Tajapooh

Eudaimonist, thank you, this is really interesting. I'm gratified that you're seeing an uptick in membership, secularism is really under siege at the moment.

I confess myself a little disappointed in your organization's Objectivist spin and lack of activism (I think it's good for 'churches' to supply services to the community). After all, activism need not be political in nature.

But, as you say, who can satisfy every secularist leaning? Is the membership confined to the Atlanta area? Are there any from the Northeast?

Anyone else want to speak up for their favorite secularist 'church'?

Eudaimonist

In what way is secularism under siege?

Just so you know, while Objectivism is a major influence on the moral compass of the organization, FOR is not, strictly speaking, an Objectivist organization. There are other philosophical influences on the group, such as Aristotle and the Stoics, and modern thinkers, such as Joseph Campbell. FOR members come across as much warmer, friendlier, and open-minded than the typical Objectivist.

FOR is neither a charitable nor a political activist organization. It exists for the sake of the personal improvement and happiness of its members. It has an inward focus. I can understand if that might be disappointing to someone who is interested in community service, though FOR does not discourage independent participation in charities. FOR might offer teaching services (classes on whatnot) to the public at some point in the future, but it is still too early in the organization's development for that.

There are members outside of Atlanta, though the Atlanta group is still the only organized chapter. There are several people interested in starting their own chapters, myself included. I will be moving from the US to Sweden sometime this year -- I'd like to start a chapter in Sweden. There will be a conference this summer in Atlanta with information on how to start a chapter.

Jobar

One very down to earth reason that there are so few atheist/freethought/skeptical organizations is MONEY. I've often thought that instead of the cross, the central icon of all Christian beliefs should be the collection plate.

A few years back I tried to find enough people in my own (rather rural) locale to organize a group along the lines of the North Texas Church of Freethought. I found fewer than half a dozen in a forty mile radius, and none of those were willing to put their money where their disbeliefs were. (And I am not at all wealthy, either.)

For the present, people like me who are far from major metropolitan centers are pretty much limited to the internet for our atheistic fellowship. II is a good start- I put my time, and what money I can afford, into expanding the brotherhood of unbelievers via the web.

Tajapooh

Jobar:

brotherhood of unbelievers, I like that.

One virtue of establishing a new sect (as the FOR folks are attempting), as opposed to just doing a single local church, is that the urban centers can offset the costs of less viable rural groups. The North Texas church I personally find more palatable than FOR. They appear to have spawned a Houston branch, but are not expansionist (difficult to term a freethinkers church 'evangelical').

It's interesting that their lack of creed makes them seem (looking at their website) more like a civic club than a church. The Portland, Oregon Secular Humanist group, which is organized similarly to the the North Texas church, also feels like a club.

I am curious, how did you try to find new members? Did you advertise in newspapers, post at local Unitarian churches, search somewhere on this website?

Vespertine

Isn't 'Secular Church' an oxymoron?

Fiach

Points are well taken. I don't deny that I might fall into such a trap as you describe. I had not really considered it. I will be aware of that in my future posts. Criticism is appreciated.

Fiach

Eudaimonist

Yes, if the concept "church" is defined as an essentially religious community. This is why FOR calls itself a rational moral community (or philosophical community), and calls "churches" faith-based moral communities. (Obviously, the Church of Freethought doesn't count as a "church" under this classification system.)

There is nothing intrinsically anti-secular about moral communities, of course.

Tajapooh

re: "secular church"

Yes, terms like "secular church" or "freethinkers church" are meaningless! However, don't you think they may provide better brand positioning than "rational moral community"? I think most people would know immediately what an "atheist church" is, tho they would find it difficult to say what 'services' might consist of, and theists may indeed be inclined to laugh. But I think people will be puzzled by "rational moral community". It has a vaguely utopian ring; I might be tempted to think it was a commune or planned community. Sometimes brand recognition is more important than accuracy.

Is there any advantage to being officially a church, as opposed to a 501(c)3?

Eudaimonist

Not necessarily. A brand position label must sound appealing. When the original members of FOR got together, they did consider having the word "church" in the name of their group, but that word was considered too distasteful! At first, it wasn't about the issue of definitions, it was because the secular people there were too repulsed by the word "church".

Philosophical community or rational moral community may be more appealing terms for some secularists. Besides, it avoids the "isn't secular church an oxymoron?" response. That alone makes it worth it.