I would like to encourage all of our readers in Phoenix to pick up a New Times this week. It’s got great pictures and an overall good story, but I would also like to give a little bit of a response and clarification on a few issues.

I do understand that they took a particular interest in Omar. He is an interesting, well spoken and good looking guy with a good story to tell, so the fact that the rest of us are a bit buried in the article is alright. What I don’t like is the Secular Free Thought Society (and me in particular) being painted as the villains and unwanted hangers-on who followed Omar down to Mill like lost puppies.

As Omar knows, but apparently Niki forgot, the Mill Avenue Resistance started when I started visiting Mill on a regular basis and arguing with preachers by myself. I believe it was the first night of doing that when I met a former street preacher named Emmanuel who was also having one on one discussions with preachers, and the initial group was formed.

Shortly after that I started making tracts to pass out and Emmanuel and I started talking to passers-by as well as the preachers, but it wasn’t until about two months later when Omar showed up with his megaphone that we were really able to make a difference in what the preachers were doing.

Omar and Jim have played an important part in the development of the Mill Avenue Resistance, intentionally or not, but we are not his groupies. We are out there every week, whether or not Omar is around.

Just to be clear, Emmanuel and I started going out there individually at first, and Omar and Jim showed up independently as well. None of us followed any of the others down there, and in fact with Emmanuel and I not having a speaker yet, Omar and Jim didn’t even notice that we were there the first night they came out. We definitely noticed the megaphone though.

Since then we have developed in parallel. I have always considered Omar and Jim to be somewhat peripheral members of the group, but they have seen themselves as more independent. Either way you look at it though, although I respect them and value their contributions to what I see as the betterment of Mill Avenue, I am not and never have been either following or intentionally interfering with Omar and Jim.

Historically, the Mill Avenue Resistance goes where the preachers go, and it is generally the same for Omar and Jim. For the most part this has not been a problem, particularly since most of us were using similar methods most of the time, but as we have more and more people wanting to speak, and as some of us begin to change our ideas about the most effective ways of accomplishing our goals, there is some friction. We are doing our best to resolve these issues and get everyone back on the same page again though.

It is not a situation where one brilliant man must shake off the chaff and let his singular glory shine through, it is a situation where many people with similar goals are attempting to do similar things in the same place, but not everything is meshing as well as it could at times. As far as I can tell though, there is no animosity between any of us, and I am confident that the issues which we have will be resolved to the satisfaction of nearly everyone involved.

Another problem I saw in the article was that I am not the founder of the Secular Free Thought Society of ASU. I do have a strong connection with the group, and I did help bring together the people who re-formed it (although Brother Jed deserves more credit for that than I do), but betterthanfaith.com and the Mill Avenue Resistance are the only things I can claim credit for starting myself.

Finally I would like to clarify (or un-clarify) what my intention is on Mill. Jim sees it more as an art project, and Omar may see it that way too. To an extent I see it that way, but I don’t have a singular reason for being there or one way of looking at it. If I have to pick something though, I see it mostly as an educational exercise. I want to share what I know about the world and religion in particular, and I want to add to that knowledge by learning from anyone who wants to talk to me.

I do want people to know the whole truth about the Bible and the things the preachers are saying, and I do hope that the things I tell them will make them think and do more research, but after that it is up to them. I am only trying to convert people to atheism inasmuch as I am trying to present the facts and opinions that have led me to my own disbelief.

There are some other minor mistakes related to me, the SFTS and the preachers in the article, but they’re probably not worth mentioning. Basically I see it as a good article about Omar and a somewhat less accurate and fair article about the rest of us.

I understand though that the author can only report it the way she sees it, and conflict helps the story, so we get stuck playing the villains a bit. If it helps with what we’re doing though, then I’m willing to take the hit, and Niki, you’re still welcome to come hang out with us any time.

Congratulations on the overall good article and very amusing pictures Omar!

Much of the gay community and many others are upset by Barack Obama’s choice of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation (prayer) at Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony, but perhaps this is the wrong issue to complain about?

Not only is there to be a prayer by a controversial pastor, but there will also be a benediction (blessing) by Joseph Lowery, a less divisive choice, but still a Christian reverend who will bring little diversity. If we do include religious activities, why not Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or others?

Some religious zealots feel that not only is it unquestionably right to have their (supposedly America’s) religion exclusively represented in government events, but that the only question we should be asking is whether or not what we’re doing will be good enough for God.

It is unlikely that anything short of a Christian theocracy would be enough for people like these, and for others nothing but a Muslim theocracy would do. Neither of these views is worthy of consideration for our explicitly secular government, and attempting to appease these people by including their religions in official government events can do nothing but encourage them to push forward with their theocratic ideas and to widen the gulfs in our already divided country.

Given the secular nature of our government, prayers, blessings and oaths to gods are out of place. Religion is extremely important to many people, and if they wish to pray for their president and their country then they are and should be allowed to do so, but an official government ceremony is not the place for it.

Not to trivialize the feelings that many people have about their faith, but to many people something else such as football can be almost a religion too. Would it be appropriate or useful for Lovie Smith, coach of the Chicago Bears, to speak at Obama’s inauguration? It might make Bears fans cheer, it might make the fans of other teams angry, but it would add nothing of relevance to this secular government event.

In the end the most questionable action here is not choosing a controversial pastor to pray at the presidential inauguration, it is choosing to have a prayer at the inauguration at all.