Modern Morality exists in-spite of Biblical theology - Guest Post by Jesse Parker

Biblical influence is a widely attributed source of morality in the United States. Scripture

is often cited as foundational to the origins of morality, ethics and ‘good’ behavior. Yet,

much of the Christian community fails to recognize society deviates from the ideals and

principles dictated by the Christian Bible. The abandonment of Old Testament law is

perhaps one of the most significant secular church developments. Confusion in the

pews arises when evaluating the importance of the Ten Commandments, all the while

rejecting other archaic beliefs such as the sins of wearing mixed fabrics or cutting off

hands for the crime of theft. So how did the Christian church decide which biblical ideals

to reject and which to keep?

Society has moved on from many of the Biblical moralistic ideals, as they would result in

an extremely violent, unequitable and repressive world. Numerous denominations make

the claim that the Old Testament can be set aside and not adhered while also dictating

that the ten commandments are central to the moral framework of humanity. Cherry-

picking Old Testament concepts and rejecting others speaks to even the Christian

community’s gravitation towards a secular world. Rejecting biblical doctrine to reflect

modern humanitarian ideals is a secular development within the Christian community.

Stating modern morality is directly linked to biblical scripture would be like stating that

modern medicine is directly linked to medieval bloodletting. Arguably, secular humanist

principles are having a significantly greater impact on Christianity than Christianity is

having on secular America. Jesus makes at least 5 explicit statements in the New

Testament commanding the Old Testament laws be followed. The New Testament and

the words of Jesus have been reinterpreted and even abandoned in recognition that

society can no longer accept these ideas as the morality we know today continues to

transform beyond a religious framework.

Christian dissociation from both Old and New Testament commands is evidenced by the

nearly 45,000 denominations that constitute the modern church. The Christian

community is unable to agree on what parts of the Bible matter, which should be

adhered or which to reject. There are a few basic ideals in which they agree, however,

denominations wildly divert from one another and often result in highly conflicting

theological interpretations. Some congregations support and affirm LGBTQ members,

while other denominations consider the Old Testament command to kill gay people as

reasonable to their theology. Not once is slavery explicitly discouraged in the Bible. In

fact, many Civil War era congregations and political leaders cited scripture to justify the

continued enslavement of African Americans. Abolitionists struggled to find anything in

scripture that blatantly denounced slavery and was unable to find an explicit theological

rebuttal. Yet, their southern counterparts have a wide array of Biblical theology that

reinforced their desire to maintain ownership of African Americans. We have a variety of

biblical examples that show the texts can be very direct and concise; “Do not kill, Do not

covet, Do not have other gods, Do not steal.” If only there had been an 11 th

commandment, to not own slaves.

The New Testament creates additional wrinkles in the idea that modern morality is a

Biblical development. A wide number of congregations view the Old Testament as

superseded or transformed by Jesus and the New Testament. This belief is often used

as justification for the acceptance of God’s murderous and violent character in the Old

Testament, that Jesus has transformed morality into a more accepting and loving

foundation. Yet- many of the teachings of Jesus have become relegated to the past.

There are a surprising number of teachings by Jesus that now do not present as active

values in modern conservative Christianity.

1.) Nonviolence

(Matthew 5, Luke 6)

“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you… turn the other cheek.”

A strong majority of the Christian community gravitates towards the Republican

party. Modern republican ideals, beginning during the Cold War, have repeatedly

demonstrated the value of war and U.S Interventionism across the globe.

Eisenhower oversaw coups and interventions. Nixon escalated the Vietnam War.

Reagan revived the hawkish stance on the 1980s in places like Grenada,

Lebanon and the proxy wars in Latin America. But perhaps the Global War on

Terror is a more recent reflection of Christian propensity to gravitate towards

violence and war. In 2025, violence and force appear to be an acceptable means

to control minorities and immigrants under the Trump administration. Modern ties

of American Exceptionalism with Christianity have been a powerful ideological

comingling resulting in the desire and willingness to continue foreign wars,

intervene militarily, and militarize police forces.

2.) Wealth Sharing

(Mathew 19:21, Luke 6: 30, Matthew 5:42, Luke 12:16, Luke 10:25)

“If you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you

will have treasure in heaven.” “ For I was hungry and you gave me something to

eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink..”

I can’t decide which is a better example of the abandonment of scripture relating

to wealth. Is it the prosperity gospel evidenced by people like Jesse Duplantis,

Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, or Joel Osteen? Perhaps the rejection of social

programs to feed the poor, house the homeless and provide free healthcare are a

more accurate representation of conservative Christian values. Christians may

apply such principles in anecdotal ways in their own life that satiate their desire to

fulfill these Biblical concepts. Volunteering at the soup kitchen, donating $100 to

the homeless shelter, or giving canned goods to the food bank seem to be about

the extent of wealth sharing the Christian Church is interested. Localized efforts

by the church to provide social services are inept and incapable of providing a

much more robust system in which people in need are truly taken care of and

given resources to succeed. Modern conservatives reject the idea that feeding

the hungry, housing the homeless and providing free healthcare are suitable

efforts of federal or state governments. Personal responsibility and economic

conservatism appear to be primary staples of reasoning among Christians to

justify denying social programs that would fulfill the very commands of Jesus. I’m

not sure why helping larger groups of people through social programs would not

be a desirable effort, given the red words. But again, much of the Christian

community is not interested in giving up their wealth in any meaningful way to

make a long-term impact on those in need. The most robust tools society

possesses (government programs) to fulfill these New Testament commands are

rejected as a feasible option by much of the conservative church. As time goes

on, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see how modern conservative

Christianity is in any way a reflection of the words of Jesus.

3.) Divorce and Remarriage

( Matthew 5:31)

“It has been said, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of

divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual

immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced

woman commits adultery.”

This makes me ponder the county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, who became

known for rejecting same-sex marriage certificates due to her religious beliefs

regarding the sanctity of marriage. She stated, “to issue a marriage license which

conflicts with God’s definition of marriage… would violate my conscience.” Let’s

not overlook that Kim Davis has been married 4 different times, became pregnant

before her first divorce was finalized, and her twins were fathered by her third

husband but were then adopted by her second/fourth husband.

The greater reality of divorce in the Christian community is far more

representative of modern society and reflects the secular movement within

modern Christianity. Christians are divorcing for a variety of reasons; abuse,

infidelity, abandonment, child-rearing disagreements, financial strains and

general marital dissatisfaction. Perhaps a few denominations remain steadfast to

the non-negotiable dynamics of marriage, but most of the Christian community

ignore Jesus’ command in this instance. This secular development recognizes

the implications of marital failure on one’s future and accepts this deviation from

scripture which reflects social progress.

4.) Renouncing Family Ties/ Family Division

(Matthew 10:34)

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to

bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a

daughter against her mother, A man’s enemies will be the members of his own

household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy

of me.”

In this chapter, Jesus warns that following him will sometimes divide families and

highlights that allegiance to him takes precedence over family harmony. Yet, what

is the modern outcome for religious families with secular members? Are the

secular family members rejected and denied? Generally, no. While some families

do reject gay, transgender and atheist members- keeping the peace and allowing

the family unit to remain intact takes priority over abandonment in many

households. There are a variety of examples of Jesus demanding that family

never come before god, but in modern society, and in function, families can and

do remain intact despite religious differences.

5.) Sabath Observance

(Matthew 24)

I can only presume the number of Christians working on the Sabath is quite high.

Outdated or not, a large swathe of the church doesn’t seem to mind rejecting this

instruction by Jesus and it is certainly not a reflection of modern morality.

6.) Sermon on the Mount Teachings

(Matthew 5-7)

The sermon on the mount may indeed be Jesus’ dissertation for morality and

spiritual principles. Which of those is reflected as the originating source of human

morality? Are the socially marginalized being accepted by the Christian church?

Or are they being welcomed by the progressive and secular communities? Does

Jesus’ command to forgive and be generous to those in need reflect societal

values of the Christian community or progressive groups? Is the Christian

church adhering to the Golden rule, “Do to others what you would have them do

to you?” Are Christian communities encouraging broad programs to support the

homeless, the hungry and the poor? Jesus’ call for radical love and mercy does

not seem to be of importance to conservative religious groups regarding

immigrants, homelessness or the LGBTQ community or groups deemed as

outsiders to the Christian tradition.

The Christian community may scoff at the idea that many of these principles are being

brought into light to exemplify the modern deviation from original scripture. But these

examples are the point in question. These concepts such as wearing mixed fabrics, not

working on the Sabbath, or plucking one’s own eyes out exemplify modern Christianity’s

reinterpretation, and in many cases, abandonment of basic Biblical principles. There is a

recognition by the Christian community that these beliefs are outdated, dangerous and

would be extraordinarily detrimental to society. The idea that the Bible is the

foundational source of morality while the Christian church simultaneously rejects or

ignores large quantities of its teachings doesn’t persuade me that it is morality’s source

of truth. Claiming the Bible is the ultimate source and foundation of modern morality

does not hold up to scrutiny. The claim is absent of evidence. We do not need a god or

holy book to know that murder, rape, theft, abuse or other wrongdoings are harmful.

Considering the U.S prison population is predominately theistic, some studies estimate

a nearly 98% rate of inmates believing in a god or holding religious beliefs. Estimates

conclude that 82% of prison inmates will be arrested once again within 10 years of their

release. Clearly, belief in a god, or adhering to religious principles is not much of a

bulwark against crime.

The claim that morality is a direct reflection of scripture appears to be an idiom or

punchline that is used to validate the belief system. This approach is highly problematic

and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Social morality and ethics are a far deviation from

Biblical principles. It’s also reasonable to suggest that modern Christian congregations

hardly adhere to the fundamental dynamics in the Old or New Testaments. Current

Christian trends seem to reflect a drive-through like approach to Biblical beliefs. Show

up on Sunday, pick a few items that sound nice, pick up at the second window and head

home to watch football. If they can’t find a palatable option from their local

congregations, they are then able to create the 45,0001 st denomination that is the one,

true, interpretation of god.

Why I Am An Atheist (Activist)

I am often asked “Why are you an atheist” or “How can you be an atheist” when engaging with members of the public.  Here in Iowa, being an atheist, humanist, secular person is still seen as an anomaly by a lot of folks, especially well-meaning folks that are struggling with many of the actions of our state and federal government. They have grown up with this idea of religiosity being synonymous with morality and while that is so demonstrably not true upon any short reflection, it remains a social burden non-religious folks must bear and this is deeply unfair as well as being untrue: most human beings do not share the faith of the people here.

This is one of the many reasons that I’m motivated to be an atheist activist.

Showing folks what Being Good Without God looks like. Reminding the public that we are all human beings with the same needs, wants, fears, concerns, and all the rest of what it means to be a human being. Like the folks that belong to religious groups, I want to raise my kids to be smart and healthy and strong.  That means marshaling our resources to support clean water, well-funded science-based education, democracy, and safe public spaces. It also means embracing science, rational thinking, and considering the consequences of our actions in our civic and social decisions – not assuming what we’re doing is automatically correct because we make faith claims. Living in a red state that is dominated by Christian ideologues, embracing these things becomes difficult since, all too often, religious doctrine finds itself at odds with the virtues of science, democracy, and equal protection under the law.

So, I do what I can to act because the legacy of the organized secular community has been and should continue to be one of justice, equality, democracy, and science.  I believe the future is too important to be left in the hands of faith based, divine command theory, regressive church organizations that undermine many of the things that make our society thrive: secular governance. We know what societies look like when the faithful hold all the levers of power, we see how it harms the fabric of our society and create divisions, we know how the treatment of women and minority faiths shake out. Stopping that fracturing and degradation of society starts with us because when equality is under attack, atheists show up! To me that is more than just a catchphrase, it’s something I want to back up with action!

For an example of action, in June we held our annual Iowa Secular Summit, an event that spanned a day with talks from evolution experts like Aron Ra and communicators like American Atheists’ Melina Cohen.  We invited lobbyists from a wide swath of groups like One Iowa, Progress Iowa, the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, and the bi-partisan dialogue group Braver Angels. We discussed the importance of church state separation and showed the public what it means to have secular values.  The event energized hundreds of people and encouraged them to reengage their political leaders and to participate in the democratic process explicitly as secular people. After all, we ARE the largest consistent voting block, and that group size is only getting larger - lets act like it, right?

Another way I take action is by holding my government accountable. This year the group I lead, the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers, filed a suit in conjunction with the ACLU against the governor’s office in the state of Iowa. This suit aims to challenge the claims of indefinite executive privilege by the governor to discriminate against religious groups and withhold potential discriminatory language and actions from the public to avoid accountability.  Notably, religious groups have refused to engage in transparency, instead adopting a stance of “hands off” while others’ rights are eroded. As an atheist, a humanist, and a citizen, I can’t sit idly by while this kind of behavior becomes normalized, and if the purported “moral authorities” in the churches cannot find a way to use their resources to help others, then I will.  We are hopeful that this kind of lawsuit and public hearing will result in a more transparent and responsible government, something that is truly necessary to protect the rights of all citizens.

Lastly, what I do as an atheist activist is live my life publicly as an atheist. When I interact with others, I make no secret about it: I am a father, a husband, a taxpayer, a homeowner, a combat veteran, but I’m also an atheist.  Because I am not shackled to faith-based claims, I’m free to make better and more rational decisions for myself and for my family.  I am unafraid to call out unsubstantiated bad ideas or to challenge faith claims as equal to scientific ones. I work to normalize conversation about atheism and being willing to break away from the routine deference to faith in favor of reason. It really does start with us in everyday conversation and being willing to cause a little discomfort in favor of a lot of truth. Even running as a city council candidate in the largest city in my state, I never shied away from being non-religious because being so makes me a better person, thinker, and citizen.

Hopefully in sharing my experiences and my stance on atheism it encourages you to get out there and normalize atheism. Show the world that there are far more folks that don’t share their faith than agree with their faith claims. Build that secular community, join those events, attend that rally, get to that protest, wear that shirt, and embody the virtues of being Good Without God, no matter the headwinds you may face. 

Alone we are a free thinker, but together, we are the future of reason, democracy, and humanity.

Jason Benell

President, Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers

This post first appeared in the 2025 Second Issue of American Atheist Magazine

Guest Post -The Bible is Such An Obvious Myth; Why Do We Take It Seriously?

INTRODUCTION 

At the outset, I should make clear that I am not a biblical scholar.  What I’m writing below is based entirely on my observations of the plain text of the first few chapters in the biblical book of Genesis.  I am writing about the creation myth and the myth of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  Scholars, professional philosophers, theologians, rabbis, priests, ministers, and preachers may have different things to say.  For this essay, I’m taking the text at face value.  I assume that the text is a myth, written down by human beings. My goal is to nitpick and point to contradictions and/or inconsistencies that appear to my untrained eye.

After watching a video in which Alex O’Connor pointed out a few things about the creation myth I decided to reread it to confirm what Alex had to say an draw som conclusions of my own.  I was actually surprised by what I saw in the text itself, things I had never considered before.  Keep in mind that as far as I’m concerned the text is a creation myth and nothing more.  

There are many versions and editions off the Bible.  For that reason, I’m not going to cite chapter and verse like a preacher.  Nor will I give citations which would elevate this essay to the status of scholarship.  Nevertheless you can look it up, as they say, if you have any doubt about the details I provide here.  

I find some of the elements of the story humorous and ironic, but as I point out in the conclusion, there is really nothing funny about people waisting their lives chasing a false promise — a myth.  

We can do better.  

THE STORY

In Genesis, it’s written that after creating the world, there were no plants or herb because 1) the god had not caused it to rain, and 2) there was no one to till the ground. After a stream appeared and watered the ground, the god added some water to the dust of the earth, formed a man and breathed life into him.  By the way, making some clay, sculpting a man, breathing life into it — that’s a good trick, but the god wasn’t the only one who could do it.  A couple thousand years later, Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel did the same thing in Prague.  I first heard that story while walking with a guide through the Prague Jewish cemetery — The guide wouldn’t lie, would he? Oh, but that’s another story.    

Then, the god planted the garden with every tree that was pleasant to look at and good for food.  The god also planted a tree of knowledge (of good and evil) and a tree of (eternal) life.  First the man was made and only then the garden was planted.  When the man put into the garden to till it — there was no mention of a John Deere tractor.  The god told the man that he could eat anything in the garden EXCEPT the fruit from the tree of knowledge, because if you do, on that day, you will die.  I want to emphasize that the man was told he would die on the day he learned the difference between good and evil — on that day.

After the man was ensconced in the garden, the god put the man to sleep, extracted a rib an made a woman.  It’s interesting that before performing the costectomy the god used an anesthetic.    

Later, the serpent showed up to have a word with the woman, Eve.  The first thing to notice was that the serpent was an animal.  More crafty than the other animals, but an animal — not the devil disguised as an animal.  And the story tells us that all the animals were made by the god. “The serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the lord god HAD MADE.” (My emphasis).  I just want it to be clear that the serpent was a wild animal.  

When the woman told the serpent they were forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, or even touch it — in other words, look but don’t touch or eat, because if you do, you’ll die.  The serpent said: “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 

The woman saw this tree that looked good, the fruit was good to eat, and it “would make one wise.”  After she at it, Adam took some too.  They didn’t die, but they saw that they were naked.  Being naked caused shame so they grabbed some fig leaves and sewed some loincloths. 

That night when there was a nice breeze, the god walked through the garden (the story doesn’t say what the god was doing during the day).  The god didn’t see the people so it called “where are you.”  When the man told the god that they were hiding because they were ashamed of being naked, the god knew right away what had happened.  The man blamed the woman and the woman claimed the serpent had tricked her. 

As a result: 1) The serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly; 2) The woman was cursed with increased pain in childbirth and subjection to her husband; 3) The man was condemned to toil and sweat to grow food — cursed is the ground, thorns and thistles it shall bring forth, “until you return to the ground, for out if it you were taken.  You are dust and to dust you shall return.” 

Then the god made them clothes and banished them from the garden, lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever.  To make sure they didn’t return and eat the fruit that would let them live forever, the god put “the cherubim” with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life.   

Verbum Domini — I kid you not.  Can we talk?

THE OMNISCIENT AND ALMIGHTY GOD

Christians teach that god is omniscient, i.e. the god knows everything, even what is in a persons brain — I know people like to say that god knows what’s in their hearts. I know what’s in your heart too — blood.  Our thoughts are in our brain, are they not?  But if god is all knowing, why did it not know where Adam was.  Adam was hiding and it was only when he told the god he was naked that the god knew he had dated the forbidden fruit.  Seems strange, does it not?  Also if the god is omniscient, why didn’t it know Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit — it wasn’t until Adam said he was ashamed of being naked that god figured out what had happened.  

Likewise, if this almighty god didn’t want the people to eat something that would let them know good and evil — the essence of being a god, why did the god plant the tree of knowledge in a place to which the humans had access? If the answer is so that the god could test the humans, recall that the humans didn’t know good and evil, right and wrong.  Knowledge of good and evil came with the fruit of the tree.  Well, maybe the trees of knowledge and life were already there.  No, the myth is explicit, first the god caused a stream to rise and water the ground, from that water and some dust the god made a man, then the god planted the garden that had all the trees, including the tree of life and the tree of knowledge.  

“We learn from the forbidden fruit, for brains there is no substitute.” (Robert Frost, Quandary).  There were about ten then that caught my eye as I reread the myth.

First: The god lied. The god said the humans would die that day. The god didn’t say that if they ate the fruit, eventually they would get sick or suffer an injury, or just die of old age.  No, on the very day you eat it, you will die. Instead, they lived for hundreds of years.  Eventually the life span of humans was set at 120 years.  It was the serpent who told the truth. “You will not die” — and they didn’t.

Second: The humans had access to a tree that granted eternal life, but that didn’t interest them. They chose the one that made them like the god with knowledge of good and evil. On one hand it would seem like knowledge was more attractive than life, but we have to remember that until they ate the fruit, they didn’t know what was better, they didn’t know good from evil.  

Third: If the essence of a god is the ability to know good from evil and only gods, and those like gods, have that ability, why did this almighty god create evil and introduced into the world in the first place?  Is it even possible to have good without the opposite? The god knew that evil exists, it just didn’t want to let the humans in on the plot.  Perhaps good and evil are just facts of life.  As Robert Frost wrote about bad, “It was by having been contrasted that good and bad so long had lasted.”  You can’t have good unless it’s opposite is there too, so how is it that we are told that evil entered the world because of original sin?

Fourth: None of the punishments introduced anything new, the consequence was that the serpent and the people would be aware of the status quo. 

The serpent was condemned to crawl on it’s belly, but the story doesn’t mention that the serpent had legs, or wings, or any other means of locomotion.

The woman would have an increase of pain during childbirth and would be number two on the totem pole. 

The man had already been charged with tilling the garden, it was the very reason the god mixed some mud - water and dust, and made him.  Now he would be aware how much work it was to grow food on ground full of thorns and thistles.  Evil was not a consequence of becoming like a god, it was knowledge of how evil their life was that was their punishment.  The lying god didn’t want the humans to know how evil it (the god) was, but the serpent blurted out the truth.

Fifth: It was the man who was punished with laborious farming cursed soil.  The irony is that in early human societies, it was the women who did the farming, while the men went off to “hunt and fish” — a likely story.  Like Ulysses, the men were probably off swapping stories about one eyed monsters and mermaids singing irresistible songs.  So the woman got the short end of both sticks: pain, painful childbirth and subservience, and still got stuck doing the farming. The real transgression wasn’t eating the fruit — it was being female.

Sixth: If the god feared that humans would become like gods, why place the means within their reach?  Remember the god planted the garden with the trees after he made the man.  Did the evil god set them up to be punished?  It sounds evil on its face.  

Seventh: What makes a being godlike is the ability to learn and discriminate twixt what to love and what to hate, to paraphrase Frost again.  The irony is, the more knowledge we gain the fewer gods and demons we are haunted by. In the few thousand years since the story was first told, we have gone form living in a world without fire or wheels to world of atomic energy and the ability to fly to other planets — some of our space craft are now traveling through deep space beyond the reach of our sun.  We know why the sun rises in the east, we know why the planets rotate around the sun, and we know that the stars are not just little lights to make the night sky a little brighter.  We know how the universe was formed and we know how life evolved.  And we know that all these things work without any divine intervention. 

Eighth: Christianity teaches that eating the forbidden fruit was a sin so heinous  that only crucifixion and resurrection could fix it. But if we follow the story, it wasn’t the humans who sinned — it was the god who lied. The god placed the temptation, allowed the crafty serpent into the garden.  Before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, the humans lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.  So where was the sin? Perhaps the Christian story should be revised showing that it was the god who required the forgiveness of the humans.

Ninth: If the god lied from the beginning, why believe anything else it says? This same god later promises eternal life after a life of suffering.  Okay, …fool me twice, shame on me.   

Tenth: Once the man and woman knew good from evil, the first thing they did was to make clothes from fig leaves.  Apparently, the knowledge of good and evil doesn’t extend to fashion. Before banishing them, the god made them proper clothes from animal skins. “You’re not leaving my garden in fig leaves. Here—this will do until you find Dolce & Gabbana,” said the god doing its best imitation of Bruno.

CONCLUSION

Today we know this story is a myth.  We know that humans, like every other living plant or animal evolved.  There never was a “first” human.  There could have been no original sin which required redemption.  The ultimate end of the myth, at the other end of the Bible, no makes no sense — No god, no original sin, no virgin birth, no death and resurrection.  The whole kit and caboodle is a myth, much like the other myths that were common in that part of the world.

Whether we examine the original creation myth or modern religions, one thing clear: religion of any kind is irrational. Gods, demons, serpents — these no longer belong to the world in which we live. Whether the myth is preached from a pulpit—or echoed while walking through a cemetery—it remains just that: a pie in the sky lie.

Why does all this make a bit of difference?  Because there are still millions, if not billions, of people around the world that still believe it and waste their lives chasing a myth rather than learning how the world really works.  People find comfort and meaning from a story that has no basis in reality.  Any feelings of personal comfort or feelings of morality are meaningless when grounded in a falsehood.  And the fact that it makes people comfortable or like they want to do the right thing or somehow provides a purpose to live, does not make it any less false.  Religion makes claims about the world that are not true.  It’s cruel to make false promises and false claims.  

Can’t we do better?  What’s the alternative?  Rational secular humanism grounded in Enlightenment values.  

Mike Messina

IAF Opposes HSB 242 - Gender Identity Should Remain In The Iowa Civil Rights Code

Recently a bill, House Study Bill 242, was introduced in the Iowa House with the specific goal of removing gender identity from civil rights protections. This would make Iowa the first state to remove a protected class from such a law and would push transgender citizens out of nearly all legal protections that are based on gender identity. Furthermore, this bill would disallow changing sex on government documents, push transgender women out of domestic violence shelters, crisis centers, and healthcare locations, and allow transgender Iowans to be discriminated against when seeking housing or financial assistance. Lastly, it uses unscientific language that replaces rigorous definitions of gender, gender expression, and sex with partisan language that obfuscates and precludes any citizen from expressing their gender by striking “gender identity” from any form of civil rights protections.

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers strongly oppose this pernicious and harmful bill.

IAF advocates for a secular government that protects and respects ALL citizens, regardless of their gender, sex, religion, age, ethnicity, race, national origin, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.  A bill like this does nothing to advance the interests and rights of citizens of Iowa and everything to advance the interests of unscientific fearmongering religious groups that seek to harm some of the most vulnerable Iowans.  Civil rights legislation is designed to protect the rights of citizens, not provide additional rights or status to certain groups. This bill seeks to undermine equality under the law and carve out a special path to discriminate against transgender citizens. 

This does not represent equality under the law, rather it seeks specifically to undermine it. Equality under the law, free from discrimination based on inherent individual characteristics, is a requirement that we citizens should demand in a democratic society.  This bill and the advocates for it stand in stark contrast to humanistic ideals and values of a free and pluralistic society based on reason, science, and a government interested in the common good.

It is also immensely immoral and unethical to target a group of Iowans to undermine their rights and protections, especially if it is based on a religious moral panic.  These are not the values that are represented in the Iowa Constitution nor are they values that IAF and their members represent. IAF is deeply saddened that political leaders in this state have decided attacking a minority group is of greater value than standing for secular values and democratic governance.

IAF, alongside scores of scientists, activists, healthcare experts, and civil rights leaders oppose this legislation and other bills like HSB 242. We are hopeful that assaults on Iowa’s civil rights cease and that the legislature embraces science and secular governance over sectarian misinformation and pernicious ostracization of our fellow citizens.

Do not pass HSB 242.

Jason Benell

President

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers

Secular Morality is Superior to Faith-Based Anything

What does atheism have to do with LGBTQ issues, abortion, voting rights and other issues? Freedom and better outcomes is what.

As President of the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers, from time to time I’ll get asked “what does atheism have to do with X issue?” to perhaps justify IAF or our members dropping out or away from any given cause or signing on to one. Most often this is brought up in regard to support of LGBTQ rights, but also on issues like abortion, voting rights, education issues, and even American foreign policy. The question is usually, but not always, asked by someone who has a position that is counter to a position that IAF may hold or different from a statement they may have seen secular leadership at both the state or national level have made.  I understand why folks want to speak up on many of these issues, but I also want to make it clear as to why groups like IAF and myself consider our position a direct result of our atheism and value of secular reasoning.

Unlike opposition to groups like IAF, particularly the religious and faith based groups, atheists are free to think for ourselves.  Most of the assaults on our liberties and our ability to use evidence and science to come to better conclusions are based in faith traditions that consider new information harmful to their core belief structures. This means we are not constrained by faith based thinking or folksy wisdom as stand-ins for critical thinking or uncomfortable truths about the actions of our government and other actors. It is a special type of freedom to look at the world as it is, using science and reason and coming to conclusions without the monkey of spectral authority on our backs. 

It also gives us the freedom to be wrong on things and to change our minds. This is not a method that is available to those that think all morality and wisdom were figured out thousands of years ago. Instead, those who believe in ancient scriptures risk finding themselves outside of the orthodoxy with reinterpretation or reimagining of texts, often twisting themselves into pretzels to do so.  This leads to the very kinds of schisms that we are all too familiar with: accusations of heresy, rifts between families and communities, churches and institutions splitting up and spinning off, and yes, ultimately in holy wars.

Rejecting the entire premise that a timeless and spaceless god has demands upon us immediately defuses these kinds of conflicts. It is a tough discussion for a theist to have when the very people they oppose on moral grounds are using the exact same basis for their position: a holy book.  This is why you find religious people on both sides of these issues: not because of an inherent goodness or badness of their scripts – remember they are often literally the same scripts - but because of their ability to use empathy and reason against those that rely on faith beliefs that drain them of that very empathy.

Rejecting faith-based reasoning frees you from this dissonance and more.

This also means that we find less reasons to distrust and dehumanize people that may be different from us.  It allows us to embrace our empathy and look for the consequences of our actions rather than how we feel about doing certain actions or other people’s actions make us feel if they don’t impact us. It isn’t our business what other human beings do with their bodies, just as we wouldn’t want anyone to impose their beliefs on our bodies. Thus, we find no motivation to invent reasons to control others via some kind of group enforced invisible morality. When it comes to actions of our governments be it foreign or domestic, atheists must find a secular reason for doing things, and the consistent person rejects those that have no evidence. This means taking into account historical data or setting aside this or that groups moral claim or tradition.  This means considering the consequences, unshackled from decisions or moral teachings from people who are wholly separate from the issues of today.

While we do stand on the shoulders of giants, we also find wisdom in not consulting those same giants on the issues of today.  This would be as if we were to consult Henry Ford on how best to maintain the latest electric vehicle.  He would be of no help and likely even detrimental to the maintenance and operation of such a vehicle, so too is this true of our moral and civic responsibilities. If we leave behind our faith-based morality, we find ourselves free to make better decisions and seek out better outcomes and make our lives objectively better. From these ancient scripts and teachers, it allows to take what is good and leads to better outcomes, better societies, and leave in the dustbin of history the detrimental, the unscientific, the bigoted, the misogynist, the harmful.

But you can only do that if you don’t believe they have any kind of divine authority because such an authority clearly does not exist.

This is why the issues that are brought up are so important to secular folks and free thinkers. There are no secular reasons to invade the uterus of a person or diminish their right to their own body carte blanche. There are no secular reasons to say this group of people has equal rights, but this other group doesn’t because of who they love or how they look like.  There are no secular reasons to turn away from teaching the cornerstone of biology, evolution. There are no secular reasons to support foreign wars unconditionally nor to cause mass starvation or subjugation.   These are in the realm of faith and fear and a foreclosure on a better world.

Taking a stand against the demon haunted world is what has made us a better species and what has made our societies better. Being an atheist is standing up and saying, “I don’t need divine intervention or instruction to care about my fellow human beings”.  It cuts away the baggage and makes our moral and civic choices stand entirely on our own shoulders.  We reach conclusions that we come to through collaboration and looking at results, not by glancing backward to ensure we’re “doing it right” for fear of being out of step of ancient words. It places the humanity of our fellow human beings front and center, not to the side or behind any holy edict.

This is why atheists and secular humanists and freethinkers must take a stand on these issues. This is why it is important for atheists to speak up and speak out about things like equality, like civil rights, like education, like healthcare, like government programs, like democracy. Otherwise, we cede all morality to those that think they had it al figured out 2000 years ago and are still struggling to make it make sense. We know how that turns out for human progress, how that turns out for the LGBTQ community, how that turns out for women, how that turns out for science.

Lets not go back into that darkness.