Hey all! Here’s a quick update on forthcoming speaking engagements.

Just last week I had the privilege of teaming up with Michael DeDora to facilitate a discussion for the Center for Inquiry New York City on interfaith cooperation efforts and the separation of church and state, which was a total blast. Meanwhile, the months of March and April are quickly filling up with events, the details of which are still coming together.

But for now, here are the speaking engagements I’ve got lined up for February and the first week of March… starting with a special event tomorrow night!

Wednesday, 2/1:

Now For Something Completely Different, Part 3

Reading from Faitheist

Cambridge, MA

Info on FB

Tuesday, 2/7:

The Pluralism Project and Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions

Panelist, Contours of Common Ground

Cambridge, MA

Info on FB

Saturday, 2/11:

Values in Action at the Humanist Community Project, the Harvard Interfaith Collaborative, Boston University Interfaith, and representatives from MIT, Fisher College, Brandeis University, Tufts University, and Gordon College (with others TBA)

Host, HUNGERally

Boston, MA

Info TBA

Monday, 2/13:

Gordon College

Wenham, MA

Speech and workshop

Info TBA

Tuesday, 2/21:

Georgia Gwinnett College Rationals for Reason

Lawrenceville, GA

Web speech

Info TBA

Monday, 3/5:

Granite State Skeptics

Manchester, NH

Speech and discussion

Info TBA

If you can, please join me at any one of these events!

P.S. Faitheist‘s website has some new updates — check it out!

You want to build an atheist what?

This post was originally published on An Elephant in the Room, An Atheist in the Church.

The story has been modestly covered, but there is some buzz about a rumor that Alain de Botton (author of Religion for Atheists) has plans to construct a temple for atheists in the heart of London. Though there is definitely some question as to the authenticity of said reports, today I would like to delve into the hypothetical: do atheists need a place of worship?

The Guardian, the British daily paper which was one of the first to report plans for the atheist temple, is conducting a survey on its website that asks whether or not atheists need a temple. Surprisingly, voters have indicated that they believe a place of worship for atheists is a good idea, with 54.2% of the vote. I have to question the composition of the voting pool, because somehow I can’t accept that this many atheists actually think the idea of an atheist temple is a decent one.

Articles on the subject state that de Botton thinks that atheists can gain much from the religious realm – even if we think that the stories of religion are utter nonsense. Indeed, his book (though I have not read it) – and the website dedicated to it – seem to propose that atheists can still learn from religion while ignoring the mythical, supernatural portions in which we don’t believe.

"Our" religion? I think not, Ms. Cupp...

De Botton is not alone in the world of atheists who think religion is a positive thing – even something for which atheists should strive to accept. SE Cupp, a conservative commentator who frequents Fox News and author of the book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity, claims to be an atheist who wishes she had faith (for the record, I think Cupp is full of shit – I think she found a vacant niche that she was happy to fulfill, even it meant being dishonest about a strong attachment to Christianity).

The problem with people like Cupp and de Botton is that they feed the lie that atheism is just another faith. Atheist writers, bloggers, speakers, and commentators have been working hard to dispel this absolute falsehood for a long time; but when atheists come along and reinforce this absurdity, the atheist movement as a whole loses ground.

You may now be asking yourself, “Wait, isn’t Tim focused on interfaith activism? Isn’t he one of these atheists who wants to support religion?” So, let me take a moment to make sure we understand each other. There is a difference between the willingness to work with religious people toward common goals and the desire to enable religion to continue on its path unchecked and free of criticism. I do not think that religion as a whole is a good thing. I would like to see this world move away from religion and toward skepticism and reason. For me, that doesn’t mean that my only interaction with religious people should be antagonistic debate. That is most definitely a part of it, but I also can appreciate that we are all humans trying to figure out this life, and we often have the same ideals for what could make this world a better place. And being against religion doesn’t mean that I don’t see the positives that religion can offer some people; but, just like Greta Christina said in a recent blog post, I don’t think that religion is necessary to attain these benefits.

Now, back to the point: I think that building an atheist temple – whether plans are really in motion or not – is an inherently bad idea. First, as I have discussed, it furthers the myth that atheism is a religion. It’s been said and joked about a gazillion times, but atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair color; as not collecting stamps is a hobby; as ‘off’ is a TV station. Being an atheist does not say anything about what a person does believe – it only demonstrates what he or she does not believe. There is a beautiful variety within the atheist movement – one composed of people of all backgrounds who value a number of things for different reasons. The only universally common denominator among atheists is a lack of believe in supernatural myths, and this lack of belief is no indication of the things in which different atheists do believe.

Atheism is not a religion (courtesy of BetterThanFaith.com)

Beyond this fallacy, an atheist temple is absolutely absurd. A temple is a place for worship – “The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.” Atheists have no use for worship because we don’t believe in any deities. Some articles about the UK temple seem to suggest that the temple would be a place of appreciation for the wonders of science and the universe – but there is no need to worship these things when we can understand them. Furthermore, one cannot make the argument that all atheists care about the beauty of the universe or the science that describes it. Like I said, atheism just means lack of belief – not “a group of science-minded individuals who have come to the conclusion that gods do not exist.” People become atheists for a variety of reasons, so to me it seems senseless to say that an atheist place of worship would be dedicated to science.

However, nothing is more preposterous than suggesting that atheists need to worship at all.

Tim Pate is the President of Colorado State University’s secular student organization, Leaders in Free Thought, and creator of the interfaith blog, An Elephant in the Room, An Atheist in the Church. He is the sole atheist in the interfaith group, Multi-Faith Partners Roundtable. He is an undergraduate public relations student at CSU; a writer for Public Relations Student Society of America’s newsletter, PRogress; the Public Relations Coordinator for Ability Club (an organization for disabled students); and a member of the Campus Feminist Alliance. To enhance your internet experience, follow him on Twitter: @timmytop.

An incredible video went up on YouTube yesterday, in which a man named Jacob Kramer asks Representative Joe Walsh, who is running for re-election in Kramer’s district, the following simple question: “How will you represent your atheist voters?”

I watched all five minutes and thirty-eight seconds of this video, which was filmed at a town hall event that Rep. Walsh offered for his constituents, with my jaw firmly planted on the floor – but not for any of the reasons I usually drop my jaw. In this video, there is no yelling. There is no name-calling. There is no whining. There is no condescension. There is no wild-eyed terror. There is no weeping or gnashing of teeth. This video flows with milk and honey and dignity and respect and competence and maturity and reasonable, constructive dialogue.

That’s it. I’m officially converted – I’ve witnessed a bona fide miracle.

Jacob Kramer serves as the Vice President of Outreach for the newly formed National Atheist Party. (This happens to be the exact position that I hold on the board of the equally influential Harvard Secular Society. Coincidence? I think not!) The NAP, founded last March by Troy Boyle, stands for a firm separation of church and state.

And, contrary to what the Pope would have you believe about “radical secularists,” the NAP truly doesn’t want the government to favor any religious viewpoint – including non-religious ones. “We don’t want government to impose a religion,” Boyle explained in an interview, “and we don’t want government to impose no religion.”

Some, like Hemant Mehta of the Friendly Atheist blog, have been skeptical of the NAP’s usefulness. In addition to the unfortunately somnolent acronym, Mehta mentions the NAP’s positions on a whole host of non-theological issues – from gay marriage to gun control – as a downside. Not the positions themselves, that is, but the simple fact that the NAP has taken positions on issues other than the existence of god(s). Although Mehta happens to agree with all of NAP’s declared positions on these issues, he explains, “it’s crazy to imply that all atheists feel the same way. Or that we should feel the same way.” Even support for church-state separation, Mehta suggest, might be an unwarranted extrapolation from the simple belief in a godless universe.

However, Mehta is quick to (rightly) point out that simply showing the atheists of America that they’re not alone is “a big freaking deal,” and he commends the NAP for at least partly uniting an often fragmented group. He also remarks – playfully highlighting a painfully real problem – that perhaps the best thing the NAP can do to create a more atheist-friendly country is to publicly endorse an atheist-unfriendly candidate (Mehta suggests Rick Santorum), thereby ending that unlucky person’s political career by branding them with the unelectable scarlet A.

But I think the NAP can do more than ironically humiliate evangelical politicians and remind people that atheists exist. The video of Jacob Kramer and Joe Walsh demonstrates the power that we can have if we organize. Free Inquiry editor Tom Flynn demanded years ago that atheists “start punching our weight.” But, as this video reveals, our true power lies not in our fists, but in what we can accomplish when we unclench them.

I obviously disagree strongly with the majority of Rep. Walsh’s response to Kramer’s question, but I’m incredibly impressed with the tone of this conversation, on both sides. Rep. Walsh may be a poor constitutional interpreter, but he should be commended for his sincere attempt to honestly and fairly engage all of his constituents in reasonable discussion. And Kramer clearly deserves props for bringing these issues up publicly, and for doing so in a manner that encourages constructive dialogue instead of starting yet another futile shouting match.

These are the types of conversations we need to be having with all our elected officials, because these are the conversations that will actually get us somewhere. If all the NAP did was record and publicize five-minute discussions like this one with every congressperson, they would immediately advance the public discourse on religion and government far more than any other party has in years.

As for the NAP’s actual platform, I’m not sure it’s as much of an extrapolation as Mehta argues. Inasmuch as a whole lot of hot political issues stem from people’s religious beliefs, it’s entirely reasonable to believe that certain positions on such issues could follow from non-religious beliefs as well. Although I agree that the NAP might be straying into unorthodox territory with some of their policies (I’m unclear on what godlessness tells us about the economy, for example), and while I’m well aware that there are always exceptions to the rules (my friend Kelly, who held my Harvard Secular Society board position before me, is pro-life), I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find an atheist who wants the state to apply different marriage rules to different couples based on their gender composition. Of course atheists will differ on whether to provide equal marriage rights or abolish marriage altogether as a government institution and stick with civil unions, but that’s the same kind of diversity you will see within any political party. The take-home message here is that the NAP isn’t necessary overstepping its bounds by taking positions on religiously-influenced political issues.

Finally, I think the NAP possesses significant potential in another realm that has not yet been recognized by either the media or the NAP itself. Although they may be the strangest of bedfellows, the NAP could be the next great ally of the interfaith movement. Of course this is where the ostensibly extraneous parts of their platform could get in the way, but if the NAP is serious about sticking to its core purpose of firmly separating church from state, its goals and methods should significantly overlap with those of interfaith organizations like the Interfaith Youth Core. And the respectful conversation between Kramer and Rep. Walsh is like an interfaith organizer’s wet dream. I’m skeptical that this cooperative potential will be harnessed, but stranger things have happened.

Small parties like the NAP frequently pop up for a few years and then die out, much like the vast majority of organisms in the history of Earth. But I believe the NAP has the potential to truly “evolve our politics,” just as they promise.

Chelsea Link is a senior at Harvard University, studying History and Science with a focus in the history of medicine. She recently founded and currently writes for two other blogs, The Unelectables (following religious minority candidates in the 2012 election) and Blogging Biblically (documenting her attempt to read the Bible in a year). She is the Vice President of Outreach of the Harvard Secular Society, the former President of the Harvard College Interfaith Council, and a Volunteer Ambassador for the Be the Match bone marrow donor registry. She likes to cook while pretending she’s on Top Chef (hasty breakfast? more like Quickfire Challenge!), adores word games of all kinds (and was once the President of the illustrious Harvard College Crossword Society), and tends to kill the mood at parties by unnecessarily reciting Shakespeare. Last summer, she interned at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard. You can ask her what she’s doing after graduation, but she’ll give you a different answer every time.