Non-theists organize Secular Coalition for Alabama (Huntsville Times)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Kay Campbell, The Huntsville Times

HUNTSVILLE, AL -- Governor Robert Bentley's inauguration day remark that non-Christians are not his brothers and sisters is the latest example of why Alabama needs a state chapter of the Secular Coalition of America, local organizers say.

"The Secular Coalition for Alabama is needed now to increase the visibility of secular people, promote fact-based education to prepare our children for a complex world, protect the civil rights of all Alabamians and maintain the separation of church and state," said Charles Miller, an IT services management executive in Huntsville is the founding president of the state chapter.

Miller and other local leaders will sign the new charter Sunday, 1:30 p.m. The announcement will come during the Southeast Regional Atheist Meet, which is being held Saturday and Sunday at the Holiday Inn Express across from Big Spring Park.
***
Unlike American Atheists, which also has a state chapter, the Secular Coalition of Alabama is organized as a non-profit 501(c) 4. The coalition will advocate for or against legislation that affects freedom of belief. American Atheists is incorporated as a non-profit educational organization.

The Alabama chapter is the second state chapter, after Arizona, to be organized in the country, Faircloth said.
***
more: http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/01/non-theists_organize_secular_c.html





So glad to see fortuitous timing is giving this issue a little more exposure. :)

[jody]

1. Interesting, what does the new chapter hope to accomplish and how? n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. I don't like the headline

Which I realize you didn't write, but it implies that only "non-theists" have an interest in maintaining the separation of church and state. I am sure they could find allies among progressive theists of various stripes. Why limit your coalition from the outset?

[nemo137]

3. Maybe because they want to avoid the tone-policing from progressive theists?

Maybe because they were just publicly designated an outgroup by the governor? Maybe because, even with the best will in the world, the goals of progressive theists and non-theists will sometimes differ?

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Well, that's why liberals never get anything done.

Because "my" group and "my" goals cannot possibly mesh with anyone else. Even if our goals are 90% the same, I REFUSE to allow anyone who is not a pure and true believer into my coalition!

That sort of rigid ideology-first-results-second thinking is why the progressive movement is so fractured and ineffectual. No wonder the GOP steamrolls the left most of the time.

[Luminous Animal]

8. "We also enthusiastically welcome the participation of religious individuals"

"While the Coalition was created expressly by and for nontheistic Americans, we also enthusiastically welcome the participation of religious individuals who share our view that freedom of conscience must extend to people of all faiths and of none. Accordingly, our staff works in cooperation with a variety of other organizations and coalitions where common ground exists on specific issues, and our e-mail Action Alert system is open to all who visit our site."

http://www.secular.org/node/53

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. That's great

I realized it was probably a poorly written headline rather than the actual aim of the organization. I am a theist who ardently believes in the separation of church and state, and who was disgusted by the governor of Alabama's remarks. Clearly this org has a lot of work to do in Alabama, and more power to them.

Only together can we prevail against the right-wing demagogues and anti-constitutionalists.

[customerserviceguy]

4. I wish them all the best

Especially given where they're at. Opposition to religion doesn't go down well in the South.

[upi402]

6. Yeah, they are brave

:patriot:

[jody]

7. The Secular Coalition rejects religion as a philosophical basis for moral decision making.

Makes sense, but what non-religious philosophy does the coalition propose as a basis for moral decision making?

[eppur_se_muova]

10. The Golden Rule still works, regardless of where it came from.

I'd almost agree with the claim that that's the only moral philosophy anyone needs.

[jody]

11. Agree Humanist Manifesto III "Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness" and

[eppur_se_muova]

13. The way you phrased it is very similar to something R. Buckminster Fuller wrote ...

he decided that the most effective way to maximize his own comfort and happiness in the world was to make the whole world a better place -- which had as a side effect increasing the comfort and happiness of others. Unlike the bloody-hand-of-the-free-marketeers, he did not begrudge others the fact that they were benefiting from his efforts (I'm paraphrasing, and probably pretty badly) or expect a disproportionately huge "cut".

If only everyone followed the same reasoning, the world would be a **much** better place -- as long as we remain convinced (by the efforts of those with the most capital) that everything is a zero-sum, or even negative-sum game, we keep acting out the "Prisoner's Dilemma" instead, always making the worst choices.

That all sounds like logic, not religion, so I regard religion as optional. ;)

[jody]

14. See #12, jody in Montgomery. nt

[jody]

12. Fascinated upon reflection that you and I arrive at the GR as the moral basis for laws to govern the

interrelationships of sovereign entities who voluntarily create a system known as government with the expressed purpose of uniting individual efforts toward a single goal the "general Welfare" of We the People.

Our government is the oldest experiment to see if people with such diverse backgrounds and interests as in these United States can coexist in harmony.

If we fail as a nation, then any hope of a united nations is doomed to fail.

I'm delighted to find a kindred spirit!