PopPolitics: There seems to be a resurgence in the interest of religion on television — Touched by an Angel and Mysterious Ways are two examples. How does popular culture influence our feelings about religion?

Ron Barrier: What is on television is not religion. All popular culture — TV, movies, etc.– are illusions. There are people being paid good money to create them for our entertainment. Some illusions are soothing, others are not, but they are all illusions nonetheless.

The fact that many individuals find comfort in these illusions does not speak very well about our desire to seek the truth, to burst the bubble so to speak. Such programs as Touched by an Angel address human issues in a warm, cuddly way, suggesting that there are non-human, non-carbon-based life forms that have in interest in the minutiae of each of our individual existences.

The media presents a "religion light" to the popular masses. It gives many people the opportunity to feel good about themselves without asking the questions as to whether or not any of it makes sense. Our society, due to religion dulling the brain from an early age onward, finds it easier to accept myths rather than deal with reality.

There are two ways of dealing with life: We can derive our concepts and values from life and the reality that surrounds us or we can impose preconceptions upon reality. The first choice minimizes delusion, the second invites it.

PP: What are your favorite television shows?

Barrier: My favorite TV Shows are The Simpsons, Star Trek, and as many shows about science as I can view. I do not watch any network programs.

PP: What do you think of all the religious references in The Simpsons? Christianity Today recently featured an article that described Simpson’s next door neighbor, Ned Flanders, as an "evangelical."

Barrier: Have you ever seen any of the episodes? They are riotous. The Simpsons are an equal opportunity offender. Ned Flanders and his family are portrayed as both evangelical dolts and just really sweet people but incredibly naive. The real villain in The Simpsons is the fictional local Springfield church with Rev. Lovejoy, who is depicted as a real hypocrite and opportunist. I think The Simpsons is much tougher on the institution than the person.

PP: What is your definition of an Atheist?

Barrier: I’m glad you asked only for my definition. Individuals arrive at an Atheistic philosophy in many ways, thus I avoid trying to state a blanket definition. The most general definition is the word itself: a (without) + theism (god belief). Therefore, an Atheist is a person who, for a variety of different reasons (besides the most obvious — no reasonable evidence), cannot logically and intellectually support a "god" hypothesis and the emotional and intellectual baggage that accompanies most "god" belief systems, particularly the monotheism of western culture.

The popular dictionary meanings of Atheism and Atheists are slanted and incorrect. Most dictionaries define an Atheist as "one who denies the existence of God." This meaning is logically fallacious since it presupposes that, in fact, there is such a being to deny. In one sense, everybody denies someone else’s god, but it is the Atheist who bears the brunt of the criticism. I have not been able to fathom why.

Follow the synonyms connected to Atheism. Go to their meanings and follow the sub-synonyms and you will find that, in almost all cases, such words as “wickedness’ and “evil” are readily associated with Atheism. “Godless’ is a synonym for “evil.” This is very distressing, for there is no rational foundation for such a claim. In fact, in real life, it is the religious reaction to criticism that is feared much more that the secular reaction to criticism. Heck, the secular world has lived with criticism from the pulpit for centuries (as well as torture and murder).

PP: Describe the current state of atheism in America today. What percentage of Americans consider themselves "Atheist"?

Barrier: I think that, as we increase our knowledge of ourselves and the reality that surrounds us, religion will continue to come up with new and inventive ways to convince us that it is relevant. The "current state" is one of flux. We still find ourselves fighting the same insults and distortions that flow from the pulpit on a daily basis and we have a government that still does not recognize the Atheist as an American citizen. However, American Atheists has grown incredibly over the last six months and membership applications continue to pour in — thank you, George Bush.

The percentage of Americans who "say" they are Atheist ranges from as little as 5 percent to as much as 13 percent. However, what I find curious is that a large majority of individuals I speak with who are believers of one god or another harbor serious doubts about their belief system. But they prefer to bury those doubts when a more public expression of religious involvement is needed.

Because Atheists are honest about our doubts and reservations regarding religious claims, we are harshly and unfairly labeled as being the cause for everything from public school violence, pornography, pedophilia, the hole in the ozone layer, and irritable bowel syndrome.

PP: What are common conceptions about atheism and atheists? Misconceptions?

Barrier: Besides the bigotry that flows from the altars of churches all across the world with regard to Atheism, the most popular misconceptions are that Atheism is a religion, that Atheists "believe" in not believing in a god, and that Atheism is without moral foundation.

There are sillier, yet just as damaging, misconceptions. One is that we’re Satan worshippers. It never dawns on them that the "Satan" character is soaked in the same irrational and nonexistent supernaturalism of the guy with the divine white hat. Another misconception is that atheists "hate" god. Of course, that is like saying we "hate" Blyxmph. One cannot hate something that is incoherent. We simply have no use for the hypothesis. There is also the misconception that Atheism is negative.

PP: How do you respond to people who equate atheism with negativity? Many people would argue that religion is a positive influence in their lives.

Barrier: Although an individual may claim that religion has been a "positive" influence, that does not make religion any truer. In fact, the argument is vague and is actually an emotional appeal rather than a rational explanation. Heroin makes people feel "good" also, but it doesn’t mean that heroin won’t kill you. Medicine has shown that the power of the placebo can be just as beneficial as the medicine itself. The real question is: How did (or does) religion influence them? Then after some solid replies, we can analyze the issue.

The Atheist is in awe of reality and seeks to understand as much as possible about it. What could possibly be negative about life? There is nothing inherently negative about constructive doubt and criticism.

Having been a former Christian, I find that there are more positive individuals in the Atheist community than the religious community could ever hope to produce. The primary reason is honesty. Atheists are honest with themselves about religion and we will defend that honesty to the death. If you can’t be honest with yourself, who can be you be honest with? Religion incubates and gives birth to hypocrisy and dishonesty. Religion would prefer the company of the lying believer to that of the honest Atheist.

People who equate Atheism with negativity don’t know why they make that statement. They are only parroting the occupants of the pulpits who crow on and on about their concepts of Atheism. The person who says such a statement has never read a book by an Atheist philosopher or writer. They mimic what they are told by religious professionals who carry great weight in the opinions of the flock.

PP: What books would you recommend?

Barrier: I recommend Atheism - The Case Against God by George H. Smith, Essays on Freethinking, by Chapman Cohen, available through American Atheist Press, and The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

PP: When was American Atheists established? How does the organization go about promoting its political agenda?

Barrier: American Atheists was established in 1963, following the Supreme Court victory of Murray v. Curlett. At the time, Madalyn Murray received much support and realized that an Atheist organization was necessary. The aims and purposes of the organization can be found at our Web site.

Our issue is quite clear — the total separation of government from religion. If it’s a state/church issue we get involved, if not, we don’t. We promote through our Web site, AANEWS — our free online newsletter — regional meetings, national conventions, press releases, speaker’s bureau, and our American Atheist press. As we get settled in our new offices in Cranford, N.J., we plan to open one of the largest free-thought libraries in the nation. This will make thousands of volumes available for research.

PP: What are your feelings about President Bush’s faith-based initiative? Are you concerned about a lessening of the divide between church and state?

Barrier: President Bush is completely clueless as to the meaning and intent of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Between him and Attorney General John Ashcroft, we have two men who collectively have little regard for diversity or equality, and are completely ignorant of the lessons learned from the past when government and religion climb into bed with one another.

Bush’s faith-based — which should rightfully be called religion-based — initiatives are an affront to our founding fathers and the framers of the constitution. Religious groups are exempt from many civil rights laws. It is incomprehensible that the government could support civil rights while simultaneously funding groups that ignore civil rights. The government would be creating an entire economy based on bigotry. An Atheist could never become part of the charitable process under these conditions. Charity and the taking care of our citizens is a civic duty to which we are all responsible.

The government would be put in the position, by virtue of Mr. Bush’s illegal office on faith, of determining what and what is not a legitimate faith, much like China and Russian currently do.

Religion sees the needy as a demographic — a product, or souls, for "harvesting," or recruiting. Charity is a byproduct of religion in order to mask its real agenda: mental conformity. True social services do not do that. Each person in need should be treated with dignity and respect regardless of who they are.

The breaking down of the wall of separation in the U.S. began in the 1950s when President Eisenhower signed a "National Day of Prayer," the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and the nation’s motto of "E Pluribus Unum" (from many, one) was replaced with "In God We Trust." It continues today with the Equal Access Act, which has led to the proliferation of religious recruitment offices in public schools. I’m currently working on a theory that our schools have become more violent because of the rise of bible clubs in the schools.

Attempts to undermine science by masking "creationism" as "just another theory" and employing the state to ban, limit, or distort the scientific method disrupts the education process and puts our children in the line of fire of adults with an insecure ideological bent.

Most importantly are our schools, where religious adults and elected officials have behaved at their worse. Our children are entitled to the same religious freedom that we have as adults but neither the religious nor political communities recognize that. They are entitled to go to school to be educated in the arts and sciences without fear of religious harassment to the same degree that we, as adults, can freely associate and go to sporting events, restaurants, and other cultural activities free of religious coercion. Why should our children be treated with any less respect or dignity?

PP: Does it surprise you that conservative religious institutions seem more wary of Bush’s plan than liberal ones? Will you be joining forces with groups that you would normally be at odds with in protesting the faith-based initiative?

Barrier: We are always open to working with groups where common ground can be found. However, because we’re usually the first to point out the fallacy of such legislation as Mr. Bush’s "faith-based" initiatives, we are generally ignored. Then the religious use our same arguments and they are praised as being "cautious" and the "protecting faith" as their agenda.

I intercepted a Seventh Day Adventist newsletter in which they discussed our opposition to school vouchers, a position shared by the SDAs. The newsletter explained that the SDAs should change their approach since they did not want to be associated with us — we would bring "the mark of the beast" upon them as "enemies of the faith." It’s hard to work with groups when they really don’t like you as people. We do work with Catholics for a Free Choice and we work closely with Marci Hamilton, a lawyer and professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, who is an Episcopalian. We also invited an evangelist to debate at our convention.

PP: How do you maintain respect for diversity of thought, and diversity of religious beliefs, while holding fast to your own viewpoint that religious beliefs invite delusion?

Barrier: It’s a fine line one must tread in order to maintain what one thinks is real and proper as opposed to what others think and/or believe. However, that’s why we have standards that, in most cases, should apply to everyone. By standards I mean those aspects of behavior which, in some way, are apropos to that moment in time and space. For example, if I go to a baseball game I can hoot, holler, root for my team, boo my opponent (without the obscenities, please), and argue with my friends about who’s better. However, if I go to a restaurant, I do not argue with other patrons about what’s good on the menu, nor do I hoot and holler at the waiter.

I think I should make something clear. Although I respect the fact that people have a diversity of beliefs about things, that does not mean that I should respect the belief itself. The word respect carries with it a certain amount of "acceptance" or "toleration" for a particular idea. 

In science, when an idea is utterly disproven or without merit, it is not accepted, nor are further arguments without new or compelling evidence tolerated. Although I accept individual opinions, that does not mean I should accept or tolerate the claim, especially if that claim is so off the wall as be more than improbable. The more improbable the claim, the more compelling the evidence should be. Also, arguments that appeal to fear or guilt or threats, such as "Every knee shall bend, every tongue shall confess" lose it for me very, very quickly. I have no respect whatsoever for such intellectually undermining tactics.

PP: I frequently hear people describe themselves as "Agnostic" but rarely find someone who calls himself an Atheist. I’ve found that those who are willing to question the legitimacy of religious ideologies are also often unwilling to commit to rejecting the "god hypothesis" altogether. Considering your statement that Atheists are "in awe of reality and seek to understand as much as possible about it," are most Agnostics actually connecting with Atheist philosophy?

Barrier: In my humble opinion, the Agnostic position has its feet in both camps. The claim to be "personally non-theistic," as Stephen Jay Gould calls himself, but at the same time reserve a little intellectual space for the "what if" factor. That "what if" factor is "what if one of these religions is right."

I also attribute the Agnostic position as indicative of the excellent job of mental conditioning which many religions foist on young, immature minds. I do find that the single, most difficult thing to do is to finally toss the "God hypothesis" into the trash. In fact, if you ask most people, I’ll wager that most of them disagree with many tenets of their religion, but rejection of the most important tenet is the most difficult.

The idea of seizing the young, indoctrinating the young mind with a barrage of concepts, and then reinforcing those concepts with a hint of punishment on a weekly, almost daily, basis is the single factor that makes disposing of god-belief most difficult. It took me about 10 years to go from skepticism to outright rejection. It’s very difficult to undue years and years of constant reinforcement about belief and punishment for non-adherence.

Karen Johnson is a freelance writer based in San Francisco.