Biblical Commandments Are Unconstitutional
By August Berkshire
(This essay is available as a downloadable tri-pane PDF pamphlet)

There are many Ten Commandments monuments on public property throughout the United States.  They are often found on the lawns outside courthouses, city halls, state capitols, and in public parks.

Many of these monuments were erected from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.  This was done at the behest of film director Cecil B. DeMille, as a publicity stunt to promote his 1956 film The Ten Commandments.

These monuments should be removed from public property because they represent a government establishment of religion, in violation of the First Amendment. The monuments should also be removed because they have little connection to U.S. law, and because enacting most of them into law would be unconstitutional.

Looking at a typical monument, we find there are actually eleven commandments. (The first commandment is in two distinct parts.)

Of these eleven commandments, only three, or 27%, have counterparts in American law:

• 5) Thou shalt not kill.
• 7) Thou shalt not steal.
• 8) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Even so, there are exceptions that we do not prosecute, such as killing in self-defense, stealing evidence of illegal activity and turning it over to the law, and lying about public figures if there is absence of malice.

The other eight commandments, representing 73% of the total of eleven, would be unconstitutional if we were to enact them into civil law:

• 1a) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. This violates freedom of religion.
• 1b) Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images. This violates freedom of religion and freedom of artistic expression.
• 2) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. This violates freedom of religion and free speech.
• 3) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. This violates freedom of religion.
• 4) Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Compelling loyalty to anyone is tantamount to slavery.
• 6) Thou shalt not commit adultery. This violates our right to privacy.
• 9) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. This violates freedom of thought.
• 10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbors. This violates freedom of thought.

The first four of these eight commandments are purely religious and have no place in civil law. The last four may often be good advice, but it would nevertheless be unconstitutional to legislate them.

Thus we have a conflict between the U.S. Constitution and the Bible, between civil law and theocracy.

For the sake of our democracy and our civil liberties, Ten Commandments monuments should be removed from public property.

© 2010 August Berkshire

Download (PDF, 72.92KB)

No related posts.

Definitions

An agnostic is a person who has no (scientific) knowledge of any gods.  This describes everybody.  People who nevertheless believe in at least one god are theists.  People who lack a belief in all gods are atheists.  People who don’t care enough to take a position are apatheists.  Most atheists disbelieve in the existence of anything supernatural.

Burden of Proof

A theist makes the positive claim that at least one god does exist.  Therefore, theists have the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a god

Atheists do not have to “disprove” the existence of gods.  Atheists need only demonstrate that there is no evidence or compelling reason to believe in any gods.

Worldviews

The theistic worldview presupposes the existence of one or more supernatural beings and/or a supernatural world that precedes and supercedes the natural world.  Typically, a supernatural god creates the natural world out of nothing and rules over it.  This is a “top-down” view of existence.

The atheistic worldview observes the natural world and makes no leaps of faith regarding the existence of a supernatural world or beings.  This is a “bottom-up” view of existence.

Six Questions
There are no verifiable answers to any of the following six questions:

1. What are gods composed of? – What is “spirit”?
2. What are the attributes of gods? – Stories of various gods list differing attributes: eternal vs. being born and dying; omni-present vs. confined to certain areas; all-powerful vs. limited powers; all-knowing vs. limited knowledge; all-loving vs. evil vs. temperamental vs. indifferent.
3. What mechanisms do gods use to accomplish things? – How does a god create something from nothing?  How does a god tinker with our DNA?  “Miracles” and “magic” are not useful answers.
4. How many gods are there?
5. Where are gods located?
6. What difference does it make? – If the god that most people believe exists were to suddenly disappear, what would change in the natural world?

Six Problems

1. The Problem of Scale – If humans are the ultimate goal of a god’s creation of the universe, why did this god create 100 billion galaxies when only a single star and a single planet were necessary?  Why did 12 billion years pass before we showed up?
2. The Problem of Silence – If a god exists who wants us to be aware of its existence, then why doesn’t it clearly reveal itself?  And if the punishment for not believing is eternal hellfire, then it is cruel for this god not to convincingly reveal itself.
3. The Problem of Holy Books – If a god exists who wants us to understand him, why are his “revelations” so confusing?  Why do we have so many different religions and holy books?
4. The Problem of Evil – If a god exists who is both all-powerful and all-loving, then why do natural evils, such as natural disasters, diseases, and birth defects, exist?
5. The Problem of Unintelligent Design – If an all-powerful, all-wise god designed us and other life forms, why didn’t he do a better job?  For example, why do our breathing and swallowing passages intersect so that we can choke to death on food?  Why have 99% of all species that have ever existed gone extinct?  (See the website: “Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes” at tinyurl.com/BadDesign)
6. The Problem of Free Will – If a god exists who knows the future, this means humans have no free will.  Yet it is often claimed that this god will judge, reward, and punish us based on our free will choices.

Nine Leaps of Faith
The god that most people believe exists requires at least nine separate leaps of faith:

1. Something supernatural can exist.
2. A supernatural being exists.
3. This being has consciousness.
4. This being is eternal.
5. This being created something out of nothing.
6. This being can interfere with this creation through miracles.
7. This being is all-knowing.
8. This being is all-powerful.
9. This being is all-loving.

Meaning
There is no “cosmic meaning” to life.  Evolution supplies us with drives to survive, have sex (reproduce), and care for others.  To accomplish this, we acquire knowledge and live in communities.  Learning and interacting with the world and others gives our lives meaning, without the need for belief in a god.

Ethics
Imagine a mother with two children, a girl and a boy.  Now imagine that the girl starts hitting the boy.  Does the mother reflexively say to her daughter: “Stop hitting your brother because it says not to in the [Torah/Bible/Koran/Vedas/etc.]?”  No.  At that point gods and religions are not what she is thinking about.

Instead, doesn’t the mother say something like: “Stop hitting your brother; you’re hurting him!” (consequences) or “Stop hitting your brother; how would you like it if someone hit you!” (empathy)

Consequences and empathy are the bases for natural ethics.  These lead to cooperation and compassion, which are found in many animals, including humans.

Science and Religion
Evidence-based science and faith-based religion are only compatible if religion either makes no testable claims, or the results of testable religious claims are not at odds with scientific findings.

For example: To say that a god created evolution is not a testable claim, though it at least accepts the evidence for evolution.  To say a god created the universe 6,000 years ago is a testable claim and is false.

God-of-the-Gaps
When some people don’t know or don’t like a natural explanation for something, they say, “God did it.”  The gap that “God” fills can be physical or emotional.

However, we are never told what a god is or exactly how a god does anything.  Thus “God” is not a useful answer because it provides us with no information.

Usually, people who believe a god exists and is providing them with answers dare not displease this god.  So they endow him with all good attributes and blame themselves for the problem of evil.

1. Science: The first and traditional area where god-of-the-gaps is used is science. So, for example, when humans didn’t know what caused lightning, they invented a “God of Lightning.”  Then we discovered electricity. In fact, god-of-the-gaps is the basis for creationism and the “Intelligent Design” movement: “This thing is so complicated that we can’t figure out how it could have evolved naturally, so ‘God did it.’ ”
2. Medicine: The human body has great healing powers of its own, which are not fully understood.  Yet when someone is healed for reasons we don’t understand, some people say “God did it.”  But if prayer and “divine intervention” were really reliable methods of healing, there would be no need for hospitals.  A true miracle, like an amputated limb growing back on a human, never happens.
3. Ethics: For emotional and practical reasons, we may want there to be a system of absolute ethics.  Since nature doesn’t provide this, some people claim that “God did it” through “revelation.” Yet even within Christianity there is no agreement on the ethics of such things as: drinking alcohol, masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, the role of women, gay rights, the death penalty, and voluntary euthanasia.
4. Meaning in Life: We have an emotional desire to have a “cosmic meaning” in life.  Since nature doesn’t provide one, some people invent a god to give them one.
5. Emotional Security: People naturally seek emotional security during uncertain or troubled times.  We’ve all heard the phrase “I had no where else to turn, so I turned to God.” God-belief may indeed have a placebo, calming effect, but it’s the belief that is responsible.  A god doesn’t really have to exist.
6. Afterlife: Our survival instincts make us want to live forever.  Nature doesn’t provide for this, so some people invent a god to give them an “afterlife.”

© 2010 August Berkshire

Download (PDF, 89.07KB)

Related posts:

1. The Seven C’s of Atheism
2. A “Fine-Tuned” Universe as Proof of a God?
3. Ethics & Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement

August Berkshire (third from left) enjoys a post-debate meal at Perkins with students from SSA at SCSU on Feb. 24, 2010.

Benjamin Seghers has a nice review of my recent debate with Christian apologist Joe Boot at St. Cloud State University at his SCSU Intellectuals blog. The topic of the debate was the existence of God. Apparently I did pretty good:

Who had the stronger arguments? Me being a member of SSA, I’m naturally inclined to say Mr. Berkshire did, just as I’m sure most of the Christians in the crowd would say Mr. Boot did. Did anyone in the crowd change their mind? I don’t know, maybe a few (as I said, there was no polling to objectively gauge this). For those coming in unsure, I hope either debater helped clarify the positions so that informed and educated decisions could made. I very much enjoyed the debate. It was great to hear from Mr. Boot a new perspective that I had not heard before. Mr. Berkshire also brought interesting arguments that I also had not heard before, which helped me solidify my beliefs. I do have to admit though, one my favorite quotes from the whole thing was from Mr. Berkshire: “According to Christian theology, God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.”

According to Benjamin, there were close to 1,000 people attending. Wow! Who knew so many people were interested in examining this question? Well, us atheists of course, but I think many more people have doubts about God than we’re given to believe by what we see in the media. Read Benjamin’s full review here.

No related posts.

There are many people who believe that if one or more physics constants of the Universe had varied only slightly, they would have produced a universe incapable of supporting life.  For example, if the gravitational constant had been slightly greater, the Universe would have collapsed back in upon itself before any life had a chance to form.

Some religious people look at this supposedly “fine-tuned” Universe and claim it is proof that a god exists who did the fine-tuning.  Let us examine this claim.

God-of-the-Gaps
At heart, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument.  It says that if we can’t think of a probable natural way that conditions could have resulted in life in the Universe, then a supernatural “god” did it.  However, we don’t know what this god is, nor how it accomplishes anything.  Therefore, “god” is not a meaningful answer because it provides us with no information.

Religious people claim that we aren’t entitled to a “free lunch” regarding a natural explanation for life in the Universe.  But “god” is the ultimate unexplained “free lunch.”

The Universe
Most of the Universe is decidedly inhospitable to life.  Outer space is deadly to anything other than, perhaps, microbes – and the majority of planets, moons, and asteroids aren’t much better.

Judging by what we observe now, the Universe will continue expanding forever, creating a “big chill” effect.  Heat energy will be so dissipated that no life will be possible.  A person alive just before this happens won’t view things as so “miraculously fine-tuned” as some religious people do today.

Our Sun
While natural conditions are favorable for life on Earth now, this won’t be true in about five billion years.  At that point the Sun’s supply of hydrogen will run out and the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth, wiping out all life.  Even a billion years from now, all water will have boiled off the Earth, making life improbable, if not impossible.  Again, a person alive just before either of these events occurs won’t view things as so “miraculously fine-tuned” as some religious people do today.

The Earth
Apart from the Universe, some people claim the Earth itself is so fine-tuned for life (the proper distance from the Sun, the right kind of elements, etc.) that only a god could have established it.  This, of course, is the same god-of-the-gaps argument that we encountered with the “fine-tuned” Universe.

But instead of asking about the odds of life as we know it arising through natural processes on this particular planet (Earth), we should instead ask about the odds of life of any kind arising naturally on any planet.  It is estimated that there are 100 billion galaxies in the Universe (containing trillions of planets).  If only one planet per galaxy had the right conditions to produce some kind of life, that would still amount to 100 billion planets and at least 100 billion different species.

Limited Knowledge
The fined-tuned Universe argument for a god assumes that what we know about the Universe today is accurate.  But this is cutting edge physics and what we believe to be true today is far from certain.  Even now there is dispute among physicists as to how much these constants of the Universe can vary and still produce a universe capable of leading to life.

Multiple Universes
Extraordinary odds against life in one universe become a near certainty if there are many universes.  If many universes exist (sometimes called a “multiverse”) and each universe has its own random set of constants, then life will almost certainly arise in at least one of these universes.  (For example, roll a set of dice long enough and you will eventually get two sixes.)

While there is, as yet, no evidence for other universes, their existence is more plausible than the existence of a god.  After all, we know it’s possible for universes to exist – we live in one.  We have no evidence that it is possible for gods to exist.

A Fine-Tuned God?
Those who believe a “fine-tuned” Universe proves the existence of a god admit that there is some slight margin for variance in these physics constants of the Universe.  But what about the god they believe exists?  Could that god be anything other than exactly what it is?  If not, then there is zero margin for variance for that god.  So, as improbable as the existence of life in the Universe may seem, the existence of a god would be even more improbable.  It also begs the question: Who or what fine-tuned this god?

Conclusion
The track record of naturalistic science for answering questions about the natural world far exceeds the track record of supernatural “revelation.”  The existence of a god seems more improbable than life arising naturally on its own in the Universe.  “God” has not provided us with any answers and has instead raised more questions.

© 2010 August Berkshire

Download (PDF, 68.07KB)

Related posts:

1. Atheism 101
2. 34 Unconvincing Arguments for God

Ebert is dying in increments, and he is aware of it.

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear, he writes in a journal entry titled “Go Gently into That Good Night.” I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. What I am grateful for is the gift of intelligence, and for life, love, wonder, and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.

There has been no death-row conversion. He has not found God. He has been beaten in some ways. But his other senses have picked up since he lost his sense of taste. He has tuned better into life. Some things aren’t as important as they once were; some things are more important than ever. He has built for himself a new kind of universe. Roger Ebert is no mystic, but he knows things we don’t know.

I believe that if, at the end of it all, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this, and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.

No related posts.

August with Jeff and Lee from AM 980 KKMS

Last Wednesday, January 27th, I let you know that I was going to be a guest on on “KKMS Live with Jeff & Lee” debating the “God-of-the-Gaps” argument with Gannon Murphy, general editor of American Theological Inquiry.

It went pretty well. They gave me a good chunk of time at the beginning too to get my message across. During the debate however, my opponent and the host took up a lot of time (Christian apologetics tend to be like that) and I was too polite to interrupt much, but I think I got some good points in. In appearances like this, I don’t like to go for the home run slams at my opponents that make atheists cheer. Instead, I try to for gentle, “innocent” inquiry that might make believers actually listen and take us seriously. I think both Jeff and Gannon were a bit shaken after the episode. The good news is that they’re thinking of making this a regular feature.

So here at long last is the audio of the debate so you can hear for yourself. You can download the mp3 or listen online below.

[Audio clip: view full post to listen]

Related posts:

1. I’ll be on KKMS Live with Jeff and Lee this afternoon (5PM CST). Listen live and call in.
2. “KKMS Live with Jeff & Lee” (Feb. 24, 2009)
3. “KKMS Live with Jeff & Lee” (May 23, 2008)

Related posts:

1. “KKMS Live with Jeff & Lee” (Jan. 27, 2010)
2. “KKMS Live with Jeff & Lee” (Feb. 24, 2009)
3. “KKMS Live with Jeff & Lee” (May 23, 2008)

Ethics and Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
by August Berkshire

Does being an atheist or a humanist automatically make a person ethical?  If we can admit there are some atheist people and groups that are unethical, small in number though they may be, how does this affect the unity we are trying to achieve?

Two of the greatest concerns, internally, of the atheist/humanist movement are ethics and unity.  Unfortunately, these are sometimes at odds with each other.  For the sake of ethics, it would be necessary to forgo total unity in our movement; unethical people or groups would be excluded.  Alternately, for the sake of total unity, it would be necessary to overlook major ethical lapses.

So which is the correct road to take?  I would argue that if we forgo ethics, then religion has already won, no matter how much unity we have.  Furthermore, if we do not place a priority on ethics, we loose our standing to critique the ethical lapses of religious people and groups without being hypocrites and losing credibility ourselves.  We must be consistent and avoid a double standard.

I have noticed that humanists have tended to put more emphasis on ethics and atheists have tended to put more emphasis on unity.  There are traditional and definitional reasons for this.  Atheism has been more concerned with critiquing religion and humanism has been more concerned with what kind of life we lead once we have dispensed with gods.

This is not to suggest that people who primarily identify as humanists aren’t sometimes unethical too.  The point is that most humanist groups make an explicit effort to address the issue of ethics, whereas many atheist groups have not reached that stage yet.

In addition to traditional and definitional reasons, I believe there is a further, evolutionary reason for this difference in emphasis between humanism/ethics and atheism/unity.  When threatened, a social species like humans often seeks safety in numbers.  Unity for survival is paramount; ethics are a luxury.

Historically, humanists have not felt attacked the way atheists have.  In fact, most people don’t even know what a “humanist” is, often mistaking it for a word that already has a positive connotation: “humane.”  This has allowed humanists the opportunity to contemplate issues beyond survival, such as how to live an ethical life.

In contrast, there has hardly been a time or place in the history of humanity when atheists have not been under attack.  This has caused some atheists to believe that the ends justify the means in fighting back against religion.  Ethics fall by the wayside in the fight for survival.

Is the solution, then, for us all to just call ourselves “humanists,” to get religion off our backs in order to give us a breather so we can better pursue ethics?  No, the word “atheist” cannot be avoided because it is an accurate description of who we are.

Because survival is paramount (often expressed as victimization by and anger towards religion), many atheists would rather shoot the messenger who points out unethical atheist behavior than examine the message.  While we are right to be concerned about unethical religious activity, should we not be equally upset by unethical activity within our own movement?

Tellingly, those who favor the inclusion of unethical people or groups in freethought coalitions will use words like “unity” or “censorship” to defend their position.  However, a word I have never heard them use is “ethical.”

One would think, from a marketing point of view at the very least, that atheists would care more about ethics than they do.  After all, it is the number one accusation made against us by religious people: That we can’t be good without god.

By embracing unethical atheist people and groups and bringing them into the fold, perhaps some people believe we can get them to improve their behavior.  I have not seen this route be successful.  Unity should be withheld until ethical behavior is achieved.  Unethical people and groups should be marginalized, not embraced.

Or, do some people believe that by enveloping an unethical person or group in a larger freethought group that we can cover it up?  How ethical is that?

To those who believe in total unity at all costs, I say that unethical behavior is too high a price to pay for unity.  Are we so naïve or desperate that we have to put up with unethical behavior?  I hope not.

The vast majority of all atheists and humanists lead ethical lives.  And, since atheism and humanism are increasing, this demonstrates that an ethical approach to atheism/humanism works.  So, not only can we support ethics above total unity because it is the right thing to do, we can relax and do so because it is also the practical thing to do.

© 2009 August Berkshire

This essay was published in the January-March 2010 issue of Secular Nation magazine.

No related posts.

This essay is available as a bi-fold pamphlet for easy printing in two different layouts.

Many religious people claim that the god they believe in is “pro-life” when it comes to abortion.  They also believe in “ensoulment” at conception: that a “supernatural” “soul” somehow enters a human egg the moment it is fertilized by sperm.  Let us examine these and other religious claims to see if they make sense and are consistent.

God’s Example
Most religious people believe their god is all-powerful and all-good.  It naturally follows, then, that everything this god does must also be good.  (Would an all-good god commit evil if it had the power not to do so?)

It is often claimed that this god wants humans to be good as well.  If we imitate this god, who is all-good, wouldn’t that make us good too?  After all, this god wouldn’t set a bad example, would it?

Now let’s take a look at the human reproductive system.  If this god is all-powerful, then it either created the human reproductive process or it allows it to exist.  (Humans certainly did not design it or we would, at minimum, have eliminated labor pains.)

This god-designed or god-allowed human reproductive process results in up to 50% of all eggs that get fertilized in the womb being spontaneously aborted – often before the woman even realizes she is pregnant.  (This is often the explanation for late menstrual periods.)

From this information we can reach two conclusions: This god is the world’s biggest abortionist. And, humans should have more abortions to keep up with the example that this god is setting.

It should also be noted that if this god knows the future, and if certain humans are destined to go to a hell after they die, then this god should make sure that those are the fertilized eggs that get spontaneously aborted, in order to reduce the future population of hell.

Twins
Identical twins are formed when a single fertilized egg splits in two.  This division occurs some time after fertilization.  For religious people who believe that ensoulment occurs at the instant of fertilization, this raises some perplexing questions:

Did the original, single, fertilized egg get two souls, so that later each twin could get one apiece?

Or, if the original, single, fertilized egg got only one soul, does this soul later split in two, so that each twin gets half a soul?

Or, if the original, single, fertilized egg got only one soul, perhaps it goes fully to one of the twins, while the other twin gets no soul.  (Would this lack of a soul in one twin account for stories of an “evil twin”?)

Chimeras
Not only can a single fertilized egg later split into two identical twins, but two separate fertilized eggs (each fertilized by a different sperm) can later fuse to become a single embryo.  Such an individual is called a chimera.  (Sometimes this person actually has two different sets of DNA.) This raises the same types of questions that arise with identical twins, but in reverse:

If the two separate eggs each got a soul at the time of fertilization, does the later fused single embryo have two souls?

Or, did each of the two separate eggs receive half a soul at the time of fertilization, so that the eventually fused single embryo would have only one soul?

Or, at the time of fertilization, did one egg receive a soul, while the other egg did not, so that the eventually fused single embryo would have only one soul?

The God of the Bible
In addition to the preceding issues, people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible will encounter other problems with the god they believe in.  Time and time again, this god either wipes out entire populations himself (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) or orders the Israelites to do so.  Among the dead would have been numerous pregnant women, whose fetuses would thus never get born.  The result is no different than if the fetus had been aborted.

Values
Many religious people claim that life (which they define as beginning at conception) should be our highest value.  But is this true?

Think of the phrase in the American Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  Don’t we value liberty above life?  Don’t we admire phrases like “Give me liberty or give me death”?  Don’t we have great honor, respect, and gratitude for soldiers who are willing to die for American freedom?

If religious people truly valued life above all else, they would not be willing to die for their faith.  And yet religious martyrdom is often viewed as an admirable thing by the faithful.

To deny a woman the right to control her own body takes away her liberty and turns her into a slave of the state and/or religion.  Slavery, otherwise known as involuntary servitude, is something we should all oppose

© 2009 August Berkshire

No related posts.

Minnesota Atheists Public Policy Position Paper
(Written for Minnesota Atheists by August Berkshire)

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT) Rights

Minnesota Atheists supports equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation.  This support is based on two rules of law:

1.  The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “…nor shall any State… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Thus the Equal Protection Clause demands that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) citizens be treated the same under the law as heterosexual citizens.  We are particularly concerned with countering religious groups that wish to limit equal protection under the law due to their religious dogma.

2.  The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Establishment Clause has been interpreted in Supreme Court decisions to place the following restrictions on government:

a)  Secular laws must have a secular basis.
Any law that would reduce the rights of any class of citizens must have a secular justification.  There is no secular reason to deny equal rights and equal protection under the law due to a person’s sexual orientation.

b)  Religious tenets for which the only basis is belief in the supernatural should not become civil law.  To turn such religious tenets into civil law is to create a theocracy.
Religious arguments against equal rights and equal protection under the law for GLBT people are based solely on belief in a particular type of god who advocates limiting such rights and protections.  As we cannot demonstrate that this god exists, much less confirm its instructions to humanity, we cannot base any secular laws on this supernatural belief.

The Principle of Equality in Practice
Minnesota Atheists’ support for equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation includes, but is not limited to, the equal right to a civil marriage, with all the accompanying benefits and responsibilities; equal rights to fertility treatments and adoption; the right to openly identify one’s sexual orientation and serve in the military; and the equal right not to be discriminated against in employment and housing.  Minnesota Atheists takes no position on what the state chooses to call its civil marriage contracts (e.g. “marriage,” “civil union,” “domestic partnership,” etc.) so long as the same term is used equally for both straight and gay people.

Related posts:

1. Richard Dawkins on Minnesota Public Radio
2. Biblical Commandments Are Unconstitutional