Nonbelievers flex their political muscles

One of the biggest growth areas in political activism around religion is coming from an unlikely source: the nonreligious. And it's happening far from the marbled corridors of power in the nation's capital.

The Secular Coalition for America, an umbrella organization that represents 11 nontheistic groups including American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, is looking to take its secular-based activism out of the nation’s capital and into the states.

Beginning in June, the Washington-based SCA will install directors in 18 states including Hawaii, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Alabama. State directors will meet with local politicians and train and mobilize local nontheists to lobby on behalf of secular issues and causes.

Why? Activists say the most important policies that affect nonbelievers don't come from Washington.

“The majority of erosion to church-state separation is at the local level,” said Serah Blain, the SCA’s first state director, appointed in Arizona in January. “It’s in city councils and school boards and statehouses. And that’s where these things really affect people’s lives, with laws on bullying and abortion and access to health care. And they are passing without much opposition because it isn’t seen as glamorous to lobby locally.”

Continue reading at www.religionnews.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

JohnBoy

Do not let the non-theists fool you by asserting that the "Constitution is Secular"!! Our government was formed by BOTH the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution. The Declaration provided the MORAL and LEGAL authority for ALL subsequent "structural" documents, and it clearly states our reliance on God and our Creator as the source of our unalienable rights. Further, the individual state constitutions ALL acknowledge reliance on God in there structure of government. So much for the empty assertions of a "secular founding".
- http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
  
  JohnBoy, the Declaration of Independence uses Thomas Jefferson's generic Masonic terms for god. By the definition of 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 John 1:7-11, Jefferson was an antichrist. It's a stretch, at best, to claim that Jefferson was referring to the same God that you (I hope) and I love, serve, and worship.
  
  The fact that the state constitutions require a Christian test oath for civil leadership (something the federal Constitution bans in Article 6) is negated in that they completely ignored Biblical qualifications, that they nowhere based their legislation upon Yahweh's morality, and by the remainder of their constitutions' blatant humanism. For example, Section V of Massachusetts’ State Constitution reads, “All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them….” This not only stands in stark contrast to Matthew 28:18, etc., it is humanistic blasphemy. Section VIII goes on to declare that officials are “at all times accountable to” the people, rather than to Yahweh.
  
  I know all of this hard to take; we Christians want so much for the Constitution to be our document, but it just ain't so.
- daves
  
  These folks are on our side by keeping government out of religion.
http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

Before everyone "knee-jerks" on this one, particular as it pertains to the sign which reads "The US Constitution is Secular," stop and let us reason together. Just because this is the popular position of non-Christians and atheists, does not mean it's automatically incorrect. Don't fall into the trap of arguing the wrong side just because the opposition has taken an opposing side.

Here's Random House 2000 College dictionary's definition for "secular": "1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred; temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred: secular music. 3. concerned with non-religious subjects…."

Now, let's judge the Constitution by these definitions as it concerns Christianity in particular. The Constitution is unequivocally a Godless, Christless, antinomian document. What I mean by this is that it nowhere mentions, refers to, or credits Yahweh, Christ, or Yahweh's moral law in the document. That alone is enough to qualify it as secular document. But there's more. Not only did the framers not expressly establish the Constitution on Yahweh's morality, there is hardly an article or amendment, that in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh's morality and sovereignty in some fashion. Don't believe me. Check out "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" (at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/blvc-index.php) in which I examine every article and amendment by Yahweh's commandments, statues, and judgments.

Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey… and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."
Evermyrtle

I always think I have heard the worse. This shows me, there is worse to come. Sending our non-believers, or anti-believers to teach us what "we need to know?" There is no GOD, no JESUS CHRIST?!" I do hope I have misunderstand what I have read.
hme745

Whoa , Johnboy ! – keep calm. Your correct but that same constitution invites the Secularist to the political conversation. The framers of the Constitution were concerned about their experience with European countries which ruled using the capricious viewpoints in the name of one church ( Anglican, Catholic, etc) created and molded by the Monarchy of the time AND they were also concerned about the unbending views of the Puritans , that resulted in things like Witch burnings. They wanted to emphasize that— God's law / guidance is much better and more enduring to follow and not a corrupted version of an integrated Church/ State. So Secularists want to be part of the American political conversation and have influence. Our job is to keep us centered on the word and intent of the Constitution; which , I believe, was inspired by the goodness in humans –placed there by God. ps. In my opinion, we have to many laws — I stand with anyone who wants to fully examine our current laws to see if they meet a US Constitional standard.
bighoss

As long as there are Christian nationalist theocrats who control governmental bodies and the content of their public meetings, there will be preference and exclusivity shown to Christianity and the humanist/atheist sector will see that and will respond with demands it be terminated. And because they are right about the matter, the courts will rule in their favor and the theocrats will slink off licking their wounds and predicting decay and doom. Same song, 132nd verse…and on and on.

Church is church; state is state. The Constitution DOES provide for separation of the two, whether those exact words appear in it or not. Grow up and live with it. As a Christian, I am very comfortable with that. It helps to assure that no theocratic nutjob can have undue influence in governmental matters.
http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

From the article:

“The majority of erosion to church-state separation is at the local level,” said Serah Blain, the SCA’s first state director, appointed in Arizona in January. “It’s in city councils and school boards and statehouses. And that’s where these things really affect people’s lives, with laws on bullying and abortion and access to health care. And they are passing without much opposition because it isn’t seen as glamorous to lobby locally.”

If we take the position that our vote is important I am puzzled as to why we do not do more on the local level to see our representatives vote according to our views. But even more important may be the fact that we do not run for these offices ourselves. Why?