Is atheism a religion?

by Shaun McGonigal

I've been paying attention to how people in the media address atheism. With such personalities as Bill O'Reilly, the "God Squad," and other theistic people on the scene, it should be no surprise that I'd be frustrated. I'm not frustrated that there are theists stating their opinion, as I believe in and would fight for their right to do so. No, rather it is the argumentation given that disturbs me. In a recent NPR interview on "Talk of the Nation" a commentator offers up the old claim that atheism is a religion; that is requires as much faith (if not more!) as belief in God. So, is this true? Is atheism a religion? Does it require faith?

Put simply, no. That is ludicrous. Atheism is a religion in the same way that baldness is a hair color. It requires faith in the same way as people who don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn requires faith; in other words it doesn't.

But before I address the question in more depth, I would like to supply a quote of Einstein's, which I find to be thought provoking and relevant:

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."

It is in this sense that an atheist might be considered religious, and no other. Richard Dawkins has expressed a similar view, and agrees that he is religious in this sense. This deep awe of mystery is something that can be appreciated with or without a belief in any deity.

However, it seems disingenuous to equivocate this specific and unorthodox use of the word 'religious' with it's more common use; to conflate this sense of awe that atheists can feel with what we usually call 'religion.' A universally accepted and universal definition of religion is a difficult task. That is, many definitions that we can refer to will seem to exclude some other things that we generally call religious. If we say religion requires God, then we are leaving out religious traditions that often don't require a god such as much of Buddhism. If we stretch the definition to something like "devotion to something" or something equally vague, then we essentially define it to be meaningless; does my devotion to hockey make hockey a religion? Is baseball a religion? How about stamp collecting?

Wikipedia defines religion as follows:

"Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought."

This seems like a fair definition, thus I will use it as a guidepost for my attempt to answer the question at hand. It may not be the most accurate of definitions, but I believe it to be largely uncontroversial and it suffices for our use here.

So, what's an atheist? My definition, a definition shared by many atheists within my radar, is that atheism is the lack of belief in god. Some will include those that say god does not exist (the so-called 'strong' atheists), but I believe that the only necessary aspect of atheism is the lack of belief. The assertion that god does not exist is certainly sufficient for someone being an atheist, but said assertion is certainly not necessary but rather in addition to the lack of belief.

So, with these definitions in hand, let me address the relevant questions.

Is atheism the lack of religion?

I address this because some people try to answer the question of whether atheism is a religion by suggesting that atheism is simply the lack of religion. This does not hold up for a number of reasons. The first, as mentioned above, is that it would imply that non-theistic religions are actually not religions at all. Despite the fact that Zen Buddhism does not claim that gods do not exist (nor that they do!), I think that most of us would agree that Zen should be included as a religion. It has specific practices, is based on the teachings of a person (the Buddha as well as other Buddhist teachers), and is shared by a common group (other Buddhists).

One might argue that Zen might not technically be atheistic, as it seems to be more of a position of doubt. However, I argue that the distinction between atheism and theism is sharp; there is no middle ground. The proposed middle ground of agnosticism is incorrect, as agnosticism is an answer to what we know, not what we believe. I, for example am an agnostic atheist; I lack belief in gods, but ultimately I do not claim to know for sure. Thus someone without an active and conscious belief in god is an atheist. This includes people who reserve judgment. Further, if any Zen Buddhist could be found that did not believe in gods, this lack of belief would not be in contradiction with his or her being a Buddhist, and therefore someone could be both a Buddhist and an atheist.

Another reason is that the simple lack of belief in the many gods of religion does not necessarily make one anti-religious. There are many beautiful rituals, writings, and other aspects of religious practice that someone who did not accept the claims of gods can appreciate. Further, one might still remain as part of a theistic community and participate in the rituals, songs, etc., without believing in the god of said religion. In this sense, we might call that person a religious atheist, just like the Buddhist above.

Finally, the question of whether one believes in God has nothing to do with being religious; someone who is a theist is not necessarily religious. Simply believing gods exist does not mean that person is also a member of some religion or not. The point being that atheism is not simply the lack of religion, as a person's atheism/theism does not have anything directly to do with being religious or irreligious.

Does atheism require faith?

People, such as Ray Comfort from Way of the Master, have tried to argue that there are no atheists. His argument is that in order to prove that god does not exist; the atheist would have to know everything. Nobody knows everything, so nobody can know there is no god. Looking past Comfort's misunderstanding of what an atheist is, the point he's making is that when someone says they believe there is no god, they are making a faith claim; one that many apologists claim is a stronger claim than the theist makes. Atheists, according to people that propose this argument, believe something extraordinary without being capable of knowing it for sure. This is simply not the case.

What is faith? The way I understand and use the term, it means a belief in something either despite the lack of evidence for it or evidence against it. Thus, faith is essentially irrational; it is not held for rational reasons, but rather outside of rationality. Atheism cannot require faith because atheism does not require any beliefs at all-rational or not.

To believe in the stories of the various religions, which have little to no supporting evidence one must accept them despite this lack of evidence. Most Christians believe that Jesus Christ lived, preached, performed miracles, was crucified, and on the third day rose from the dead. They believe this person was God-incarnate. This is an article of faith, as no historical evidence could verify this. Even if the historical events that were supposed to have happened actually occurred, the belief Jesus was God is something that must be accepted by faith. In short, faith has an object it believes in; it is a belief.

Atheism does not require faith because it is simply a lack of a specific kind of belief. Atheism only exists because some people make claims; they claim there is a god, and it's like this, this, or this. The atheist simply rejects the claim. When someone comes along and says that the atheist has a belief-that god does not exist-they are incorrect because they misunderstand what atheism is. As I discussed above, this assertion that god does not exist, while held by many atheists, is not the definition of atheism itself but is an extension of the lack of belief.

Conclusion

So, what does all this amount to? Atheism is the lack of belief in any and all god concepts that particular theists propose. It is the responsibility of the theist, the one making a theological claim, to bear the burden of proof. Their religious conviction (whatever it may be), if it claims a god exists, is the proposal and the atheist hears that proposal and says "no, I don't believe that." The atheist is not making any claim at all. What the atheist does is reject the claim and lack belief in the gods the theists propose.

The only thing that ties atheists together is the shared lack of belief-and this is a very loose tie. Getting atheists to organize, agree, or in general share anything in addition to this lack of belief is like herding cats. There are no rituals, social coherence, or beliefs at all. There is a simple lack of belief. That's it. If two atheists happen to share a belief, there is no significance to atheism at all.

Part of the confusion is, I think, based in the fact that atheism has the "—ism" in it. This is because atheism comes from a-theist, not because it comes from athe-ism or anything like that. It's not a positive assertion but a lack of acceptance of millions of assertions by theists. That is, atheism is the lack (a- means lack of, or 'without') of theism (belief in god).

And if particular atheists act in a religious way, either in awe of their beliefs (a la Einstein's mysteries) or in some evangelical fervor to spread their atheism to the world, this is not evidence of them being religious. Their actions might share common characteristics of religious people, but that's merely because these characteristics are part of human nature and have been understandably adopted by religion over the millennia. Religion is a human activity, so its attributes will be common to most humans, even the ones that happen to not believe in god. But atheism itself is a specific philosophical answer to a particular question. Anything else the person who gives this answer does is strictly in addition to their being an atheist. It is not part of their atheism.

So, unless we are willing to call the lack of belief in god, which has no beliefs, rituals, etc. at all, a religion, atheism does not qualify as a religion. Anyone who claims atheism is a religion needs to be called on it and corrected.

Comments? ShaunPhilly@gmail.com

"Why are atheists angry?"

by Shaun McGonigal

"Why are you so angry?" I've been asked this question by theists in the past. My favorite, however, has to be this one; "why do you hate God?" Anyone who has ever spent any significant time discussing religion or atheism with non-believers will eventually notice a bit of frustration concerning religious beliefs. This frustration is, admittedly, a part of many atheists' lives. Why? Well, it's simply because atheists are humans, and humans experience emotions just like anyone else. But there is more to it than that. Living in a society dominated by religion, superstition, and often-blind ignorance is enough to frustrate most skeptical and thinking individuals. This is a frustration felt by many who feel that most of the people around them are missing something that seems so obvious to them. It may not be the best response from a thinking person, but it is a human one.

The relationship between rationality and emotion is described in many ways throughout history. In the history of religion, the distinctions between the two are legion, and any treatment of the question here would be insufficient. Suffice it to say that in many religious traditions, in particular the dominant Abrahamic religions, the distinction between the intellect and emotion has been mostly dualistic; that is, they have been articulated as the difference between our sinful nature and our "god-like" spark of divine reason. It is this ability to reason that, say many theologians, separates us from the animals. This idea, derived from ancient philosophical ideas from such thinkers as Zoroaster and Plato, is pervasive in many cultures and manifests in the idea of the body/soul dichotomy, nature and super-nature, Satan and God, etc.

But the advent of science and related fields has shown some light on the matter that questions the simple dichotomy of emotion and rationality. According to neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists, emotion even plays a vital role in how we think about the world rationally. That is, the distinction between rational thinking and feeling emotions is not as divergent as once thought. Of course, many religious traditions have admitted this closer relationship, so this fact is not presented as a means to divide religion and science on this question of the role emotion plays in rational thinking. Rather, it is presented to show that the atheist and the theist have much more in common than either may want to admit.

Today, in Western culture at least, it is the idea that what makes us human is that we can think about problems unbiased by the animal-like instincts and passions. In more evangelical Christian language, what makes us 'saved' the wisdom of God versus our Satanic temptations and influences towards sin. It is not an exact analogy at all, and it is the difference between the two that makes the question "why are you angry?" and "why do you hate God?" so interesting.

In the secular world, we ask questions about reasons, proof, evidence, and other such things. We are not concerned with how well we are following the rules of some divine judgment or whether we are following some example well or not. From the perspective of an atheist like myself, a Christian asking me why I hate God is like asking me why I hate 8-foot invisible bunnies who will eat me for not believing they exist. It's simply ridiculous to ask such a thing because it would be ridiculous to believe in such a thing. We atheists may come across as angry because we are frustrated by being asked the same questions, presented with the same stories, and faced with the same blatant ignorance concerning the theory of Natural Selection, how the universe can look so designed without a designer, etc. When we are angry, we are angry because ignorant fundamentalists frustrate us.

However, the simple fact is that we aren't angry, at least not as atheists per se; being angry is not a necessary part of being an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in a supernatural being with some usual attributes such as being the creator of the universe, wrote/inspired some holy text, is the judge of us when we die, etc. How could we be angry at a being that we don't believe exists? Well, in two words, we cannot. That having been said, I want to explore some personal as well as observed factors of atheist anger.

What are we angry about?

I think we are all frustrated, and this is partially a disclaimer, by religious fundamentalism. I have no quarrel with religion in general, even if I have no need for any religion myself and consider it a wasted effort. I know many religious people whom I respect, and they know of my atheism and I leave their religious beliefs alone. There are a number of religious traditions (some of which are arguably philosophical and not religious per se), which I highly respect. I, however, have no respect, at all, for fundamentalist religion. Biblical literalism, young-Earth creationism, jihadism, dominionism, and other related ideologies are dangerous, moronic, and based in ignorance and fear. Therefore, this rant against religion is against fundamentalism and all that acts to support it directly and indirectly, including much of the moderate friends and family of fundamentalists that fail to challenge this dirge.

The first point of frustration for atheists are the many god-concepts that we find lacking in good qualities and are yet considered the origin of morality. There is a distinction between being angry at God and being angry at the idea of God. That is, being angry at the idea of some god-concepts does not grant that said deity exists, but merely that if said god-concept did exist, we would have reason to be angry at it and, perhaps, to not find it worthy of worship. And there are many concepts of God that some atheists find repugnant, a good example would be YHWH of the Torah (Old Testament). This vengeful, jealous, and violent god seems more like a war-lord or tyrant than anything that I'd ever worship even if I were convinced it existed.

And while these non-ideal attributes of a deity are not sufficient to claim the impossibility of that particular god-concept's existence, it is enough to create frustration that many people find this concept to be not only the basis for morality but the pinnacle of justice and perfectly good and loving. Ethics are possible without utilizing the fear (or love) of God as a basis.

A second point of contention is Pascal's wager. I'm sure you've heard it before, and it goes something like the following; you should believe in God because if God exists and you are right, you go to heaven (or whatever your god promises you), but if you are wrong then you'll just die anyway and it won't matter. If you don't believe and you are wrong, God will punish you, and if you are right then you're just going to die anyway, so what does it matter? Every time I hear this I feel a combination of frustration, amusement, and plain disbelief that anyone is actually able to say this with a straight face.

What if you believe in and worship the wrong God? What happens if you spend your life praying to Jesus and keep getting Allah angrier and angrier? If Pascal's wager was a good decision-making tool, you'd have to believe just about everything that had serious consequences attached to it, just in case it's right. The problem is when they conflict. Believe in the 8-foot bunny and pray to him every night or you will be tickled endlessly for eternity by miniature horses who will only take breaks to stab you with hot needles. Believe, because if you're wrong....

Further, there is another problem with the wager; by believing in and following the rules of some religion (usually the one your raised with) which also happens to be false, you might be depriving yourself of many things that life has to offer you that your religion says is wrong. I'm sure many Christian-raised homosexuals have experienced this while feeling guilty about how they feel sexually because it is considered a sin. The fact that people hold onto millennia-old superstitions based on stone-age social norms is infuriating to me as well as many advocates of gay rights.

Another source of ire for atheists include the myriad of assumptions and stereotypes surrounding atheists. A study that was released earlier in 2006 showed how Americans have discriminatory views of atheists over every other group, including Moslems. This is not to say that people should discriminate against Moslems over atheists (nobody should discriminate purely on grounds of religious belief or lack therefore). But the study showed that people would not consider atheists as sharing their view of American values nor would they allow their children to marry atheists if they had the choice.

All of the attributes associated to atheists, usually by theists who either fear or misunderstand our lack of belief, are false except for one; we don't believe in God. Nothing else necessarily follows from this. One can lack belief in a god and still believe in universal or absolute morals. One could be of any political persuasion. One could really like religion and not believe in God. One could be immature, immoral, and mean; another mature, moral, and very nice (or any combination thereof, perhaps).

Perhaps most frustrating is the attempts by many religious people, playing the role of the repressed minority (that's a laugh), to establish through political and legal means the religiosity of our society. Laws, policies, and declarations intended to establish the moral ideas of a particular sect or interpretation of any religious book is a direct affront to personal liberty and freedom of conscience concerning religious matters. These notions are the bedrock of the concept of Freedom as understood by those who created this republic in which we live. It makes me angry to see evangelicals try to enforce what they see as moral on those who disagree.

But what is most infuriating to me is to see the effects that stone-age superstition and absurd theological ideas has on society at large. I'm frustrated, in particular, because the potential for human progress, both individually and collectively, is hampered by religious ideology. The constraints of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many other religious traditions that limit sexual behavior, "traditional" (read, religious) definitions of marriage, censorship, manipulation and deception of the masses for profit and control, and many other effects that religious belief has on people prevent real progress in our society. If I want to be a bisexual, polyamorous (that means being in a long-term relationship with more than one other person), non-believing, marijuana-smoking, beer-drinking, rock-music listening to, happy, heathen, then the religious wrong can kiss my ass.

Final thoughts

Being somewhat of a geek as well as an atheist, I'll tend to think of things in terms of Star Wars. In Episode I, the young Anakin Skywalker is asked if he is afraid (well, Yoda actually contorts the question somewhat differently). Anakin does not understand the pertinence of the question, and Yoda replies that "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you."

I must admit that I am a little afraid about the direction of our culture. I see a Evangelical world who does not care about anything except their beliefs battling a secular world without respect for one-another to a large degree. I'm afraid that we have people who believe in something dangerous and others that, having moved away from religion, have not yet realized the immense responsibility we all have within a world without a god.

Just like in Towing Jehovah, the idea of the death of God hits some people with a license to do anything one wants. But a secular world can also be a humanist one. I'm angry because I'm afraid that before the world realizes that humanist values, which many atheists prescribe to with much thought and feeling, will not win out before the full potential of religious destruction is felt. I hope that I, as well as the rest of the world, deals with my anger well-enough to prevent it becoming hate and eventually suffering. I hope we can all avoid the dark side.

I, however, am only directly responsible for my own fear and anger. I'll do what I can to help the rest of the world.

Battle Cry

by Shaun McGonigal

Thousands of young Christians gathered together at the Wachovia Spectrum in South Philadelphia during the weekend of May 12 to listen to rock bands, abstinence-based sex education, and anti-secular media polemics. Christ-o-palooza, you say? Not exactly. With military imagery and language, a video greeting from George W. Bush, and a constant bashing of a secular worldview, Battle Cry (www.battlecry.com) was much more than a rock concert sprinkled with Jesus talk.

Battle Cry is supposed to be a solution for a media-brainwashed generation plagued with moral uncertainty and "dangerous" messages. Whatever else we can say of it, Battle Cry is indeed a solution. The question is whether it is the correct approach to what a very conservative group of Christians sees as a problem with our culture and whether it addresses the correct issues. The answer is a resounding NO!

The fact that I'm an atheist, and therefore admittedly biased against the message being carried by Ron Luce and his organization, Teen Mania (which is responsible for the recent Battle Cry events), does not invalidate all the criticism that will be thrown at them from this metaphorical pulpit. I don't believe the Battle Cry solution is wrong only because I disagree with their beliefs, but because I do not trust their intentions. They claim to be a solution to a problem with secular culture when it seems they are simply in competition with the mass media they claim is manipulating today's youth.

The fact is that there are many Christians and other non-atheists who are equally as critical of this movement for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, their use of military imagery and language, questionable statistics used to bolster their arguments in support of (for example) abstinence, and their openly anti-homosexual agenda. It will not be my intention to offer a comprehensive account of these criticisms, but rather to focus on a particular set of issues that Battle Cry addresses: the media and its secular influence on teens.

Their primary issue is to prevent secular brainwashing. The solution, it seems, is to do some brainwashing themselves.

Preparing for the Event

The night before Battle Cry came to Philadelphia, I attended a meeting held by The World Can't Wait (WCW; www.worldcantwait.org), an organization concerned about the current administration as well as the threat of the theocratic-like control that movements like Teen Mania seem to support. Also present at this meeting were the authors of www.acquiretheevidence.com, who have been following and criticizing Ron Luce and his ministries for more than seven years. The picture that they painted for us was both unsettling and insightful, and any serious investigation of Ron Luce or his Teen Mania Ministries must go through them.

What became clear is that there are many people who are concerned with declining church attendance, especially among young people. The problem, as Luce and his Teen Mania Ministries sees it, is that most teenagers are having a secular worldview "crammed down their throats" (his words) and are therefore buying into a lie. The result is STDs, pregnancy, and moral depravity on a large scale. The solution is, of course, Jesus. By convincing young people that a life "in Christ" is preferable to the secular culture around them, more young people will become active in their churches, and the declining church attendance will reverse in order to help those in charge of those churches to climb out of debt.

The Battle Cry events themselves are only the cannon from which thousands of fired up evangelists will hit the schools, their friends, and anywhere else that their "battle cry" leads them. The battle is a long-term strategy to make sure that the "war" between the secular world and the evangelical Christian one continues to have Christian soldiers. The battlefield is the cultural marketplace. The issues are gay marriage, abortion, sex outside of marriage, and other conservative Christian agenda that, if Teen Mania is successful, would initiate a culture of restricted freedom. The language and rhetoric is presented in unambiguously militaristic tones intended to amplify the so-called culture wars. The secular world is the enemy. And by secular, they seem to mean anything that doesn't share their limited worldview of Biblical Law.

With this in mind, I traveled down to the stadium to see for myself the training ground for an opponent that I'm not at war with. And from what I saw, the message was beginning to stick with many of the trainees, but thankfully not the militaristic tone. They were, of course, more than happy to speak with me and the protesters from WCW; thus, lively (but mostly friendly) discussion ensued. They did not treat us as enemies, but rather as people whom they simply did not understand. I admit to seeing some problems with mass media and popular culture, but I don't believe that the Bible is the answer or that any battle is necessary. I believe that these kids who see a problem with their generation have the ability to solve the problems without any battle cries or discriminatory ideologies. I don't think they need Ron Luce at all; I rather think Ron Luce needs them.

I wasn't going with the intention of discussing the finer points of atheism or Christianity, but rather to observe the phenomenon myself in order to better understand the propaganda. I wanted to see how the message was presented and how it was being received. But when confronted with a group of evangelicals in an event such as this, an atheist is quickly put in a position to explain their position and becomes quickly surrounded by a dozen or more interested set of ears and tongues.

I took the time to try and explain the atheist position and found myself having to defend myself against ideas that seemed filled with fear and misunderstanding. The dislike of homosexuality—lack of comfort with most expressions of sexuality in general, actually—and anger at a world that seemed intent on manipulating them was resonating with most of those with whom I spoke. It was a perfect fertile ground for planting the seeds of Ron Luce's agenda, and it was starting to work already. While talking with some people there, I was offered a free pass to enter the stadium and see the event myself. I happily accepted and went in.

The "Crisis"

The primary dangers that the contemporary teen in America has to deal with, according to Ron Luce, is their enslavement to the media and what it tries to sell. Here is a quote from Battle Cry's Web site:

A stealthy enemy has infiltrated our country and is preying upon the hearts and minds of 33 million American teens. Corporations, media conglomerates, and purveyors of popular culture have spent billions to seduce and enslave our youth. So far, the enemy is winning. But there is plenty we can do. We need to take action. We need to answer the Battle Cry.

Again and again, the media was accused of manipulating young people in order to sell an image and a lifestyle to teens. Sex, pornography, and "lies" about safe sex are helping destroy our youth while the media is helping uphold a secular worldview that, according to Teen Mania, is dangerous and untrue.

Battle Cry brought these predominantly young Christians together to address a problem with the secular world that presents America's youth with "harmful" and "untrue" messages. And from talking to the teens that were there, it is clear that there are many teens who agree that the "crisis" is real, that that the current young generation is aware of this manipulation and wants to do something about it.

I applaud them for being so aware and wanting to take action. At least that is what I heard while listening to various speakers as well as those to whom the message was intended. One teen from the Reading area, in response to a question as to whether the goals of Battle Cry were a good idea, responded that it was better "than smoking pot and watching porn all the time." Perhaps, but I wonder why he saw the choice as being so limited. If he wasn't a Christian, would he have to succumb to the things he already seems to not like?

I rebuke Ron Luce and Teen Mania Ministries for offering a parochial and disingenuous course of action as response to the perceived crisis. They commit one of the most common logical fallacies, one that pervades the vast majority of evangelical Christian argument—the fallacy of false choice. Teen Mania declares that America's youth have a choice between sin and God, Heaven and Hell, declaring a battle cry or being a slave to a world that is merely trying to control them in order to make money. There are other ways to deal with these issues. There are good ways, humanist and secular ways, to repair a damaged culture. Secular does not mean without religion, it simply means without only religion. We can fix these problems without the Bible as a guide, and these teens can still remain Christian, if they so choose.

For example, Adbusters has been dealing with issues related to media manipulation for some time as well. Their methods are not based upon the same ideas as Teen Mania, but they are addressing a similar problem. The popularity of Adbusters seems to lend credibility to the ideas that the problem is real and that young people are aware of it. It seems that the current young generation has internalized this approach to consumer culture and is fed up with it. Great! But it begs the question; why do they need a Battle Cry then? If they are already aware of the problem, and from what I saw they seem very aware of it, why do they need Ron Luce and Teen Mania Ministries?

The Solution?

On the surface, it looks like Teen Mania is promoting that young people stop being slaves to a consumer culture that is simply trying to make money by selling products and ideas that help further endorse those types of products. It looks like an organization that is trying to free young people from the bonds of marketing manipulation, a culture of instant gratification ruled by emotion. To me, it looks like a brilliant ad campaign that is attempting to pull young people away from one market to another. After all, to register for the event was neither free nor cheap, and during the event Ron Luce asked people to contribute to evangelical causes while hundreds of volunteers passed buckets down the aisles.

Further, there are Christian-oriented media affiliated with Teen Mania, such as Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham, who stand to gain much from shifting teen attention from MTV to their various programs. Think how much Pat Robertson and the 700 Club would benefit with a loyal audience younger than 21 for the next 50 years. This looks more like a long-term marketing strategy than the saving of souls.

I'm willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that there are some significant issues to be addressed concerning media-controlled culture. Unwanted pregnancies, STDs, sexual violence, killing, drug addictions, and problems with how many young people treat eachother in general are significant problems. Working at an inner-city school, I see these types of problems all the time, and I agree they need to be addressed. The solution presented by Teen Mania, however, is not an attempt to solve the problem, but rather to ignore it—literally. Those who attended the Battle Cry event were not encouraged to challenge the culture around them or to try and become part of an organized effort to fix it, but rather to move away from it.

During his sermons, Ron Luce asks teens to ignore the lies told to them by people advocating "safe sex" (referred to as one of the biggest lies of secular culture) and other things considered sinful in the eyes of Ron Luce's ministries. This is not a solution to any problem, this is ignoring the problem to keep a wall between secular culture and those who choose to live in a world ruled by some vague, discriminatory, and frankly unethical rules of behavior such as discrimination and repression of rights.

This is the result of the militaristic imagery. It separates people and forces them to look at one another as if across a battlefield. Instead of seeing those around them "in sin" as neighbors, they are told to see culture around them as an enemy. It's much easier to reproach the secular world for its sins if they are told to separate themselves from it. If these Christian teens are told that they are to separate themselves from and not view themselves as part of the secular community, then perhaps there is no log in the eye of evangelical Christians battling against the secular world with mere splinters obstructing their sight. Instead of reaching out to help, they draw lines of distinction that make neighbor-like communication impossible.

Sex outside of marriage? No. Abortion? Absolutely not! Homosexuality? Not unless you like hellfire. Condoms? Not effective. Some harmless secular music now and then? It will brainwash you to want all sex and violence. MTV? Nothing but half-naked women tempting you to sin. Pornography? More sin encouraging masturbation, which is also a sin. Thinking for yourself? Only if the conclusions you reach happen to agree with Teen Mania's interpretation of the Bible; otherwise, you're being deceived by a set of lies intended to enslave you.

That, my friends, sounds like brainwashing to me. It does not sound like the freedom that sets people free. Those advocating freedom would never ask you to ignore something, they would ask you to confront and challenge it. Hopefully, many of these teens who attended Battle Cry will choose to confront these issues; if they do, they can help us fix the problems, not simply change the brand name they buy.

Teen Mania seems to be pulling in the younger people, who have more energy and desire to create a solution, and leading them toward a very limited solution. These kids are already the leaders in many respects because they came there in an effort to do something. The idea is to train the natural leaders so that they can influence those that follow them, whether consciously or not. It is a brilliant but manipulative strategy that will probably work, creating another generation of brainwashed kids. Some will be brainwashed by the mass media who are simply trying to make money by using enticing ideas; the others will be brainwashed by those who desire to spread discriminatory ideas while making money. Choose your evil.

A Better Solution

Instead of replacing one kind of brainwashing with another, why not simply encourage these young people to use their own abilities to think about these issues on their own? It is true that mass media does not generally encourage thinking and it is manipulative, so something needs to be done. The attitude of those with which I spoke seems to include the necessary energy and ability to think about these issues, but the Battle Cry message seems to herd that energy into a very narrow channel that stifles independent thought and broad education. It is a highly parochial approach to a problem that these kids already seem to be willing and able to solve.

Personally, I will always appreciate the few who don't allow any large group to manipulate them. Of course, herding people like this is kind of like herding cats. Independent people don't organize well. Those that are herded easily are people who, seeing a problem, need someone so provide a solution. Battle Cry will have been a success as long as they can win the marketing strategy against the "secular world." As for this secular brainwashing, see my previous article ("Secular Inconspiracy"); it simply does not exist. The best way to brainwash people, it seems, is to convince people that you are combating the brainwashing by others.

Christianity, in general, feeds on the insecurities that people have about themselves and the world around them. In this sense, Teen Mania is merely an extension of this trend, and it is therefore not surprising to see it used here. My criticism of Battle Cry is a general criticism of conservative Christianity: If people see a problem with the world, the solution is not to condemn it and separate yourself but to get your hands dirty and help solve it. The problem is that this kind of Christian message tries to separate our natural desires and expressions as evil and sinful. Therefore, rather than teaching people to be independent and intelligent thinkers capable of finding good solutions to problems, they cast the issues aside and declare that they are not going to be a part of it any more.

This method is both cowardly and hateful—cowardly because they refuse to accept that these natural drives are something to deal with and not simply discard (Sartre calls this "bad faith") and hateful because it says to people living comfortably in the secular world that we are their enemy, either peddling lies or subject to the lies of others. I resent that, and I would challenge anyone to demonstrate how I'm the one brainwashed here rather than those following some battle cry.

Our youth don't need Ron Luce or anyone else to shield a lie in order to point to the truth. The truth points to itself.

Secular Inconspiracy

by Shaun McGonigal

Atheists are distrusted more than any other group in the United States according to recent polls. Things such as the "war against Christmas" and the culture wars in general help to create the perception that atheists and other secular thinkers are working together to destroy "traditional" values within American culture. "Family values" and Christianity are being discriminated against under the banner of the First Amendment. This secular goliath, led by academic elites, Liberals, and homosexuals, is threatening to destroy thousands of years of cherished, God-ordained, ideas.

Some religious investigators have identified a concerted, omnipresent, and culturally destructive power structure behind the media, schools, and the atheistic scientific community that threatens to take God out of the world. This conspiracy has been in motion for decades, if not centuries, and will continue to destroy traditional Christian America until we are all living in an Atheistic, Communistic, and permissive culture that will drag the world into the recesses of hell.

What makes this feat so amazing is that it is carried out by a small and politically impotent group of people made up of often fiercely individualistic people. The various organizations for atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc throughout the United States, despite their differences, splintering, and lack of cohesive voice, have somehow managed to take control of the culture.

Wait . . . . A small, disorganized, and powerless minority without any more in common than a shared disbelief in a divine being (for which no evidence exists) has somehow managed to overpower a majority who follow an omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal creator of all that exists? If you've ever talked to more than one of two atheists at a time, you'll find that it is often difficult to get them to agree to much more than said shared disbelief, let alone organize effectively. The organization and size of the various Christian communities, despite their differences, with their massive media presence and cultural acceptance are in a much better place to maintain influence than any group of atheists. Therefore, another theory must be presented to account for the secular threat that faces religion today.

To begin with, we need to define secular. Secularism is not anti-religious, but rather a-religious. A secular person is not, at least not necessarily, against or opposed to religion. A secular person is someone for whom religion is a minor concern. Their decisions are not made with any religious notion in mind, whether it is to follow or intentionally rebel against one. Secularism, therefore, is not the same as atheism.

Most people believe in some kind of divine existence. For the most part this belief does not shape the entirety of a person's worldview; people still believe in using critical thinking of some kind for most of their every day decisions. Rationality, logic, and science have won out the day for the vast majority for what kind of medical treatment to get, how to understand how our computers work, and roughly how much we should pay for groceries. These are the tools that the secular world uses. They answer questions about many things, and still leave us pondering over others. When questions about ethics, purpose, and origins of life come up, most people pull out some kind of god or religion, but for most things god is essentially irrelevant.

Most of our decisions in life are made based on the secular tools we all have available. Secular ideas are everywhere, and to an extent they do threaten many religious ideas. But these secular ideas are not the result of a conspiracy to implement them in society by atheists, humanists, or any other freethinkers; they are just ideas that work, which is why we use them. It just so happens that atheists tend to accept ideas that work. Thus, when many religionists see secular ideas pervading culture and they see atheists and their ilk promoting these ideas, it looks like the ideas are emanating from these people rather than the other way around.

That's right, the secular ideas, technologies, etc that have been developed throughout history—whether they were created by secular people or not—and tend to impress the power of rational thought and scientific methods onto people. When these people apply these methods onto the world, many of them tend to move further away from religion (especially more fundamental versions of religion) and become more secular people in general.

It is no surprise that some people employ these tools with more effort and to more areas of concern. Some people are meticulous with reason when it comes to their finances but will not even touch their spiritual life with those same tools. Most atheists that I know have simply applied their secular tools to religious ideas and concluded that they don't hold water.

What this means is that not all people will become atheists. Many will still believe in a God or gods, but will find a balance, reconciliation, or separation between science and religion in such a way that their worldview is not threatened by secular culture. This is partly because secular thinking does not threaten religion unless said religion is so anti-science and non-rational that it is incompatible with all of the stuff that those secular tools create. The problem is that many religious people—fundamentalist Christians especially—accept claims about the world that secular tools tend to break when applied to them. It is from this that some Christians conclude that they are being attacked, oppressed, or discriminated against.

These people are not being discriminated against; they are simply disagreed with by people who accept secular methods for figuring out how the world works. If they feel persecuted, it is because they accept ideas that are unacceptable by standards of rational thinking. They are allowed to believe whatever they want, but they have to accept that when they try to claim that their beliefs are a part of our tradition, law, and culture, they have the right to be mistaken. Christianity in general is indeed a part of our shared history and culture, but not a part of or laws. And as far as tradition is concerned, sometimes traditions need to change just as they have been doing throughout history.

The more that secular ideas are understood and internalized by people, the more culture will move away from religion. I don't think it will ever fully disappear, and perhaps that is for the best. Science, rational thinking, and logic do not support many religious claims, but they also do not disprove many others. But the more we process towards a more complete understanding of the world the less that religion is asked to explain. Further, the explanations that religions continue to offer are all pseudo-explanations or simply insufficient, at least for those who have applied their secular tools to them. The many good ideas of secular culture will tend to support the atheistic position—or at very least the agnostic position—rather than the theistic position.

So, many people may not like atheists, but in most cases atheism is the result of use of the best tools that humankind has yet developed. Our disbelief in deities is simply due to the fact that, despite it's presence in history, culture, and human life, religion just doesn't work, at least not when we apply those highly regarded methods. I see it as an optimistic sign that secular ideas are accepted widely. I hope that it means that the future will hold greater organization among atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers of all kinds. This will be a sign of brighter futures.