Atheist Defense Network


Atheist Defense Network

This group is devoted to ending anti-atheist bigotry by (1) finding it and labeling it bigotry, (2) mobilizing atheists to express opposition, and (3) educating others about the costs of anti-atheist bigotry.

Members: 268
Latest Activity: Nov 23, 2013

Discussion Forum

The Presenter's paradox

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Steph S. Dec 17, 2011. 1 Reply

'Tis the Season for Anti-Atheist Bigotry

Started by vjack. Last reply by Craigart14 Jul 17, 2011. 4 Replies

Anti-Atheist Bigotry Updates

Loading… Loading feed

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Atheist Defense Network to add comments!

Comment by Craigart14 on November 9, 2013 at 7:35pm

Question for group:

I teach at a small state college in Georgia.

On Thursday I went to my school's "Founders' Day" convocation; faculty are required to attend wearing academic regalia.  I usually don't go because it's essentially a church service, but I have a new dean, a new department head, a new president, and several new vice presidents, so I decided to give them a chance.  (Besides, my department head--also my friend--said I had to go, and I didn't want to get her in any hot water.)

So the show opened with a Christian prayer.  The speakers talked about Jesus.  The choir sang a hymn.  A student conducted a call-and-response litany.  The choir sang a gospel number.  The keynote speaker, to his credit, left Jesus out of his speech.  Another student read out the names of all the school's previous presidents, and the congregation--er, I mean the audience--prayed for each one.  The choir sang another hymn.  An ROTC honor guard "retired" the colors.  We had another Christian prayer.  Then we marched out.  (Actually, getting college faculty to march is a bit like getting cats to amble in formation.)

My favorite part is that faculty attendance is mandatory, but students, administrators, and staff are "encouraged" to attend.

Can my employer require me to attend church?  In a dress, no less?  (Just kidding; I always knew the robe came with the doctorate.)  Would any of you contact the ACLU about this, or just let it slide?  Graduation is coming up, and it will be just the same . . . .


Comment by William Scott Smith on September 28, 2011 at 1:49pm

Greetings to all...


About a year ago, I was suffering through my first (and hopefully last) long-term bout of unemployment.  During this time, I decided to write blogs for as an atheist.  One of the blogs I wrote was entitled "Exposing David Barton" (if you're unfamiliar with Barton, I would suggest looking him up).


Now, again, almost a year later, I am being sued by David Barton for libel.  Keep in mind that I am NOT a vetted journalist; I'm a blogger (or, rather, was...  I stopped writing because I find it damn near impossible to remain objective on the subject). 


I'm guessing all they want is a retraction (I haven't yet seen a subpoena, only a heads-up from but in the case that they seek more, does anyone have any suggestions in regards to an atheist legal organization or the like that would, not only assist in my defense, but would actually relish the possible publicity?


If Barton and his lawyers insist on taking this to trial, my goal will be to destroy him in the public eye.


Any information would be most appreciated.

Comment by Craigart14 on August 29, 2011 at 12:51pm

Rick Perry is a con man.  People who vote for him are fools.  Underlying the Republican gains in the last couple of years is fundamentalist/evangelical fanaticism.  Perry wants to eliminate social security, stop popular elections for senators, and ban abortion.  No matter what he says during the campaign, these are his goals.  He is also a Christian Dominionist and believes that Christians (real Christians) should rule the world.  His college transcript is full of C and D grades, he doesn't understand evolution, and he thinks thousands of scientists have conspired in cooking up climate change so as to defraud the government and private granting agencies.  He describes himself as "in love with America," yet he has often discussed secession. He's a walking, talking disaster area with good hair and suits that fit well.  Like most of the GOP leaders, he is an utterly amoral opportunist.  He will have most of the fools in America on his side, and as Mark Twain once said, that's a big enough majority in any town.


The GOP agenda is clear, as we can see from the behavior of the GOP controlled House and the actions of GOP governors across the country.  They want the rich to be richer and the poor to be poorer--if not absolutely disenfranchised.  They want to impose their religious beliefs on the entire country.  They also, as we can see from the confiscations of cameras at some Republican town halls recently, want to abridge free speech.  Americans need to stand up and swat them down in 2012.


Comment by Rick on August 24, 2011 at 10:44pm

I'm Runing for the Office of the President. Do you like My Hair?

     I was reading online the other day what Republican Party presidential candidate hopeful would like to do.  Reading it I was surprised that the man would even consider doing such things.  But then again, this shows you just how far the so called “Republican Party” has gone to the right.

     Now I grew up in Houston in the only congressional district in Texas, if not the country that carried Berry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential campaign.  In fact, I remember when Daddy Bush was a local congressman.  Just FYI, Ellington Field was where his son’s Air National Guard unit was stationed, which by the way, was in his congressional district.  Daddy was all for stopping communism, but only if other sons of less influential and non-politically connected families would and could do it.  I have a cousin who has a lovely Purple Heart he got in South Vietnam because it was “expected” that he serve, as his father had during WWII.

     Well, besides that sore point with me…

     Perry would like to do away with having WE THE PEOPLE VOTE WHO WE WANT TO REPRESENT US IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.  Now originally, US Senators were chosen by the individual states government.  This was done away with in the late 1800’s.  They were in short, political appointees. 

     But due to various things, like, oh corruption and the like, an amendment to the Constitution was made, and passed.  The people, not the likes of Tammany Hall, would choose their Senators.

     Also Perry would like to see that any ruling by the US Supreme Court could be overturned by 2/3 of the Congress.  So much for the “Checks and Balances” in our form of government.  So many things, like citizens’ RIGHTS would be so easily taken away.  A woman’s right to abortion, Rights Warning statements to those being arrested, trial by jury, access to the courts, the right to vote even.

     If you think I’m off base here…just go scan the Patriot Act.  Warrantless searches….yup….check it out.  Just like they use to have in the former USSR.  Searches without warrants…..and ya know…it was all due to the needs of “NATOINAL SECURITY” too….

   Then there is the balanced budget he’d like have made part of the Constitution.  Well, here in Texas it is part of the Texas Constitution.  And every year, it has to be balanced.  Now mind you a couple of years ago it wasn’t.  But it did get balanced.  You see, what the Texas State government does is shift a lot of things down to the counties to handle.  Therefore, people are still taxed for these things, but on the county level and not the state. 

     Oh, by the way, with the end of Reconstruction back in the 1800s, after the Civil War, Texas wrote a new state Constitution.  In there was the Balanced Budget part.  This hasn’t changed in about 140 years.  Rick Perry had nothing to do with it.  Sorry Ricky.

     But this isn’t the first time we’ve had this attempt….let’s hop into our time machine and go back to the 1980’s…….

The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99th Congress, S.1702, Pub.L. 99-177, title II, December 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1038, 2 U.S.C. § 900) and Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Pub.L. 100-119, title I, Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 754, 2 U.S.C. § 900) (both often known as Gramm-Rudman) were, according to U.S. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, "the first binding constraint imposed on federal spending, and its spending caps have become part of every subsequent U.S. budget. Together with a rapidly growing economy it produced the first balanced federal budget in a quarter of a century.”

President Reagan signed the bill on August 21, 1986.

The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 supplanted the fixed deficit targets.

Balanced budgets did not actually emerge until the late 1990s when budget surpluses (not accounting for liabilities to the Social Security Trust Fund) emerged.

….now what is not being brought up is that the Republican Party controlled the Congress and Senate from 1994 until 2006.  With G. W. Bush in the White House, the Republican Party controlled all three from 2001 until 2006.

     Now while I do hold the Democrats as responsible for the unbridled spending, the Republicans were in control and charge.

     So this idea of a balanced budget amendment kind of throws me.  And when I would mention this in chat room and on bulletin boards online, I was told that my “tin foil hat” was on too tight.  Or that with inflation, the cost will be reduced…..


     And of course, there is the “abortion” issue.  Mr. Perry wants to stop all abortion.  This broken record has been the battle cry for the so called Republican Party since the 1992.  When the Republicans saw that the Christian Coalition had Political Action Committees (PAC) which could generate more money the “god”, and the preachers would tell their followers who to vote for, thus giving them a “block” vote, they quickly rolled onto their back, spread their legs and cried, “TAKE ME!”

     Prior to this the idea of a women not having access to birth control, weather prescription or through medical procedures was not acceptable nor taken lightly.  I watched older women who grew up when birth control pills were only a day dream, and abortions were done in backrooms fight tooth and nail to protect their rights to have control over their bodies.  My mother was one of them.

     So when I look at Perry, I just see a slick politician who plays the religious card BIG TIME.   And what is so sad, these religious people just don’t see or want to see how they are being played.  Sad.  It’s really sad.

     But like the old Wobbly union song use to go, “work all day and live on hay, and when you die there will be pie in the sky…”

    I think I’d like to have my pie now, thank you.

Comment by Rick on July 11, 2010 at 4:14am
I came across this and thought I would share it with everyone.
I have had family and friends who have had personal problems.
It is hard for them, their family and their friends.
Thought this might help those who don't want a "religious" answer.
Comment by Rick on May 17, 2010 at 11:47pm
Comment by Aiden on May 6, 2010 at 2:05pm
Comment by vjack on December 9, 2009 at 12:38pm
Christian blogger wants to know why atheists bother to speak out against religion:

I left my answer. Maybe others would care to chime in?
Comment by vjack on October 7, 2009 at 6:01am
A law against blasphemy is certainly a threat to both free speech and reason. I'm not interested in seeing another Dark Ages.
Comment by Trance Gemini on July 13, 2009 at 6:34am
The Blasphemy Law doesn't surprise me. Look at the way they treated the victims after the "Inquiry". Quite shameless. And they're offering a pittance in compensation. They should refuse the compensation and sue the sorry asses off the Vatican.

It also wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't just one influence peddling attempt by the Vatican to muzzle the victims.

Members (258)




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service