Things To Ponder…


What kind of proof could there ever possibly be for atheists for an omni-max Supreme Being as imagined by believers?

Arthur C. Clarke once proposed that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Suppose a more advanced civilization wanted to fool us into thinking “the” omni-max Supreme Being God was making itself known to us? How would we be able to tell the difference? In order for us to really “know,” if it was some all-knowing being or not, wouldn’t we have to be all-knowing ourselves? Even if it was able to prove it had supernatural abilities (or was supernatural itself) somehow, it would always be possible that there were a whole host of other supernatural beings that were superior.


How could any being ever really ever know if it knew everything? How could any being ever really know for certain it was all-knowing? How could it ever know that there was nothing beyond its own knowledge? How does one know what one might not be aware of? So, even if some being thought it could be the all-knowing omni-max Supreme Being, how could it ever know it was for sure? It might be that as far as it could tell it was, but it could never really know for certain. And if that’s the case (and EVEN IF IT’S NOT), how could any human (who is clearly not all-knowing) think that they know something else is? In other words, wouldn’t you have to be all-knowing yourself in order to know if something else was?


Let’s assume there is some Supreme Being God for argument’s sake. Why should we necessarily worship it? Maybe it’s “evil” as far as we can tell, or maybe it doesn’t have our best interests at heart. Just because it might have made us, does it necessarily follow that we should worship or love it? Shouldn’t it still have to gain our trust or give us good reason to have some affection for it? If it seems to be against us and our future advancement, shouldn’t we contest it? It seems to me that as far as we’re concerned, WE are what matters, and if there is some being who has other interests that we must be sacrificed for, it needs to sell us on the importance of that sacrifice, or that being’s interests should be disregarded, and an effort should be made for our own interests instead.

Humanism and the UUA

Michael Werner presented his talk on “The History of Humanism and the Unitarian Universalist Association” to the Exploring Humanism group at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Charlotte on August 9, 2013. I’ve finally been able to put all the excerpts together into one video for the first time. His talk was shortly after his related book came out, “Regaining Balance,” which can be found in Kindle edition HERE.

Separation Between Church & State

A Secular Government

The Founders of our country significantly formed the first government in the history of the world that did not establish religion. They threw off the tyranny of rule by kings and churches—which had existed for centuries–and successfully founded a form of government by and for the People instead. This new government was based on the authority of the People alone, and this became history’s first secular government.

John Adams commented that, The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

The only reference to religion in the body of the U.S. Constitution is in the negative…

“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” – U.S. Constitution: Article VI

As the “Father of our Country” George Washington observed, In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States,” and “Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others.”

And the First Amendment is mainly focused on the rights of the individual to have freedom of conscience and expression. This includes the right of the individual to express their conscience through speech, through the press, in assemblies with other individuals, and by petition to the government for redress of grievances. It also attempts to prevent government from imposing on the freedom of conscience of the individual by establishing religion, or by prohibiting its exercise. Thus, the first part of the First Amendment reads…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” – U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (which the First Amendment is partially based and inspired), wrote that the First Amendment erected a wall of separation between church and state.” He felt that Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

James Madison, who is considered the “Father of the Constitution” and the “Architect of the Bill of Rights,” hoped that by doing so, the United States might free itself from the ceaseless strife that had soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

Madison, who was also primarily responsible for pushing the Bill of Rights through Congress, expressed his interpretation of the First Amendment as a perfect” separation – between Church and State, commenting that, The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

Jefferson thought that mixing religion and government would lead to the corruption” of both. Madison thought that both would exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

There are no higher authorities than Jefferson and Madison regarding how the First Amendment should be interpreted because they had the most influence on the fact of its creation and existence. This was widely recognized at the time and by anyone who would bother to make a serious study of the subject.

Additional evidence of that can be found in the Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified in 1797, very early in our government’s history. Article 11 of the Treaty reads in part, …the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” Article VI, Sect.2 of the Constitution states that all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” The Treaty was ratified unanimously and the full text was published in The Philadelphia Gazette on June 17th, 1797 without any record of any public objection.

Later, when Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about his travels in America in 1830 he commented, I questioned the faithful of all communions; I particularly sought the society of clergymen, who are the depositories of the various creeds and have a personal interest in their survival … all thought the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.”

Here is the testimony of an outsider in 1830, questioning clergymen and the “faithful of all communions,” and they all seemed to be unanimously supportive of the complete separation of church and state that they understood their government was based on.

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress. It made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

Ten years later, in one of the earliest church-state cases to come before the Supreme Court in 1878 (Reynolds vs. U.S.), Chief Justice Morrison Waite cited Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance, the Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom, and Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists describing the First Amendment as “building a wall of separation between church and state.” He used these documents to help form his opinion about how the First Amendment should be interpreted. He felt Jefferson was the most key because he was the “acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure” and it therefore “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.”

But even before 1878, or even before 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was adopted), you can find quotes from presidents and representatives who understood that this country was founded on a separation between church and state. President James K. Polk said, Thank God, under our constitution, there was no connection between church and state.” Even earlier in 1843, President John Tyler wrote, The United States has adventured on a great and noble experiment.. that of total separation of church and state.”

There seems to be a common thread of understanding here that was generally comprehended and agreed upon for decades after the founding of America, from the clergy to Supreme Court Justices to presidents and representatives, that this country was based on a separation between church and state. This understanding continued afterwards, almost to the present day.

To give a few examples, President Grant said, Keep church and state forever separated.” President Hayes objected to any interference” of one upon the other. And President Garfield said, The divorce between church and state ought to be absolute.”

In 1947 , the U.S. Supreme Court finally and explicitly clarified that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applied to the states in Everson v. Board of Education, affirming what should have already been implicitly established in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but evidently had to be further clarified for those who had stubbornly resisted.

The Court ruled that: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'”

To those who would argue that the First Amendment ONLY forbids government from meddling with religion, but that it doesn’t forbid religion meddling in government, note the sentence in the ruling above that reads, Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups AND VICE VERSA” [emphasis mine].

The Court reaffirmed its position in its 1963 ruling in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp when it said: First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment’s mandate that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment…. Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another.”

Note the last sentence above which says the Court “unequivocally” rejected the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids ONLY governmental preference of one religion over another” [emphasis mine]. The First Amendment DOESN’T read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion,” which is the kind of language one might expect if it was intended to ONLY forbid governmental preference of one religion over another.” The First Amendment doesn’t say “a religion,” it says “religion” period. The implication is that the government shouldn’t even preference religion in general.

–There are other Supreme Court cases which could be cited on this subject, but these will suffice for this essay.–

In the ‘modern era,’ President Kennedy, concurring with President Garfield, said, I believe in an America where the separation between church and state is absolute.” President Johnson said, I believe in the American tradition of separation between church and state.” President Carter said, I believe in the separation of church and state.” Even President Reagan was of the opinion that, Church and state are, and should remain, separate.” And more recently, President Obama said, “I believe deeply in the separation of church and state.”

Those Opposed

James Madison warned…

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”

In 1863, eleven Protestant denominations concerned about the omission of God from the Constitution proposed to amend the Preamble to acknowledge Almighty God, the Divine Authority.” In 1864, the National Reform Association–formerly the Christian Amendment Movement–proposed an amendment to the Constitution, in order to constitute a Christian government,” by humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government….” Neither of these attempts succeeded. Further such attempts were made in 1874, 1896, and 1910, but none were successful.

Additional attempts to bring Christianity into the Constitution were made in the 1940s and 1950s. In 1954, for example, an amendment was proposed to recognize the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God.” There were advocates for similar amendments after the 1962 Supreme Court ruled that government-sponsored and dictated prayer in schools unconstitutional in Engel v. Vitale. None of these proposals even came to a vote.

If our Constitution already established a ‘Christian’ nation as many suggest—even though it fails to mention anything about it—why all these efforts over all these years to make these kinds of amendments, and why did they fail?

However, the efforts by religious theocrats haven’t been entirely unsuccessful….

While the first attempts at amending the Constitution in 1863 and 1864 were unsuccessful, James Pollock, one of the members of the National Reform Association mentioned above, played an important role in getting “In God We Trust” on coins in 1864. And while the same kinds of efforts to amend the Constitution in the 1950s failed, they were able to get that motto recognized as our National Motto in 1956. And, two years earlier in 1954, they had succeeded in getting under God” injected into the Pledge of Allegiance.

The motto our founders gave us was E Pluribus Unum” (Out of Many, One). It had been our de facto National Motto until 1956. That motto was secular and inclusive. The new National Motto “In God We Trust” was religious and exclusive. The original Pledge had also been secular and inclusive. Inserting under God” into it also made it religious and exclusive. Thus, anyone who didn’t believe in a monotheistic God was made to feel like a second-class citizen in their own country, and there wasn’t “justice for all.”

These efforts to make this country into a Christian theocracy continue to this day. Revisionist history mythologists and Christian nationalists like evangelical Christian David Barton have for decades been promoting the idea that the United States was founded as an explicitly “Christian nation,” and that “separation between church and state” is a “myth.” He publishes and propagates quotations from Founders and Supreme Court decisions that are either out-of-context, altered, phony, or unconfirmed to promote his viewpoint. He has been accused of “pseudoscholarship” and spreading “outright falsehoods.” One of his more recent books was voted the least credible history book in print” in 2012, and his publisher ended up disavowing it and withdrawing it from publication.

Nevertheless, his works in historical revisionism–including the out-of-context, altered, phony, or unconfirmed quotes he has propagated over the years–have spread all over the internet. It is the basis of what has been–and currently is–being taught to the children of many Christian parents who are homeschooling their children, and many have grown up to believe it. Those of like-mind help promote it, and many of our current government representatives believe it and endorse it.

They are engaged at every level of government, national, state, and local. They are the ones responsible for wanting to erect 10 Commandment monuments in front of courthouses; having In God We Trust” plastered on government buildings and vehicles; setting up crosses at veteran memorials; sanctioning clearly sectarian prayers before city council meetings; trying to get as much religion into public schools as possible; influencing what is taught in public school science, history, and sex education classes to accommodate their religious views; denying equal civil liberties to those who are LGBTQ; denying a woman’s right of choice to decide what happens to her own body; denying the science of climate change; and so on and on and on. They are actively engaged in passing laws that affect everyone, and they are actively engaged in establishing their religion–however, whenever, and wherever possible–despite whatever the Founders intended.

So, Madison was right to warn of us of the danger.

Of course, this isn’t a recent development. As covered above, there have always been people who have wanted to make this into an officially “Christian Nation,” Madison was aware of them in his time, which is what motivated his warning. And there has always been a segment of American society who assumed this was a “Christian Nation,” simply because of the Christian privilege resulting from the fact there is a Christian majority population here. So, in the past (and still today in many places), there was prayer in school, there were crosses erected at veteran memorials, and so on. But America has always been in the process of becoming, of living up to the ideals it was founded on, ideals that even its Founders weren’t always able to live up to in their own day. So, there have been great strides made, but vigilance has to be eternal because the theocrats are highly motivated and determined to have their way even if it means violating the constitution, or misrepresenting and lying about history or our Founders intentions. Some may be innocent, because they have been brought up to believe things that aren’t true and it fits so well with what they would rather believe. But some are willfully ignorant, and some are outright liars who know better.

Tyranny of the Majority

Many will argue that the “majority rules” in a democracy, so Christians should have their way and everyone else should just accept it and learn to live with it.

Madison was worried that the biggest threat to this Democratic-Republican form of government would be from a “tyranny of the majority.” He wrote to Jefferson in October 1787 asking when a majority… united by a common interest or passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found…?” He predicted that If [one] sect form a majority and have the power, other sects will sure to be depressed.”

He went on to say that he hoped that the new nation would be large and diverse enough, with enough different interests and parties… that no common interest or passion to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit.”

In another letter to Jefferson, he wrote: Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.”

In Federalist Paper 51 he wrote, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

Earlier, in his Memorial and Remonstrance, he wrote, Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?”

Baptists in Madison’s time, for example, supported the separation between church and state. They were a minority Christian sect at the time, and they understood how separation of church and state would help them. They understood the point Madison was making. Baptist minister John Leland, for example, was a significant advocate of separation between church and state in the founding era. Unfortunately, many Baptists began to change their opinion once their numbers grew.

Some argue that they are being persecuted if they have to play on a level field with others. This is the consequences of being so long in the majority and having their way; it’s the result of Christian privilege. As Founder Benjamin Franklin–sometimes called “The First American”–pointed out, If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution.”

Some of the same people who are so irrationally worried about the imaginary threat of having Islamic sharia law in America–that they feel they have to pass laws keep it from happening–are the same people who promote their own Biblical laws, or they pass so-called “Religious Freedom” bills designed to discriminate against the civil liberties of others. They understand why it’s important to have their civil liberties protected from the religious laws of others, but they seem to have no issue oppressing others with their laws based on their religion.

This would seem to go against their own “Golden Rule” commandment of doing unto others as they would have done unto them. That point seems to get missed so often by Christian theocrats that one wonders if they even understand—or are aware of–the implications of their own prime directive.


For over 100 years, Supreme Court rulings have cited Jefferson’s interpretation that the First Amendment established a “wall of separation” between Church and State. Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” and “Architect of the Bill of Rights” thought that the First Amendment meant a “total separation of the Church from the State.” Both of these men–who had most to do with this specific amendment–thought that the First Amendment would protect the “Freedom of Conscience” of every citizen, both thought that any entanglement between the two would corrupt both Church and State, and both thought that separation was “absolutely essential in a free society” to protect the civil rights of everyone, the religious and nonreligious alike.

This is why it’s important to fight for a secular government that maintains the Constitutional principle of separation of Church and State.

For more information:

The Separation of Church and State – introduction

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Is America a Christian Nation?

Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church

James Madison on Separation of Church and State

Church-State Separation – Issues

U.S. Constitution


From 1775 through 1781, the Second Continental Congress functioned as our de facto national government without a Constitution. In 1781, the first Constitution of the United States of America, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, were ratified. From 1781-1789 the Congress of the Confederation operated as our national government.

In 1788, the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the ratification of a new United States Constitution. Significantly, this Constitution did not establish religion, something no government had ever done in the past.

In 1791, the Bill of Rights was adopted as the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (The First Amendment reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”).

In 1797 the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified (Article 11 of the Treaty reads in part: “…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”). Article VI, Sect.2 of the Constitution states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” The Treaty was ratified unanimously and the full text was published in The Philadelphia Gazette on June 17th, 1797, without any record of any public dissent.

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. It made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

For more information:

The U.S. Constitution – transcript

The Bill of Rights – transcript

Treaty of Tripoli – transcript (see Article 11)

Treaty of Tripoli

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America’s Government Is Secular

U.S. Pledge of Allegiance


The original Pledge, as written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892, read:

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

At a National Flag Conference in 1924, the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution changed the words “my Flag” to “the Flag of the United States of America.”

From 1924 through 1954, the Pledge read:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and Cold War “red scare” of communism, a bill was passed by Congress, and was signed into law, adding the words “under God” to the Pledge:

The Pledge currently reads:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Thus, a secular and all-inclusive Pledge was replaced by a religious and exclusive Pledge, dividing the “indivisible” and not providing “justice for all.

For more information:

History of the Pledge

Controversy about the Pledge

Circuit court decision, reactions, etc.

Appeal to the Supreme Court 2003-4

Pledging Allegiance to God

Restore the Pledge

Boycott the Pledge

U.S. National Motto


On July 4, 1776, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were appointed by Congress to prepare a design for the Great Seal of the United States. Although this first design was rejected, the motto it contained-“E Pluribus Unum”-was retained in the final design that was approved in 1782. As a result, “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of Many, One) became our de facto National Motto.

During the Civil War Era, eleven Protestant denominations began a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. Their efforts resulted in the phrase “In God We Trust” being added to some Union coins.

Later, President Theodore Roosevelt expressed his disapproval, writing: “…it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.” He thought it came “dangerously close to sacrilege.”

In 1956, during the McCarthy era and Cold War “red scare” of communism, Congress passed a joint resolution making “In God We Trust” our National Motto.

Thus, our secular and all-inclusive Motto was superseded by a religious and exclusive Motto.

For more information:

History of the National Mottos

E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One)

In God We Trust

The Original Motto Project

The Importance of “Coming Out”

Opening remarks from the 2013 Carolinas Secular Conference

Studies have shown that nonbelievers are the demographic most discriminated against above all others. Surveys have shown that fewer people would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist presidential candidate than would vote for a female, Muslim, African-American, or homosexual. Other studies have shown more respondents say that they would not want their child to marry an atheist, and that atheists as a group did not share their “vision of American society.” A study a few years ago had nonbelievers ranking with rapists as the least trusted demographic.

Even though the Boy Scouts have recently relaxed some of their restrictions regarding having gay members, they still don’t allow nonbelievers. Eight states (including both NC and SC) have exclusionary language towards nonbelievers holding public office included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, official oath of office, or in the body of their constitutions.

In 2009, Cecil Bothwell, a duly elected councilperson in Asheville, N.C, had his right to hold office challenged because of the N.C. Constitution’s religious restriction against anyone that doesn’t believe in a monotheistic God. The restriction ranks at the top of the list, right above treason. The first George Bush supposedly said that he didn’t think “that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots,” and that “This is one nation under God.”

The inspiring words “one nation indivisible” is the way the original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. It defined the nation as a melting pot to which people from all backgrounds and beliefs could contribute. No American was excluded in that statement. These words were both secular and inclusive.

When the phrase “under God” was inserted into the Pledge in 1954, it made the words surrounding them into a lie. It was a direct and deliberate insult to all Americans who do not believe in a monotheistic God and to all Americans who believe in the founding ideals of this country not to establish religion.

The Pledge became religious and exclusive.

Two years later, in 1956, Congress passed an act to adopt a new national motto, this motto would supersede our former de facto national motto, the motto that our founders had given us, the motto that had served this nation well for over 150 years. Instead of the secular and all-inclusive “E Pluribus Unum” — Latin for “Out of Many, One” – our new national motto became the religious and exclusive “In God We Trust,” which again excludes anyone that doesn’t believe in a monotheistic God.

We are made to feel like second class citizens in our own country, and we are not represented as a percentage of our population in government.

It appears that being an atheist is the last demographic most people feel they can openly disparage without fear of social repercussions.

We face both official and social discrimination. There are many of you here in groups who know people who are afraid to come out. Some fear that it will adversely affect their jobs or businesses, or that they might be disowned by their friends or families. When some do stand up and come out for one reason or another, they sometimes face bullying, bigotry, and even death threats. Some people here know this from personal experience.

The official and social discrimination and intimidation–that keeps many in the closet–keeps us marginalized and underrepresented. It makes it easier for those who try to promote the mythology that this nation was founded on so-called “Judeo-Christian principles” and for them to erode the separation between church and state in many areas. It makes it easier for theocrats to push for the establishment of religion (as some of our state representatives attempted to do in the last session). It makes it easier for those who want to push intelligent design in school science classes, for those who want to keep our children from learning the facts about birth control, and for those who actually want to bring church services into our public schools. It makes it easier for those who want to control a woman’s reproductive system, for those who want to discriminate about who can marry who, and even for those who don’t want to do anything about climate change (after all, Jesus is a-comin’ soon).

Almost every conflict in the world can be divided along religious lines. Even when religion isn’t the main reason for the conflict, it is always a exacerbating factor. People throughout the world are suffering and dying every day–directly or indirectly–because of religious extremists, and the moderates who provide them with the protective shell or the fertile ground for extremism to grow. It is the root cause of many of the problems we have, from suicide hijackers expecting to be rewarded with virgins for crashing planes into buildings, to children dying of AIDS in Africa because of policies in programs that avoid teaching about birth control contraceptives.

There are even some who look forward to the so-called “End Times” and would like to make it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. They expect humanity to ultimately FAIL. I see these people as the biggest threat to the future of humanity, and I personally don’t want anyone who believes in “End Times” in control of my future.

I respect the freedom of conscience of every individual to believe or not believe whatever they like, so I don’t want to fight these people on a battlefield. I want to eventually win out in the marketplace of ideas. I don’t want humanity to fail. I would like to see humanity SUCCEED, to evolve and progress into the indefinite future. I have hope for the future of humanity, or else I wouldn’t be here before you today.

Some in the secular community are so intimidated by religion in society that they don’t expect to see much change. They think it’s always been this way, so it always will be. But I submit that things ARE changing, and that there is something new in this world that’s never been a part of it before that is making the difference. The X factor in the equation today is the internet. For the first time in the history of humanity, religion will have to fight it out in the marketplace of ideas like it’s never had to do before.

The number of those professing no religion is the fastest growing demographic in the U.S. and the world, while overall religious belief has declined as a percentage of the population. If you look back on the rise of the nonreligious, it seems to coincide with the rise of the internet. It seems that even despite the fact that the religious are outbreeding us, we are gaining ground.

According to an ARIS survey, “Based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification” in 2008, roughly 12% of Americans are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable or unsure), and another 12% are deistic (a higher power but no personal God). And our demographic has only gone up since then with almost 1/3 of the youngest generation surveyed now saying they are not religious. Polling from the Pew Research Center found the number of “nones” among all Americans grew from about 15% in 2007 to just under 20% in 2012. Nonreligious Americans now outnumber Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons combined.

Yet many of these other groups have great political clout, while we have almost none at all. None of these other groups feel they need to stay in the closet about what they believe, or have any problem sharing their worldview with others.

A 2005 study of religiosity, secularism and societal health in different countries found that more secular societies functioned better in comparison with more religious societies, with lower teen pregnancy rates, lower abortion rates, lower STD infection rates, lower juvenile and early adult mortality rates, and lower homicide rates. In 2009, a study of religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States found that teenage birth rates are higher in more religious states, even after controlling for differences in income and rates of abortion. Other studies have found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt, that rates among conservative Christians are the highest, and “The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.” There are even fewer nonbelievers in prison as a percentage of their population than any other demographic. So there are practical reasons to try to challenge the prevailing situation.

We have seen some very positive changes in the attitude people have towards the LGBTQ community recently, with over a dozen states now recognizing same-sex marriages. That community has come a long way towards gaining respect and their civil rights in my lifetime. The nontheist community can learn a lot from their efforts over the years. Perhaps the biggest lesson we can learn that we might apply toward ours, which has also been confirmed by studies, is that “coming out” will have the greatest effect in bringing about change. When people find out they personally know someone who is a nonbeliever, they are less likely to hold bigoted opinions about them. We need to let people know that we are their friends, neighbors, coworkers and family members. And we should be as free as anyone else to express our views openly.

I’ve now provided you with some of the many reasons I am out and why I think it is important for as many others to come out as possible. I understand that there are many practical reasons that many will not be able to come out, but I’d like to encourage as many to do so as can, and I’d like to encourage as many others to become active in this movement (to whatever degree possible), even if they can’t come out. The more people who can come out, the easier it will be for others to do so, and so on, until there is no longer any reason for anyone to remain in the closet.

I think it’s important to come out to bring about a better society and a better world. I think it’s important to come out for the future of humanity. And I think it’s important to come out for yourself and others. If you can come out, please do.

Regardless of if you can come out or not, please get involved to whatever extent you can. Be a part of the civil rights movement of our time. “We must be the change we hope to see in the world.”