Try to guess whom I’m talking about: Player A is a much talked about quarterback and a bit of a polarizing figure in the NFL. Player B is also a high profile quarterback who hasn’t quite found sustained post-season success. Player A goes to church every week. Player B waited until marriage to have sex.

Player A once said, “It’s a calming feeling when the Lord runs your life.” Player B goes around preaching abstinence and discouraging premarital sex.

Can you figure out which mystery player is Tim Tebow? That’s actually a trick question, because neither one of them is. Player A is Ben Roethlisberger, the two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback for the Pittsburg Steelers. Player B is Philip Rivers, the quarterback for the San Diego Chargers.

Troy Polamalu, Pittsburgh’s All-Pro safety, converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity and has made pilgrimages to various religious sites in Europe and the Middle East. He makes the Sign of the Cross after every play.

Most players routinely point to the sky after scoring a touchdown and form prayer circles after games. Thanking God is a common thing to hear after a victory. Oh, and there’s that Touchdown Jesus nearby Notre Dame’s football stadium.

The point I’m trying to make is that Tebow’s openness about his faith isn’t something new. In fact, it’s more likely the norm for most athletes. And yet Tebow’s openness about his faith is always played up as if it’s some sort of controversial stance. It’s not.

If being a devout Christian in the NFL were really as controversial as it’s being portrayed with Tebow, then why do Roethlisberger and Rivers get free passes? Where’s the uproar aimed towards former Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who was never shy about expressing the role he felt faith has both in and outside of football?

The reason Tebow is always making headlines isn’t due to being an evangelical Christian, it’s the misguided perception that people actually care about him wearing his religion on his sleeve. The media’s made a big deal about the Bible verses that he paints on his eye black, and about how he’s a virgin, and about how often he visibly prays during games.

Well guess what, NFL fans don’t care about that. We just want to watch football. Maybe some of us hate Tebow and the Broncos because we live in Oakland, or Kansas City, or San Diego. Maybe some of us hate the media hype around Tebow rather than Tebow himself. Maybe we’re tired of hearing about how those of us who don’t root for Tebow supposedly root against him solely due to his faith.

It’s possible Tebow rubbed people the wrong way at one point, but that ship has sailed. His faith has actually become more of a gimmick than anything. Instead of ragging on how he used to put Biblical verses on his eye black, people crack messiah jokes, lightheartedly cite divine intervention for his unlikely success, and laugh about the 316 yards Tebow threw in his first playoff game alludes to John 3:16.

And then there’s the whole Tebowing phenomenon. When the Pittsburgh Steelers lost to the Bronces a few weeks ago, Pittsburgh’s mayor lost a bet that required him to be photographed Tebowing in a Broncos jersey. Tell me where the hatred’s coming from.

So here’s what we should do: Recognize that Tebow isn’t a controversial figure for being open about his faith, stop framing everything Tebow does with the whole Good versus Evil angle, and stop posing dumb questions like “What if Tim Tebow were Muslim?”

And if you want to spend your time rooting against something that actually is evil, join me in rooting against the Green Bay Packers.

Matt Cowan is a third-year student at IU studying Journalism. He is transitioning to becoming the Treasurer of the Secular Alliance. He hopes to become a  sports columnist or beat reporter for a major newspaper or media organization.

Jessica,

First of all, thank you. I found out about your lawsuit this summer at the CFI Student Leadership Conference, and it made me proud to know you. I’m a proponent of fighting the so-called “small fights”, from nativity scenes on city hall lawns to postings of the ten commandments in courthouses to, as in your case, prayer banners in public schools. There are no small fights, and we both know that letting this go would have been the sort of apathetic passivity that has allowed Christianity to take such a strong hold over American society. So thank you for not being apathetic or passive, and thank you for taking action. You’re already ahead of most people with that act alone.

Congratulations on winning your lawsuit, and I applaud you for persevering through the shitstorm that it caused. I’m sorry that this country is the type of place where it is not shocking to see someone like yourself treated the way you’ve been treated. There’s no reason to harass, threaten, insult or hate anyone because of religious reasons, yet it doesn’t surprise me that these were people’s responses to your actions. Of course it’s not fair to expect that all religious people would act this way in the face of a restriction on their free practice (which, in a way this is; free practice is about balancing everyone’s free practice while not allowing one group to have more freedom), but why wouldn’t they? I would not like to say that following your case has made me cynical toward religious people, but it’s certainly a representation to me of a darker side of dogma. I’m sorry that you were affected by that and I hope you don’t let it make you cynical.

As I’m sure you know, you have the full support of the secular community. I see nothing but overwhelming support on my facebook wall, in blog posts, and in conversations with activist friends. We are doing our best to counter the negativity you’ve received with our own positivity. Just look at all this love! You’re a hero, really, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

I congratulate you with all of my heart for your success and hard work, and I admire you greatly for your poise throughout the ordeal. I really am very proud to be considered amongst your peers in the secular movement and I look forward to your continued activism in our community. You’re outstanding.

With Respect,

Carly Casper
Secular Alliance at Indiana University President

Carly Casper is a third-year student at IU studying Creative Writing. She is the President of the Secular Alliance. Her future plans include eating pancakes and programming the world’s most successful physicistbot.

Our student newspaper, the Indiana Daily Student, recently had an article about a local church and their “Hell House,” a hell-themed haunted house/brainwashing adventure that preaches Christian doctrine. (Read the article here.)

House of Prayer is a slightly liberal church a few miles from campus. Here’s a quote from the above article wherein a member of the church summarizes what I took to be the general attitude of the church:

“I believe God loves the homosexual. I believe he loves the alcoholic. He loves the drug addict. He loves the old mangy biker scum guy, and he loves us the way we are, but he loves us too much to leave us that way.”

So, as liberal as they might be they still adhere to the typical Christian practice of forcing others to conform to strict ‘moral’ guidelines.

I’d like to share my response to the article, which I submitted in the form of a letter to the editor.

I also attended the House of Prayer’s Hell House this weekend. As an atheist, I consider the Hell House to be a saddening place of brainwashing. There are more positive messages out there that give people just as much happiness and purpose, without scaring them into docility.

All too often I hear religious doctrine used to defend or justify hatred. This is something that the atheist community generally finds abhorrent about religion, or at least about individuals who use their religion as an excuse to hate. I feel like this argument justifies people’s aversion to religion.

At a surface level, I think the House of Prayer church is maybe one of the better ones. They avoid hating or discriminating against the typical targets of religious zealots. They accept homosexuals, depressed people, those with addictions, those with vices, and those who don’t quite fit into society. They preach that God loves them. Believers who fit any of the aforementioned categories unfortunately spend a lot of time being told that they are unwanted in heaven and unloved by God. I don’t believe in heaven or God, but it breaks my heart that there are people who believe this.

As kind and accepting as they may be, the House of Prayer members still believe that the outcasts from typical Christian churches are not ‘right’. They believe God wants those ‘outcasts’ to change. This alone is a dangerous thought, for it dumps unnecessary guilt and self-hatred upon those people who are considered ‘not right’. This is wherein the danger of this church lies: in that its love is at least a little bit selective. If they or any other church teaches that God’s love is selective, depending on the guidelines a great deal of the population could be excluded from salvation when salvation is their existential goal. It’s dangerous to tell believers that they’re not right in the head, that God doesn’t love them, or that they have to pretend not to be the way they are. That’s maybe even more mentally damaging than nihilism.

Though I attended the Hell House and consider the members of House of Prayer that I spoke with to be fine people, the experience only affirmed my view of the Christian religion as a tool of negativity. However many merits and benefits it may have for some people, it’s irredeemably unfair that others may not be allowed to participate.

Carly Casper is a third-year student at IU studying Physics and Creative Writing. She is the President of the Secular Alliance. Her future plans include taking over the world and turning it into a socialist loveland.

Note: After Sunday’s meeting discussing the death penalty, members of the SAIU were given the opportunity to write an op-ed defending their position. The opinions expressed in this piece are not necessarily those of the SAIU.

Why do we punish criminals? We punish as prevention — to keep the criminal from causing further harm, or to deter potential offenders. We punish as rehabilitation — to heal the criminal’s psyche, or to make him a functional member of society. And we punish as retribution — to give the victims peace of mind, or to balance the scales of Justice itself. This is why we lock human beings up in very small rooms with other very bad people, and why we sometimes give money to corrections officers to kill them. But having been made aware that these are our reasons, we can question whether they are good reasons.

Focusing on the death penalty sharpens the question. Given corpses’ incorrigibility, rehabilitation is ruled out. Nor has it been proven that execution is a better deterrent than life in prison. Murderers do not systematically weigh all the consequences before acting. And even if they were rational and well-educated enough to do so, they’d be crazy to give much thought to the death penalty: In the United States, 40% of homicides go unsolved, and even among the convicted, only 3% of murderers are sentenced to be executed.

Now, perhaps if we made the death penalty far more common, we’d start seeing deterrence effects. And maybe we could cut down on the billions of extra dollars we spend on capital trials by cutting a few corners and streamlining the process. (Sure, this might add to the 350+ innocent U.S. citizens who have been wrongfully executed or exonerated at the eleventh hour, but every omelette needs its eggs.) Hell, there are countless changes we could make to more efficiently deter prospective criminals — cut off the hands of serious offenders, torture them horrifically, lock them in solitary confinement for decades. But we have to weigh the benefits of methods like capital punishment against the damage they do — the damage they do to the criminals, and the damage they do to our common humanity, to all members of the society.

This brings us to retribution, the most emotionally compelling justification for executing people. We all intuitively feel that two wrongs do help make a right. If we found a cheap, easy, completely effective way to make murderers productive members of society just by treating them like kings — without inflicting any harm upon them, and with a net benefit for society — it would seem as though our moral cosmos had been turned upside-down. (This is not a thought experiment. Commit your crimes in Norway.) Feeling that an unpunished evil is doubly evil, we try to balance the scales of human suffering — by adding yet more suffering into the mix.

Evolutionarily, our intuitions make some sense. Even if private lethal injections have little value in a modern civil society, we could imagine the fear of murderous reprisals perhaps helping keep prehistoric tribal communities intact. But not all of our evolutionarily ‘natural’ reactions are helpful today. There is nothing more natural in times of human tragedy than wanting to find some enemy or scapegoat to lash out at. Hatred and a lust for death are perfectly normal reactions to grotesque depravity. But such reactions are, for all that, perfectly unhealthy. Finding coherence and closure through positive and constructive endeavors rather than through bloodthirsty vengeance is just as ‘unnatural,’ and just as humanly necessary, as practicing healthy eating in the face of a ‘natural’ instinct to overindulge.

Coping with extreme grief and anxiety by destroying other individuals is a strategy that functioning societies should mitigate, not feed. In the rest of the developed world, this is precisely what they do. In the last 10 years, Japan has killed 35 people, Taiwan 41 people, Singapore some unknown large number, and the United States — as of Mr. Steven Wood of Texas, seven days ago — 535 people. Not one of the other 38 developed nations has killed anyone in the 21st century, most having abolished it decades ago. The United States ranks with China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Syria as one of the few nations in existence retaining a legal system that routinely kills human beings. This on its own does not make the U.S. wrong and the rest of the world right; but it does undermine our confidence that a liberal democracy, to flourish, must execute its citizens.

Do victims need to see other humans suffer in order to find peace of mind? Do we as individuals and as a society function best when we feed our blackest hatred and vindictiveness, or when we undertake the difficult task of cultivating compassion, of humanizing even those we most despise? Only the sciences of mind can hope to find an answer. But in lieu of conclusive evidence, erring on the side of a society held fast by something other than hatred and fear does not seem unreasonable.

It has been argued that capital punishment may actually increase murder rates by sending the “brutalizing” message that it’s acceptable to kill people in some circumstances. Violence begets violence. If it’s OK for a judge or juror or technician or prison official to kill a human being for reasons other than self-defense, the value of a person’s life is not unconditional. So if you think a person is really bad, murder might conceivably be the right thing to do! At least, Mr. Murderer, your goal is vindicated, though we find your methods distasteful (and just might kill you for them). The subtler ramifications of living in a culture that wavers and quibbles on the morality of killing a person surely run far deeper than whatever minute, short-term fluctuations in dehumanization we might be able to detect in the immediate wake of these systematic, targeted, state-sponsored killings.

There is a place in a modern, humane society for preventative and rehabilitative justice. But even if we had any reason to believe that ‘eye for an eye’ morality had a significant deterrent effect, such a benefit would not be worth the price of our humanity. It would not be worth sacrificing the basic and pristine value of every person’s existence. We should draw the line exactly here.

Robby Bensinger is a senior majoring in Philosophy and Religious Studies, and has been a member of the SAIU since its inception in 2008.

Note: After Sunday’s meeting that discussed the death penalty, members of the SAIU were given the opportunity to write an op-ed defending their position. The opinions expressed in this piece do not reflect or represent those of the SAIU.

A few days ago, I volunteered to participate in a class exercise where I was to briefly answer questions that other students asked in order to try and guess where I lean politically. After a handful of questions that covered issues like abortion and the environment, the class concluded that I was a very liberal voter.

They’re right, of course, as I do lean to left quite a bit. But it would have been interesting to see what they would’ve concluded had they asked me about the death penalty. Unlike most liberals, I am very much in support of the death penalty, both in theory and in practice.

I’m not sure I’ll be able to adequately explain why I support it, and I doubt I can really justify my own rationale for supporting capital punishment, but I’ll try to explain myself as best I can.

But before I begin, understand this: I don’t believe there is a rational or logical reason to execute criminals. In this setting, ending someone’s life is not something that can be morally justified, and I don’t intend to try and do so. There is no hard evidence that capital punishment is an effect deterrent of violent crime, that it helps rehabilitate criminals, or that it’s cost-effective for society.

I won’t argue any of those points.

For me, supporting capital punishment comes entirely from an emotional part of myself, even though that emotional core is illogical, irrational, and completely unsuitable for making moral choices of the utmost importance, such as deciding who lives and who dies.

But I don’t care.

I love my parents more than anything else in this world. If someone were to take their lives, I’d want that person put to death. This is purely an emotional response, one that I have a hard time adequately conveying with words. It’s a visceral, selfish gut reaction.

I don’t care about eye for an eye, I don’t care about the death penalty not being an effective deterrent of violent crime, I don’t care that it doesn’t rehabilitate people, I don’t care that it’s not cost-effective for society, and I don’t care that it’s immoral.

This person took away my parents’ lives, and life is the most valuable thing there is. Knowing that this person is allowed to keep that which they took away doesn’t seem fair to me. And just to be clear, my judgment of fairness is entirely my own.

The big question, I guess, would come down to this: what is the true role of capital punishment? Is it to benefit society as a whole, or individuals in that society such as myself?

To be honest, I’m not really sure. But as long as the option exists, I will support it, as this is an intensely personal thing for me. It’s far from a perfect way to deal with murderers, and it’s not morally justifiable, not by a long shot.

Matt Cowan is a junior majoring in Journalism, and has been a member of the SAIU for two years.

Giveback.org is website where any member  has the ability to raise money and direct the funds from their account to any charity in good standing with the United States Internal Revenue Service. Self described Secular Humanist Chris McCoy won the 50K tier in the recent 100 Days of Giving charity contest. Chris was inspired by the community at reddit.com and used them as a driving force to win the contest. Reddit.com, a user-based news aggregation website, has raised money for various disaster relief, and the atheist community specifically has raised money for Doctors Without Borders and for repairing vandalized churches.

It is wonderful to see communities come together, even when it’s over the internet, for a good cause. You can read more about Chris McCoy, the 100 Days of Giving contest, and where the money will be donated here.

by Jessika Griffin

Yesterday at my place of work, business was very slow. I was working at the deli line, and as a customer’s sandwich was in the toaster oven my coworker struck up conversation with him. First you should know that my coworker is studying philosophy, and has a lot to say about everything. Eventually (meaning after the longest 5 minutes of my life) the conversation got to where the customer said he had just watched “Zeitgeist: The Movie” and had “learned” so much. If you haven’t seen Zeitgeist the movie, you can learn more about it on the Wikipedia page. You can watch it for free around the internet if you really really want to, but I promise you that it’s garbage (don’t take my word for it, of course!).

I’ve heard many times from people that Zeitgeist had “opened their eyes” and so on. What’s interesting is that even though this movie provides absolutely no sources, and is provably wrong on just about everything, it gained attention from what I will call “false skeptics”. The movie makes the viewer feel like they’re being skeptical, when really they’re just believing everything it is claiming because the claims in the movie differ from common theories and ideas on the subject matter. I believe this is a problem. Skepticism does not simply mean questioning what is popular opinion, but you must also question alternative theories and claims.

Who else loves definitions as much as I do?! Here is the Merriam Webster definition for “skepticism”:

1. An attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2. a) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
   b) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3. doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

The one I like best, and that I feel represents the skeptic community best is “the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics”. Specifically for “suspending judgment”.

Let’s not forget the words of Bertrand Russell: “If it’s true then you should believe it and if it’s false than you shouldn’t. And if you can’t find out whether it’s true or false then you should suspend judgment.”

It is always important to question the validity of claims, and of the people making the claims. So remember to be skeptical of everything, not just the things with which you disagree.

Jessika is a third-year student at IU studying health administration and legal studies; she is also the outreach director for the Secular Alliance. She was raised Catholic but has almost always lacked belief in a god.

While filling our cups with coffee and tea, one of my fellow conferrers quipped that perhaps this isn’t a leadership conference, but rather a psychological study of the effects of sleep deprivation on atheists. I can’t seem to disagree with the possibility, perhaps only because I too am sleep-deprived.

First in the day was a panel of high school activists. This was highly intimidating and thoroughly inspiring. Their personal stories were powerful. It’s heartwarming (barf) to hear articulate, intelligent kids fighting and winning against fundamentalism and the theocratic tendencies of small towns. They all seemed to be very put-together and rather good humored about their struggles. In high school I was still scared of the dark because I thought there might be dark spirits roaming about my bedroom at night. I spoke last night with Susan Lantzer of CFI-Indianapolis, and she remarked of how agnostic enlightenment and activism is catching on with younger people now. I sense the same trend, that the staunchest subscribers to the religious right are older. I recall Judy J. Johnson’s talk yesterday, in which she described how by age 30, our personality is nearly set in stone. I don’t like to think that the people of my parent’s generation are incapable of reason, and will always be opposed to the intellectual activists of the Millennials. It’s a false prejudice I’m a bit ashamed to have. I suppose one can’t hold any demographical prejudices; an activist must activate. I was very impressed with these young people; they and the other young activists I’ve met and read about make me hopeful for the future of the secularism movement.

A great point brought up by Jessica Ahlquist, a Rhode Island student who fought legally against a prayer banner displayed in her school: battles against prayer banners, creationism in textbooks, and commencement prayers are not small battles. A lot of people in the atheist movement find these to be bad PR, and the notion that prayers and creationism and sectarianism are things that are unimportant is false. We are not a Christian nation, and allowing people to feel comfortable with thinking that we are is anti-progressive. Standing up for our rights in small arenas and simply reminding people to uphold the Constitution are acts that promote secularism, and they’re just a small part in the broader struggle for secularism.

After the panel was James Croft, a Harvard Ed.D candidate, student of the philosophy of education, president of the Harvard Humanist Association and blogger of the (excellent) Temple of the Future. I really like James. He’s articulate and insightful (and British), and I’ve been looking forward to his talk all weekend. He talked about being Good Without God and the “humanist responsibility to serve”. Now, if I may be proud for a moment: service is an important part of the Secular Alliance and it’s something all of our members enjoy. Hearing James talk about service didn’t inspire in me any feelings of inferiority. Certainly, James and the HHA are doing great things, not to belittle them. For the size of our group and the amount of active members, we do a lot of service. I have a lot of pride for the fierce humanism of the group of people with us, but I’ll stop with the lovey-dovey. I think James enlightened a lot of people to something I feel is overlooked too often: that humanism is fundamental to atheism in the sense that atheism promotes a worldview based on reason and intellectualism which, in the opinion of many, is more ethical and humane.

Dan Kahan wowing the audience.

Dan Kahan took the stage after lunch to give a fascinating talk on methods of cultural cognition and science communication. We all have a cultural predisposition that affects the way we not only form values and opinions, but also the way we perceive truth and fact! Confirmation bias works even subconsciously; we even have the tendency to devalue experts who disagree with our opinions (i.e., people who see global warming as a high risk tend to mentally discredit scientists who think of it as a low risk). This is obvious in retrospect, but shocking to hear. Dan works with the Cultural Cognition Project, based at Yale Law School. Their website is here.

“People want to form the views that will help them get along in their lives.” – Dan Kahan

Next up, Desiree Schell lead a workshop about activism in defense of reason. An interesting point she made was that the unspoken goal of a lot of atheist events is indeed activism. Draw Muhammad Day, the 10:23 protests, etc. are activism in defense and support of reason, something very valuable. The abandonment of reason leads down undesirable roads and has an effect in the way we’re treated by our government and our fellow humans; promoting reason is an issue very relevant to us, as reasonable people, not just as James said earlier because we have a responsibility to serve our fellow humans, but because it’s healthy for us to want to live in a reasonable world. Desiree introduced an effective style of event planning that, in retrospect, seems obvious but in context is profound.

John R. Shook

After dinner, John Shook took the stage and floored everyone with a beautiful talk on “healthy humanism”. It was highly supportive of a positive, almost revivalist humanistic point of view and a sort of condemnation of the harsh tactics and the “simplistic and crude naturalistic arguments” that some atheists use when dealing with religious people. “God is big,” he said, “but religion is bigger”. He paints religious people as a group who, more than anything, want to feel protected and not alone or small, and that humanism can appeal to them when approached from the Saganesque “we are made of star stuff” angle. It’s possible to be honest about naturalism and still appeal to the part of a religious person who wants to feel big and included and of worth. This is so important. Confronting religious people in a shocking way is terribly ineffective and closes their mind even more. Shock and negativity feels good, because we like to exaggerate our differences and assert our perceived intellectual superiority and flaunt our mental stability in light of a supposedly “meaningless” reality, but these things can scare people. When dealing with religious people, we need to remember most of all that we are dealing with human beings: complex people who are not separate from or less than us. Sensitivity and positivity are key.

Later on, John took a few of us on a tour of the amazing CFI library, which includes several dozen thousand books on anything related to the CFI’s mission: history, religion, math and science, philosophy, social issues, political science, etc. It was rather overwhelming and very impressive; most of the books were donated by professors and collectors over many years, and, well, being an intellectual it was really like being a kid in a candy store.

Everyone headed back to the dorms exhausted and intellectually stimulated. I get the feeling that everyone here is leaving with a more refined and focused energy. I, for one, am overwhelmingly eager to apply my new skills and my many ideas to change IU and Bloomington and to affect the world. That’s what drives the people at this conference, the members of their groups and intellectual activists everywhere.

This conference has been great. I’m so thankful to all of the speakers, all of the attendees, Lauren Becker, Debbie Goddard and CFI. When I come back next year, hopefully I’ll be able to brag about the long list of awesome things that my group has done in the interim.

We woke up at the crack of dawn and walked 8 miles uphill in the hail and rain, er, well, not so much the crack of dawn, but after a late and rowdy night in the dorms it may as well have been. Despite mild exhaustion and maybe a few hangovers, the general mood as the student leaders gathered for breakfast was of positive excitement for the day’s alluring talks.

After breakfast, we gathered in the main auditorium for a session called “Reports From The Field”. Herein, students from around North America exchanged ideas, successful events and learned knowledge from their groups. This was a bit staggering. There are several dozen people here, students, average age surely not so much more than mine, showing supreme dedication to the cause of secularism. I had no idea there were events like ReasonFest (put on by Kansas Univ.’s SOMA) and Skepticon (by Missouri State University). I’m really proud of what the SAIU has done, and I’ve had a lot of positive feedback about our group’s activities, but there’s more to do. Outside of the 40,000 students on campus, there’s a whole world to change, and all around me here were people doing just that. It was intimidating, humbling and inspiring.

We broke for lunch, and came back to hear Judy J. Johnson talk about dogmatism and the psychological characteristics of a dogmatic person. It was an interesting talk, though I found it difficult to appreciate it beyond the importance of the research that her theory is capable of sparking. Obviously, there are certain characteristics about a person that causes them to think a certain way, i.e., dogmatically, and her talk provided a basis for identifying and understanding dogmatism. This was also important; it sparked a debate on how to deal with dogmatic people, and the value of dogmatism. There’s a lot to talk and think about here. I didn’t find much wasn’t much of an empirical basis in a lot of the things she said, but she was undeniably interesting.

The presentations on event planning, fundraising and PR were enlightening. While contemplating how large of an event I could theoretically pull off while still respecting the laws of physics and civility, I began to question my organizational skills. I’m unashamed to brag that I’m a superb organizer, but I was nevertheless feeling a bit overwhelmed by the amount of work one must do and the sleep one must sacrifice to run a successful event on the scale of ReasonFest or Skepticon. My saviors were these three talks. In the margins of my notes, themselves scribbled almost illegibly, are wavy lines that I think were meant to be ideas. At this point, I may have more ideas than talk notes, which is an impressive feat. I know Jessika feels the same; we’ve been excitedly exchanging thoughts after every presentation.

Next was a talk by the Illini Secular Student Alliance’s Ed Clint on little-I “interfaith” v. big-I “Interfaith”. Very good. I’m continually impressed by the ISSA and what they do. Ed told the story of Draw Muhammad Day, when their group drew chalk stick figures around campus and labelled them “Muhammad”. This caused a lot of controversy on their campus and a lot of tension between them and their Muslim Student Association. After some cooling time, Ed and the ISSA reached out to the MSA and the two groups had a meeting together to exchange philosophies and culture with one another. A debate was held afterwords, formally at first then informally over dinner, on the value of interfaith and, also, Interfaith. For those who don’t know, interfaith is exactly what it sounds like: a dialogue between those of different faiths intended to promote tolerance, awareness and understanding. Big-”I” Interfaith is apparently putting aside differences to concentrate on the similarities (i.e., “we believe in different gods but we both want to help homeless people”). I didn’t really pick up on the dichotomy here, other than that those in opposition to Interfaith seem opposed solely to the institutionalization of interfaith work. I agree, mostly, in the sense that there’s a lot that comes with supporting an Interfaith organization: supporting the leaders, the employees, the special interests and all of the statements and opinions that come out of the group. Little-”i” interfaith work can be done independently of these, and I suppose Interfaith groups promote otherness to the idea of cooperative exchange of philosophies. On that note, there’s no reason at all that any rational person should be opposed to interfaith dialogue; there was a false conflict inherent in the debate between interfaith and Interfaith, and argumentation on the matter seemed to be to be a bit unnecessary.

The start of something good.

After dinner, Rebecca Watson of Skepchick gave a presentation on sexism and new feminism. I was pretty angered by her talk, in the best way possible. She explored the fight for women’s rights from both the legal and social angles. I don’t usually agree with Rebecca about her take on feminism, but she hit the nail on the head with her talk. She didn’t have to convince us that sexism is rampant and females are facing plenty of adversity, so she concentrated on raised awareness for women’s issues such as rape, reproductive rights and discrimination. It’s nice to hear recognition of these things that I’ve faced, the disappointing sexism I’ve felt applied to myself and the nonchalance of sexism in modern culture, especially the special brand of sexism in the niche communities I identify with: nerds, redditors, skeptics, scientsits, etc. She provided this great quote:

“A woman’s reasonable expectation to feel safe from sexual objectification and assault…is outweighed by a man’s right to sexually objectify her.”

I’m not sure about the reality of this, but it’s a thought I’ve certainly had, though less articulately.

The night ended with some entertaining magic and comedy from Brian Brushwood. I lingered momentarily on the irony of someone performing magic at a convention of skeptics, but he handled us well and was impressive and entertaining in his feats.

As we were gathering to leave, CFI staffer Lauren Becker announced to us some great news:

In light of the hope and affection and eagerness and maybe also the sleep deprivation, I teared up at this. I wish I didn’t live in a time when equal rights for people of all sexualities is a major cause for celebration, but the sense of justice in light of the defeat of archaic, religion-based legislature and the success of human rights is powerful, and it’s satisfying. This news set a mood of celebration for the rest of the night and into the the following morning. I think everyone here feels similarly: this is encouraging news.

On a side note, I’d like to shout out to MU SASHA and the Illini Secular Student Alliance, two great groups with excellent blogs. Also: James Croft, blogger of the excellent Temple of the Future, who said some very nice things about the Secular Alliance.

Our sister organization, the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign, had an immensely successful debate last night. Here is what they had to say. Please consider donating.

Last night more than 300 people came out to see Dan Waugh and Dan Barker debate the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign’s ad “You Can Be Good Without God”. Both respected men were in excellent form and exemplified civility. We at the Bus Campaign could not be more pleased with the debate.

One of our key goals in forming INABC was to promote discussion amongst people who normally do not talk to each other due to disagreement. We wanted to encourage critical thinking on the reasons behind faith or lack thereof. Both of these goals ultimately create more understanding between theists and nontheists in our community. Dan Waugh and Dan Barker not only fulfilled our goals but did so in a very respectful manner.

We want people to feel comfortable discussing sensitive, controversial topics like religion. Oftentimes people are fearful to express their opinions or do not want to offend someone else. However, as both Waugh and Barker showed us last night, we can break down these barriers in a way that is not inflammatory or disrespectful. We can discuss religion critically whether we believe or do not believe in God.

While audience members may not have agreed with the speakers, this debate gave people the opportunity to hear well thought out arguments that may have been contradictory to the ones they held when they walked in. Events like this should happen more often! With these debates we can enter an age where critical discussion of religion is met with no hesitation, no fear. With your help, we can make strides towards a world where any idea can enter into a fair and balanced discussion where neither side feels the need to hold back.

Our work is not done. There are so many cities that have not seen our message! So many more topics that have yet to be debated! Your gift is not just a donation; it is an investment into a society of free minds, good hearts, and loud voices. Make your online tax deductable gift today.