American Atheists on Faith and Politics

January 14, 2008


American Atheists President Ellen Johnson has posted a fantastic monologue about Faith in Politics and John F. Kennedy. I’ve transcribed the speech below. I feel that it would be important to spread the transcript and/or video as much as possible, especially in the coming year. She poses the question “Would JFK be electable today with his stance in the issue of the separation of church and state?”

Here is the full transcript:

Welcome, and thanks for visting the American Atheists Web site. I’m Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. By the time you see this video, the Iowa caucuses will be history. We still have 11 months to go until the 2008 Presidential Election, and odds are, that even right after the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, we still won’t have a clear fix on who will be the nominees for Republican and Democratic Parties. One thing is for sure, however; religion and religious faith are playing a disproportionately large element in the race for the White House. And nearly all of the candidates feel the pressure to declare religious belief as a credential for public office.

Surveys indicate that the overwhelming majority of voters are mostly concerned about issues like: the budget deficit, war in Iraq and healthcare. A small but well organized coterie of evangelicals though, exercise a disproportionate amount of influence — especially inside the Republican Party. They vote, and they vote as a block. They’re well organized and when they vote, it’s not the Constitution or secular policies that guide their decisions. They’re convinced that America was, or is, or should be, a so-called “Christian nation” where the Bible is a template for how government and society should operate. We can all learn a lesson from their organizational skills and commitment to their cause.

Could John F. Kennedy be elected President of the United States today? It’s doubtful, given the current theo-political climate. Back in 1960, when JFK won the Democratic nomination for President, religion was a major campaign issue. Kennedy was a Roman Catholic and no Catholic up to that point had been elected to the White House. And in 1960, people were wondering if Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism somehow compromised his ability to serve the United States over the Vatican.

John F. Kennedy was one of the few Presidential Candidates who openly and proudly enunciated his support for the separation of church and state. Today that is almost a taboo phrase, “separation of church and state.” Mitt Romney uses it occasionally — so does Reverend Mike Huckabee. Ron Paul doesn’t even think that it should exist! He says, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of the founding fathers.”

Most candidates today repeat the myth that the separation of church and state is not in our Constitution or that its a legal fiction or that it simply means that the government cannot tamper in the affairs of religion. But all of those claims are simply wrong. It’s true that the words “separation of church and state” are not found in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not part of our legal code. The words are an interpretation of what the Establishment Clause means. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, which is the free exercise clause. And it guarantees our freedom from imposed or government compelled religion. That’s the Establishment Clause. Our courts have been consistent over the past 50 to 60 years that the First Amendment was intended to erect a wall of separation between state and church.

Unlike Huckabee and Romney and other candidates who want to showcase their religious beliefs as a credential for public office, John F. Kennedy embraced both elements of the First Amendment. He supported the right of people to believe in and practice their faith, so in long as those beliefs were not forced on other people. He also enunciated the principle that the state should not serve the church — any church — including his own. He opposed the official diplomatic recognition of the Vatican, complete with ambassadorial exchanges, fearing that it was unconstitutional and gave his own church too much power. Kennedy declared that if elected to the Presidency, he would put the Constitution first — not private religious beliefs. He also sent a clear message to the Catholic hierarchy that they should not interfere in the political affairs of the United States. Wherever Kennedy went, he was hounded by ads, picket signs and charges that he was a stalking horse for Roman Catholicism. Most of these accusations came from Protestant groups. So Kennedy, true to his style and principles, confronted his accusers during an historic appearance before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association at the Rice Hotel in Houston, TX on September the 12th, 1960. Let me read you some of the quotes from his speech and then ask yourself if any candidate today would have the guts to stand up for these principles.

He began his talk to over 600 Protestant ministers by say that there were “far more critical issues than religion.” He said, “The hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; and America with too many slums, too few schools and too late to the moon and outer space.” And he said, “They are the real issues which should decide this campaign and they are not religious issues for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.”

Kennedy blamed religious sectarianism, especially the obsessive focus on his private Catholicism, as being responsible for obscuring what he called “the real issues” of his campaign. And just minutes into his talk, he put it all on the line. He said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President, should he be a Catholic, how to act; and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

Kennedy’s enlightened vision of a secular America — a polity free from religious dogma — is like night and day compared to our current political climate. I particularly like these following quotes from JFK.

“Whatever issue may come before me as President on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views — In accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power, nor threat of punishment, could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office.”

We’ve come a long way since the 1960 campaign and yes, there has been progress in defending separation of church and state thanks to groups like American Atheists. But we need to work very hard to make the politicians aware that a quarter of the United States population are not religious. We are a huge voting block. If we non-religious Americans make our issues our primary concern on election day, then we can make our voting power work for us.

Vote your atheism first, and together we can enlighten the vote. Thank you for visiting our Web site, I’m Ellen Johnson.


Fundamentalists Try to Link Darwin to Hitler

June 4, 2007

A February article from the Religious Right’s, promotes a documentary that links Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, the basis for modern biological science to Adolf Hitler.



Charles Darwin should share with Adolph Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a new video documentary explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.

Titled “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy,” the stunning documentary shows that Darwinian theory, “which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity,” Jerry Newcomb, one of the program’s two co-producers, told WorldNetDaily.

Before the advent of Darwinian beliefs, said Newcombe, the Western world’s basic concept was that man was made in the image of God, and was therefore valuable. But Darwin changed all that.loonies

“Karl Marx wouldn’t embrace all (Darwin’s) tenets, but said, ‘This is a scientific theory on which we can base our theory of man,'” Newcomb told WND.

Ann Coulter, bestselling author of “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” a WorldNetDaily columnist and featured speaker at WND’s upcoming NewsExpo2007 event, said Hitler was simply taking Darwinism from the theoretical to the practical.

“He thought the Aryans were the fittest and he was just hurrying natural selection along,” Coulter said.

“We talk about the link between Darwin and Hitler, and in the middle ground, eugenics,” said Newcomb. “Darwin led to eugenics, which led directly to Hitler.”

“I was just shocked about a week ago, (when a news report) talked about a designer clinic, where you could design your own baby. They said everybody seems to want perfect Aryans. Where have we heard that?” asked Newcomb, who noted the documentary project was based on the book “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy,” by Richard Weikart.

“I never knew about the link between Darwin and Hitler until after reading Richard Weikart’s book,” said Coulter.

Coulter is among the experts who appear in the special. Others are Weikart, Lee Strobel, journalist/author of “The Case for a Creator,” Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of Evolution,” and Human Genome Project Director Francis Collins.

“To put it simply – no Darwin, no Hitler,” said Kennedy, who is host for the special. “Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it.”

The program also addresses eugenics, a term coined by Darwin’s own cousin, Francis Galton, who campaigned for using human genetics as a means to breed superior beings.

In the United States, nearly three dozen states at one point mandated sterilization programs to prevent the “feebleminded” and other “defectives” from reproducing.

A direct result of that concept is today’s Planned Parenthood, the production documents. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger believed in removing what she called the “dead weight of human waste,” the program says.

“Eugenics is applied Darwinism,” said Coulter.

The culmination of that belief system appears to have been the Columbine massacre. There, students Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 other students, a teacher and themselves, after setting out on a plan to kill 500.

“Harris wrote on his website, ‘YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms,'” the report says.

Reports show that on the day of the attack, Harris wore a T-shirt with the words, “Natural Selection.”

All this happened, said Kennedy, because of a set of theories based on “a crumbling scientific foundation.”

As WND reported recently, hundreds of Ph.D. scientists are now stepping forward and publicly dissenting from Darwinian theory.

Hitchens on Falwell

May 18, 2007