Department Of Boys And Girls, Can You Identify These Magazines?
Silly question. The titles are right there, on the cover, juat like any periodical, right?
Almost. Here is another example.
Girls and boys, can you note the difference?
I knew you could.
The last picture has the subscriber’s address on it and the return address of the organization; other than that, the cover is ala the proverbial brown paper wrapper. When you unfold it, you see that it is Freethought Today, the periodical for members of the FFRF – Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Several years ago I found out from a FFRF board member the reason for the *discretion*: when the FFRF first began to publish Freethought Today – with the periodical’s title and other text and graphics on the front cover, just like any other organization’s journal – many members reported that their copies often arrived in their mailboxes having been damaged. They’d been torn, graffitied, and vandalized with anti-freethought screeds, with article headlines crossed out and threats scribbled across the cover. Now, who would have motivation to do such a thing? The slogans and threats had a “Christian” (if often scatological, obscenely-worded) theological bent (repent or you f****ing ass**** atheists are going to hell/kill a commie godless bastard for Christ [1] ). The logical deduction being that it is the recipients’ Good Christian® friends, or family, or neighbors? Postal carriers and/or the U.S. P.O. mail sorters? [2]
The publishers of Christianity Today [3] (founded by Billy Graham), U.S. Catholic (published by the Claretian Missionaries [4] ), Lutheran Life and other religious magazines don’t have to hide the name of their publication lest the magazines be defaced by self-righteous…who? Atheists and other “non-believers.”?
But the reason why Freethought Today cannot declare itself openly on its front covers is related to why I often put aside the FFRF newsletter when it arrives. If moiself is at all in a “tender” mood (read: disgusted with a good number of my fellow human beings), I wait until I’m feeling calmer to read it.
My attempt to explain this reticence might seem more puzzling than enlightening. It has to do with the important work that the FFRF does, via education, litigation, and persuasive advocacy. Their legal department takes on cases on behalf of its members and the public, and ending hundreds of state/church entanglement violations each year, such as prayers and proselytizing in public schools and events, and public funding for religious purposes and religious symbols on public property.
FFRF lawsuits have removed Ten Commandment displays and Jesus paintings from public schools, stopped city/school board prayer; halted school subsidy of child evangelism, and stopped censorship of freethought displays, literature, and merchandise.
Other FFRF court victories include:
- Halting federal funds to a bible school offering no academic classes;
- Ending millions of tax dollars used to repair and maintain churches;
- Successfully suing the IRS to reinstitute investigations of church politicking. [5]
All this is good news…and all this is frustrating news – frustrating in that they shouldn’t have to do this in the first place. Each case reported in Freethought Today reminds me of previously reported incidents, and of the sad fact that, because of the sheer number of the cases they take on and the responses they get, for every family who contacts the FFRF for help [6] (re their child whose history teacher proselytizes religion and makes anti-science comments in class; re the child of Jewish parents who objected to team prayers led by her Christian soccer coach and was then shunned/harassed by her teammates….) there are hundreds more who stay quiet, not wanting to be discriminated against any more than they already are.
* * *
Department Of The Subject Of This Post
…is important enough for it to be a single subject, [7] in moiself’s opinion.
A dominant worldview – dominant in terms of numbers of the worldview’s adherents (whether by actual belief, or adherents via the inertia of culture [8] ), and not dominant due to the rationality of the worldview’s content – defines everything in terms of itself.
A dominant worldview defines everything in terms of itself. Thus, the religionists have given us the term atheist, to which they want to imbue with a plethora of malicious associations even though the word simply means “not a theist.” They’ve also provided us with non-believer, another pesky misnomer, as it, like atheist, takes a person who is *not* religious and labels them in religious terms.
There’s plenty of things I “believe” in, but religion ain’t one of them. If you are religious and looking for an umbrella term for those who are not religious, moiself, along with many other freethinking folk, prefers religion-free.
Now I must address the unasked question by including a question of my own, which is why this question – “And, what do *you* believe?” goes unasked. I can count on the fingers of my two hands (if some of the fingers were missing due to a tragic food processor accident) how many times a religion-believer, upon finding out that I am not “one of them,” shows an interest in what I do believe in. The majority simply don’t ask; they’re not interested in – or their tone and body language indicate that they are fearful of/uncomfortable with – the possible answers. They just want to know if you do or do not believe what *they* believe (so that they can accordingly shun/pray for/witness to you).
As for what moiself believes, I can’t state it any better than this :
Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles [9]
* We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
* We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
* We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
* We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
* We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
* We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
* We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
* We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
* We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
* We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
* We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
* We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
* We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
* We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
* We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
* We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
* We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
* We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
* We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
* We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
* We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
* * *
Department Of Anyone Looking For A Business Investment Opportunity?
I’m thinking of starting my own yoga studio, wherein students will practice in the nude. I’m going to call it, Yogi Bare.
* * *
Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week [10]
* * *
May you take the Humanist creed to heart, no matter what your worldview is;
May you appreciate your right to read uncensored periodicals;
May you strive to be a good guest at the dinner party of your life;
…and may the hijinks ensue.
Thanks for stopping by. Au Vendredi!
* * *
[1] Freethought Today also has a regular feature article, Crankmail, wherein the editors share, printed just as received (in other words, atrocious grammar/spelling/punctuation left as is) “…some of the more ‘out there’ letters and social media comments that we get.”
[2] Who had access to the journal, once it was printed and mailed?
[3] Masthead here; I’m not sure who the publisher is and which organizations the magazine currently represents, other than “evangelical Christianity.”
[4] “a Catholic clerical religious congregation of Pontifical Right for men headquartered in Rome.” (Wikipedia)
[5] Examples from What Are FFRF’s Legal Accomplishments?
[6] Most of the plaintiffs in the FFRF lawsuits prefer to remain anonymous, due to the harassment and threats they have received when trying to address their concerns via non-legal means; e.g., going directly to their child’s school or sports team or….
[7] Although, of course, this subject encompasses about a bajillion others….
[8] persons who, if asked re religious affiliation, say that they are Christian, then when you question them re the tenants of Christian theology they either disagree with the tenets or don’t know them… but, when you bring this to their attention, they say they know they’re not Hindu or Buddhist or Jewish and this is a “Christian” country so they identify as that.
[9] Drafted by Paul Kurtz, the founder of Free Inquiry.
[10] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org
