Speaker 1: Hello, everybody, Welcome back to the nonprofits.
Speaker 2: So we actually have some good secular news on the show.
Speaker 1: Yay, So Rob, please.
Speaker 2: Tell us what is going on in Congressional Congress.
Speaker 3: Yeah, did you know there is a Congressional Free Thought
Speaker 3: Caucus within the House of Representatives Because I didn't good
Speaker 3: to learn. Still they the CFC, have added two new
Speaker 3: members this month. They are the representatives Judy Chu and
Speaker 3: Delia Ramirez. They are both Democrats. The CFC is a
Speaker 3: group of representatives that support, as they say, quote, reason
Speaker 3: based policy. They advocate for data driven decisions, and they
Speaker 3: oppose much the much larger Congressional Prayer Caucus, which is
Speaker 3: comprised of both Republicans and Democrats. The Free Thought Caucus
Speaker 3: has twenty eight members and is made of only Democrats. Luckily,
Speaker 3: the membership has only gone up since they were founded
Speaker 3: in twenty eighteen. Also fun side fact, they staunchly opposed
Speaker 3: the new Justice Kevin brannag No, I'll look it back up. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's okay, I'll look it back up. But yeah, so
Speaker 3: that's what they're for. They're there for reason based policy.
Speaker 3: They are climate change. They understand that that's happening. They
Speaker 3: or they support separation of church and state.
Speaker 2: So we want to point out that this article is
Speaker 2: from The Friendly Atheist by him and Meta, posted on
Speaker 2: May twelve five.
Speaker 1: Thank you, hemmt. That contributes a lot to the things
Speaker 1: that we talk about on this show. So so Rob, yes,
Speaker 1: of course.
Speaker 2: So are there any members that are actually like openly atheists?
Speaker 2: Are they kind of like operating under like the like
Speaker 2: I'm a freethinker umbrella over here?
Speaker 3: So I actually try so, I did actually try to
Speaker 3: look that up, but I didn't find any. However, most
Speaker 3: of the verbiage that I find whenever I look up
Speaker 3: this caucus is most of them are religious, which seems
Speaker 3: to imply that some of them are the atheists, but
Speaker 3: I cannot specifically find out who. They probably don't want
Speaker 3: to be known or at least have that super public,
Speaker 3: but it seems to be that there are least some atheists. However,
Speaker 3: most of them are religious.
Speaker 2: Well, it's one of those things. They've become out of
Speaker 2: atheists in your government. It's pretty much like political suicide. Yeah,
Speaker 2: especially in the current climate.
Speaker 1: Definitely.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Like you, for example, is a Unitarian universalist, which is
Speaker 3: about as non religious religious as you can get generally,
Speaker 3: as you can get.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I love those those places where they're just all
Speaker 4: about like, hey, be nice and why because I don't universals.
Speaker 1: I've been to Interior Universalist service. I was too early
Speaker 1: on a Sunday for me, so and I'm like, say,
Speaker 1: I like sleep. But it was a very positive.
Speaker 2: You know, kind of like groovy message. So you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna you know, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna.
Speaker 1: Poopoo on it, Tracy, I don't. I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: have something cool to say to you. I don't get
Speaker 1: the very so anyway.
Speaker 2: So, uh that means that, do you think, like, you know,
Speaker 2: those of us that belong to like circular organizations, you know,
Speaker 2: ship push more openly for candidates to join, even if
Speaker 2: the risks blow back and some I know that I
Speaker 2: said that, you know, uh, being you know, identify yourself
Speaker 2: as an atheist is political suicide.
Speaker 1: But maybe would it be a.
Speaker 2: Good thing for people to be more out about their atheism?
Speaker 4: Certain all, most certainly I think we should be pushing
Speaker 4: for more membership to the Free Thought Caucus or to
Speaker 4: the is that what they call is that what it's called? Yeah,
Speaker 4: freethought Caucus. I think that I think that we should
Speaker 4: push for more membership there, and I don't think necessarily
Speaker 4: that I push. Like, I'm kind of in a difficult
Speaker 4: position here because it's ultimately a personal decision whether or
Speaker 4: not to identify oneself as as an atheist. Same thing
Speaker 4: with identified. Well, if you are a Christian, it is
Speaker 4: not your personal decision. You must identify yourself as a
Speaker 4: Christian if you at least if you're going to be
Speaker 4: in line with your Bible. But so it's one of
Speaker 4: those things. If they want to identify themselves that way,
Speaker 4: that is their personal choice. I'm more interested in this
Speaker 4: freethought caucus. I'm glad that we have theistic members it's
Speaker 4: primarily religious, because that is that that's going to see.
Speaker 4: Like Hemmett Meta mentions in the Friendly Atheist article here
Speaker 4: that it's not an atheist club. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: If it turned into even something reminiscent of an atheist club,
Speaker 4: I think that would be a problem which would discourage
Speaker 4: further membership. Yeah, that's my whole thing there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was I was gonna say that. Well, first
Speaker 3: of all, by the way, I remember I looked it
Speaker 3: up and remembered it was Brett Kavanaugh. They opposed Brett
Speaker 3: Kavanaugh as.
Speaker 4: All reasonable people should.
Speaker 5: So tactically, yes, tactically I agree with you, by the way, Tracy,
Speaker 5: and that if the Free Thought Caucus was comprised entirely
Speaker 5: of atheists, then it would be less effective.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: And this is simply because there are just more religious
Speaker 3: people than atheist people or non religious people or non
Speaker 3: theists a theists, perhaps there are just more of them.
Speaker 3: So what that means is that by having religious people
Speaker 3: within the Free Thought Caucus, it is easier to make
Speaker 3: compromises and still like, like it looks better, right, It's
Speaker 3: an optics thing when you say I am for the
Speaker 3: separation of church and state, also I am religious, Like
Speaker 3: it looks better, It's going to be a much harder
Speaker 3: sell if it is the Atheist Club. As a person
Speaker 3: who was never a theist, which seems to be quite rare,
Speaker 3: I would prefer if it was purely atheists. However, I gotta,
Speaker 3: you know, take my wings or I can and understand
Speaker 3: the tactics.
Speaker 2: Like listen, man, we're we're holding on by the skin
Speaker 2: of red teeth right now, like you.
Speaker 1: Just gotta just gotta start a line. And because because.
Speaker 2: The good on my non existent type of thing to
Speaker 2: where someone can say like, oh, I'm you know, this
Speaker 2: flavor of a religion, but internally they are you know, atheists,
Speaker 2: but they attend church, so you know, like tennically you
Speaker 2: can be like an atheist Catholic, you know, so there's
Speaker 2: some deniability. They're just in just in, do I think,
Speaker 2: but I do agree with you that we should have
Speaker 2: more representation because uh Gail Jordan, who is the executive
Speaker 2: director of Republicans uh Recovery now Republicans for Religion Recovering
Speaker 2: from Religion ran for Safe Seed in Tennessee as an
Speaker 2: open atheist in Tennessee, which is so red and she's
Speaker 2: reported on getting positive feedback from the community.
Speaker 1: She didn't win, but.
Speaker 2: Getting a lot of positive feedback as being an open
Speaker 2: atheist actually running for a government seat and in her
Speaker 2: own county. So you know, there is a benefit to it,
Speaker 2: I think to a certain degree, because I yes, we
Speaker 2: we have whole numbers that say, like, you know, if
Speaker 2: you know an atheist running, I will not vote for them.
Speaker 2: But if you normalize it more and you start listening
Speaker 2: to people talk about actual policy versus believe you know,
Speaker 2: that could shift a gear like Tracy, how was you're
Speaker 2: kind of feeling on that.
Speaker 4: I I agree that being open would uh about it,
Speaker 4: and speaking openly about atheism amongst political candidates would help
Speaker 4: to normalize it and and maybe cut down on a
Speaker 4: lot of the uh, you know, the knee jerk reactions
Speaker 4: of oh atheists, the people who kick puppies and burn cars.
Speaker 1: Uh so Tuesday, they don't.
Speaker 4: Yuck my yum. But I don't think that necessarily, just
Speaker 4: having previously uh, I think that that would be the
Speaker 4: domain of new candidates, not incumbents, to necessarily start announcing
Speaker 4: their atheism left right and center.
Speaker 1: But but but.
Speaker 4: I think there's a we could we could get to
Speaker 4: that point where incumbents could be doing that. However, I
Speaker 4: think it would have to start, like you were saying,
Speaker 4: with a lot of people doing it and losing, and
Speaker 4: then gradually we work our way up. It's just one
Speaker 4: of those things. What's up, Rob, I saw you points
Speaker 4: at me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, No, I agree, you're playing tactics again. That's the
Speaker 3: thing is that it's politics, it's it's games, and therefore
Speaker 3: it is tactics. You said earlier that it is there.
Speaker 3: Oh God, the Christians must declare their Christianity, whereas atheists
Speaker 3: aren't necessarily obligated to. I must agree, But man, I
Speaker 3: really wish I could make an argument that being like
Speaker 3: it is, it is dire. There is now is the
Speaker 3: time where more and more people are required to openly
Speaker 3: call themselves an atheist, in this time where more and
Speaker 3: more people are being religiously prosecuted. So if there was
Speaker 3: ever a time, it's now, and tactically I do agree
Speaker 3: with you that we should get it would be really
Speaker 3: nice if there were more people, new people. It would
Speaker 3: have to be new people, because again, technically, if the
Speaker 3: incumbents were to do it, then they would probably their
Speaker 3: constituents would feel betrayed. That is not a thing I
Speaker 3: thought about. But that's an interesting point.
Speaker 4: It's just one of those things, man, but something I
Speaker 4: wanted to bring attention to.
Speaker 3: The guy.
Speaker 4: The representative who announced the Congressional Free Thought Caucus in
Speaker 4: twenty eighteen was Representative Jared Huffman from California and is
Speaker 4: currently the only openly humanist member of Congress. Right here
Speaker 4: by him at META. I think that that is the
Speaker 4: more important factor, because I think it's important that we
Speaker 4: be humanists first and atheists maybe fifth. Because it's irrelevant
Speaker 4: of what relevance is my non acceptance of other people's claims.
Speaker 4: It's not terribly relevant the moral system that we aspired.
Speaker 4: That that at least I think you guys as well
Speaker 4: subscribe to being represented in Congress. I think that's a
Speaker 4: good thing. I think that's a fantastic thing that he's
Speaker 4: been there at least a couple terms now, being openly humanist,
Speaker 4: that's a fantastic uh sign sign maybe I don't know,
Speaker 4: indicating Yeah.
Speaker 3: It's it's hard for me to remember that being an
Speaker 3: atheist does not it does not mutually include a moral system.
Speaker 5: Oh no, however, right, but like I fail to find
Speaker 5: atheists who are not humanists.
Speaker 3: I'm sure they exist, and they would be a wonder right,
Speaker 3: but like they don't necessarily go hand to hand. So
Speaker 3: I agree, Yeah, definitely human is in the game of
Speaker 3: real life, being a humanist is more important than being
Speaker 3: an atheist. I personally just forget that those are separate
Speaker 3: things different because they just that's what happens people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Gamer gay was a whole thing of eight people.
Speaker 1: That were atheists and missogynist butheads. So that was the time.
Speaker 2: So because I was online during my Deconstruction at that time,
Speaker 2: and it was not a kind place to woman, so
Speaker 2: you know, because but that's the thing about like people
Speaker 2: are nuanced weird anyway.
Speaker 3: So I want to tell you a cool stat if
Speaker 3: I can, sure, Yeah, twenty. So the House of Representative
Speaker 3: is two hundred and fifteen seats, and with twenty eight
Speaker 3: of them being people from the Free Thought Caucus, that
Speaker 3: means that this is thirteen percent. We have thirteen percent
Speaker 3: of people who are openly for separation of church and state.
Speaker 3: And then we behind the games. We're talking a lot
Speaker 3: about Dungeons, Dragons and other tabletop roleplaying games, and I
Speaker 3: just want to point out that rolling A twenty on
Speaker 3: a D twenty is a five percent chance, So we're
Speaker 3: like doing more than twice as good as rolling D twenties.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, yeah, that's a fun.
Speaker 4: While you were saying that, I knew what you were
Speaker 4: leading to, and so I was frantically searching my desk
Speaker 4: for dinner. And they're all in the living room, So
Speaker 4: just ignore that. You're gonna see this video, and you're
Speaker 4: gonna see me as soon as you start talking. Look
Speaker 4: everywhere but at my camera.
Speaker 2: And that's what I was doing, is by the way
Speaker 2: that is a nonprofit's way. We are professionals of all time,
Speaker 2: but lower your expectations is professional.
Speaker 4: It's something like you said, so.
Speaker 2: Anyway, I'm actually gonna do my job now. So we have,
Speaker 2: you know, the saying about like being non religious as
Speaker 2: a dirty word, so on that sort of you know,
Speaker 2: perspective care candidates kind of talk about, like we were
Speaker 2: talking about humanist before, like what kind of wording should
Speaker 2: they use versus like religious, you know, time about the
Speaker 2: moral good, you know, and religious context.
Speaker 1: What if you were going to run for.
Speaker 2: Office, I'll start with you, Rob, If you're going to
Speaker 2: run for office as a secular person, what kind of
Speaker 2: wording would you say to like, you know, people not
Speaker 2: to look you as an atheist, but as a humanist
Speaker 2: and actually care about the moral good and the law.
Speaker 3: I genuinely think that's an interesting question, and the first
Speaker 3: answer is I'm not sure, mostly because I would just talk.
Speaker 3: I think a big version A big part of it
Speaker 3: is not appealing to the religious speech, you know, not
Speaker 3: having to end everything with God bless America. Like what
Speaker 3: would happen is not the obviousness or the pushing of
Speaker 3: religious ideology or even just like we're all in the
Speaker 3: in crowd because we're all Christian. It would just it
Speaker 3: would not to be a pushing of anything obviously necessarily atheistic.
Speaker 3: It would just be like Hi, I mean, I'm not
Speaker 3: going to run, but like Hi, I'm rob I'm for
Speaker 3: people's rights. We should take care of people and make
Speaker 3: sure that when those people are taken care of that we,
Speaker 3: I don't know, help victims. And that includes both directions
Speaker 3: like depending if like see this why I'm not a politician.
Speaker 3: But the idea is that I'm not appealing to a
Speaker 3: religious background. I'm not saying I need to be tough
Speaker 3: on crime as a dog whistle or talk about how
Speaker 3: like we need to have traditional family Christian values like
Speaker 3: these are loaded terms as opposed to I could I
Speaker 3: could say something like, we should respect the declaration of
Speaker 3: union of two people who marry because it is not necessary.
Speaker 3: I would not then say this not necessarily a religious thing,
Speaker 3: but it is the contract that two people enter into
Speaker 3: with each other, and that in and of itself is
Speaker 3: an excellent and wonderful thing, and we should respect both
Speaker 3: of their wishes to each other. There's nothing religious about that.
Speaker 4: Fair, So could you see the same question I would
Speaker 4: call attention, not necessarily because, as I've said, I think
Speaker 4: I'm in an atheist community right now. But we don't
Speaker 4: sit around backstage and talk about how how we don't
Speaker 4: like gods or whatever like that. We don't talk about
Speaker 4: atheism backstage. We talk about the things that matter to us,
Speaker 4: which are individual autonomy and rights. Which these would be
Speaker 4: the things that I would I would speak to. I
Speaker 4: would speak to guaranteeing the freedoms for Americans I and
Speaker 4: also for those who are not Americans just visiting. I
Speaker 4: would point out that humanism applies to all people, regardless
Speaker 4: of any preconceived notions or creed that they've aligned with.
Speaker 4: Humanism applies to you whether you're a Christian, whether you're
Speaker 4: a Satanist, whether you're a Buddhist. It doesn't matter. I
Speaker 4: care about you to the same extent I care about
Speaker 4: everyone else, and I will always look out for your
Speaker 4: rights and what you need to live your life happily.
Speaker 4: And that would be how I go about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's uh. It is a frighteningly more compassionate line
Speaker 3: of thought when one's respect of others humanity comes from
Speaker 3: oneself rather than one's religiosity.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 4: When you make that decision for yourself rather than having
Speaker 4: it imposed upon you.
Speaker 1: It's fantastic.
Speaker 4: Would you say, Helen, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I would be like, I'm not going to say listen, motherfuckers,
Speaker 1: because I.
Speaker 3: Don't know.
Speaker 2: Fine, Like I feel like I would try to talk
Speaker 2: a little bit more eloquently than oh, I mean not,
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I would try.
Speaker 2: To appeal to people's emotions and moral centers rather than believe.
Speaker 2: I think, as you know, we keep discussing that I
Speaker 2: don't really care what you believe, and I care more
Speaker 2: about how you treat one another, because regardless if you're
Speaker 2: an atheist or a Christian, as long as you're not
Speaker 2: a butthead, I'm not going to treat you like you're
Speaker 2: a butthead.
Speaker 1: And I think that you know, the basic lose like
Speaker 1: don't be a dick.
Speaker 2: So like if we all kind of in that same
Speaker 2: you know, area of being kind and you know, good
Speaker 2: to one another, that should be first, and then policy
Speaker 2: comes later. You know what matters to us as a whole,
Speaker 2: which is basically like you know, making sure there's food
Speaker 2: on the table. You know, we can enjoy life, you know,
Speaker 2: and if you decide to go to church grade or
Speaker 2: if you don't, that's okay too, Like where this is
Speaker 2: not you know, at the end of the day, are
Speaker 2: you basically needs to be met? You know, are you
Speaker 2: is everybody equal under the law, and are we doing
Speaker 2: the best to push society forward rather than you know,
Speaker 2: going back and saying like this group of people is
Speaker 2: better than another group of people. You know, at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, belief is just you know, your
Speaker 2: perspective of the world. In a philosophy, it says nothing
Speaker 2: about who you are as a human being, and we
Speaker 2: have to you know, that would be more my messaging.
Speaker 1: Like how what what do we owe to each other?
Speaker 2: And how that translates into wider society and government.
Speaker 3: Amen, there's a there's a there's a cool bit uh
Speaker 3: in this article that I actually really wanted to point
Speaker 3: out because I thought how they word it is interesting
Speaker 3: because it says this group is this is just a
Speaker 3: group of lawmakers dedicated to promoting reason based public polo
Speaker 3: policy blah blah blah, blah blah blah. And then the
Speaker 3: author says, there's really no reason anyone should be against this,
Speaker 3: and they I talicize anyone, And I think that's one
Speaker 3: I agree with them, but that's not what I would
Speaker 3: have done, And not that the article is wrong. I
Speaker 3: think it's really interesting because again, remember this is a
Speaker 3: group of lawmakers dedicated to promoting reason based policy. There
Speaker 3: is really no reason why anyone should be against this.
Speaker 3: I talicize the reason because when it speaks back to
Speaker 3: the sentence, but we're talking about thoughts, so so when
Speaker 3: people have reasons, they have reasoned. And I want people
Speaker 3: to be more thoughtful of their own belief structures. So
Speaker 3: it's not to me, it's not the the anyone ness
Speaker 3: of this, it's we should all be aware of what's happening,
Speaker 3: and we should all get on board with thinking about
Speaker 3: our own world.
Speaker 4: Amen. Yeah, this is a fantastic palette cleanser, and I
Speaker 4: just hope that the Caucus continues to add members here out.
Speaker 2: I like, after you know, a couple other articles this
Speaker 2: week that we're like, oh, no, Like, it's good to
Speaker 2: see that, you know, wonderful people are singing up for
Speaker 2: humanism and not all the bad things, so you.
Speaker 1: Know, great, it's awesome. Keep it up. Anyway, if you
Speaker 1: want to learn more about one other.
Speaker 2: Wonderful secular organizations are doing, please there we do have
Speaker 2: those too, so you know, click on some videos, please
Speaker 2: like and subscribe, And we have merch.
Speaker 1: So you check out our merch store, so do that
Speaker 1: as well. So do the things. There's there's links everywhere.