and how to avoid them, because people who rely on fallacious arguments will be called on it.

What we're really looking for is arguments for the existence of a god that don't fall apart under scrutiny. If you have such an argument, please present it. If you don't have one (yet), then it would be nice if you could at least say so.

Secondly, when asked for reasons to believe that there are any gods, theists often reply by pointing out the good done by their churches. But of course that is a non sequitur: it may in fact be useful for people to believe in gods, souls, or reincarnation, but that doesn't mean that those things actually exist. Please tell your coreligionists to make sure they're not arguing the wrong topic, because they will be called on it.

I realize that it's easy to see the above as concern trolling. Actually, it's cockiness. I'm so confident that spirited, rational argumentation will bring us closer to the truth (and remember, my commitment is to truth, not to atheism) that I can afford to give the game away, as it were.

So bring it on. And may the best ideas win.

(Thanks to Shelley for forwarding the Telegraph article.)