Presumably this was supposed to describe yours truly, for I have criticized "atheist fundamentalism" and suggested that we need to focus instead on the constructive values and ideals associated with secular humanism. (Indeed, my entire career has been devoted to this task.) This is exactly why the Center for Inquiry was founded: It was not founded to advocate for atheism, or serve as a civil rights organization for atheists. I have never accused CFI’s dedicated staff members of being "atheist fundamentalists," though I have expressed concerns over the future direction of the Center for Inquiry. Yet, the problem of atheist fundamentalism is a very real one and needs to be faced. We are not going to solve the massive problems facing civilization on a global scale by merely attacking and ridiculing religion. Questions about human rights, abuse of power, and the creation of meaning and value for a secular age are as vital today as ever. These and other pressing issues were examined with prescience from a secular and naturalistic perspective by presenters at last weekends CFI sponsored conference here in Amherst, New York (October 22-24) honoring John Dewey on his 150th birthday, as well as his impact on America and the world. All in attendance were united by a single theme: We need to get on with the business of advancing a constructive secular alternative.

I am providing readers of this blog a link where they can read my upcoming editorial "The True Unbeliever," to appear in the next issue of Free Inquiry , to more fully explain what I am concerned about.

I should add that I deeply regret the fact that the Center for Inquiry has been overtaken by negative controversy instead of focusing on its positive contributions.

“Paul Kurtz does offer to the readers of Free Inquiry a choice between two starkly different views if CFI. There is the CFI that stands with those who believe that we should be free to criticize religion just as we criticize other beliefs; then there is the neo-Kurtzian vision of a CFI that would tiptoe around religion for fear of giving offense.”

Has Mr. Lindsay read any of my approximately 1000 articles and more than 50 books written over a long life dedicated to the critical examination of religion and the defense of secular humanism and scientific rationalism? I suppose so, but did he comprehend what I was trying to say?

Do I need to point out that I founded Prometheus Books (in 1969), which is now the largest publishing company in the world specializing in books critical of religion and the defense of humanism and secularism? Prometheus over the past 40 years has published more than 3,000 books, many of them powerful critiques of religion by renowned atheist and skeptical authors.

Do I need to point out that I also initiated the founding of CSICOP (in 1976), publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer , which defends the scientific outlook and has forthrightly criticized paranormal claims? Similarly, I founded the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, publisher of Free Inquiry (in 1980), and I have consistently said that we are committed to freedom of inquiry and that religion needs to be critically examined the same as all other claims.

The same thing is true for the establishment of the Center for Inquiry (in 1991), which is “committed to the use of reason, science and free inquiry in every area of human interest” (including, of course, religion.).

I have taken more than 100 trips all over the world encouraging the founding of Centers—from India and China to Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America—bringing the same message. And I have given thousands of talks and media appearances on similar themes. And now to be castigated for being a “tiptoer”? Wow, that’s gutsy!

The main difference between Mr. Lindsay’s approach and mine is that I have attempted to take “the high road,” if you will, by providing intelligent, responsible and judicious critiques. I am happy to say that as a result the Center for Inquiry has been considered one of the most respected organizations in North America, offering dignified critiques of the reigning orthodoxies and fanaticisms, and we had attracted many of the leading scholars and scientists in the world under our banner. Indeed, the Center for Inquiry had been the largest freethought organization in North America—larger in readership and resources than all of the other organizations committed to similar goals combined!

My objection to Blasphemy Day is that it can be rather sophomoric; particularly the holding of a contest to see who come up with the most pithy forms of blasphemy. I have consistently said that if we are to be taken seriously, we need to provide the best scholarly and scientific examination of claims. I have also forthrightly defended “the right to blaspheme;” but there are different ways of doing this, and I submit that poking fun at ones opponents is counterproductive. I do not think that “in your face” atheism will get us very far. I have defended the right of the Danish newspaper to publish cartoons critical of Muslim suicide bombers, and I am not unilaterally opposed to the use of cartoons, particularly where there is a political or social point that needs to be made. But this is different from purposely seeking to blaspheme to gain public notoriety.

My second and most important response to Mr. Lindsay is that he has totally ignored the main point of my life work, namely that we need to be affirmative and positive, providing constructive alternatives to religious systems of faith. And here the development of humanist ethical principles and values are crucial.

In my view, the main failure of “atheist fundamentalists”—and they do exist—is that they often are so eager to criticize theistic religions that they ignore the need to develop a genuine moral compass and the principles of personal morality.

I have been called “the father of secular humanism” (for well or for woe). I do not believe that atheism is a necessary condition of being a secular humanist. One may be an agnostic or skeptic, or simply indifferent to religion. Thus our appeal should be broad enough to attract a larger section of the general public, without asking that they pass the “atheist’s test” of purity. This will drive more people away than attract; and the argument is patently nonsensical.

The point to be made is that it is possible to lead a creative and meaningful life of joy and fulfillment, be concerned not only with one’s one self-interest, but with the needs of others, be empathetic and loving, a good parent and a conscientious citizen in the community, respecting those with whom we disagree, being committed to the use of reason—but also have a compassionate heart, exemplifying genuine affection and good will toward others.

There are indeed two different visions of the Center for Inquiry: The first insists that there ain’t no God. And that people who believe in him are foolish. The second agrees that there is insufficient evidence for God, but that humans have the opportunity to realize the fullness of life for themselves and society. The second vision is affirmative and constructive in scope, and has proven enormously successful thus far. It would be a tragedy of monumental proportions to abandon it now.

When we defended the right of a Danish newspaper to publish cartoons deploring the violence of Muslim suicide bombers, we were supporting freedom of the press. The right to publish dissenting critiques of religion should be accepted as basic to freedom of expression. But for CFI itself to sponsor the lampooning of Christianity by encouraging anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, or any other anti-religious cartoons goes beyond the bounds of civilized discourse in pluralistic society. It is not dissimilar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the Nazi era. Yet there are some fundamentalist atheists who have resorted to such vulgar antics to gain press attention. In doing so they have dishonored the basic ethical principles of what the Center for Inquiry has resolutely stood for until now: the toleration of opposing viewpoints.

It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance. One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society. I apologize to my fellow citizens who have suffered these barbs of indignity.

I was invited to spend three days with Eunice and Sargent Shriver at their home. At that time Sen. Edward Kennedy was considering a possible run for the presidency and there was a meeting in Washington in which he gave a memorable talk to many journalists and friends. While there I also visited the home of Ethel Kennedy, the wife of Robert (Bobby) Kennedy.

At that time I was editor of The Humanist magazine, and I was invited because the Kennedys knew about humanism and expressed general sympathy with its moral and social principles. We discussed humanism in general terms as a progressive philosophy of individual freedom and a concern for social justice, and they shared a commitment to these values.

Although the Kennedys are officially Roman Catholic, they nevertheless supported a liberal social agenda. Eunice was a sponsor of the Special Olympics for the disabled. Sen. Edward Kennedy often deviated from the Church's doctrines, as he was divorced and most recently came out in support of stem cell research (although the Vatican vehemently opposes it). Known as the Lion in the Senate, he has battled for human rights. He has been a strong proponent of the current legislation on universal health care. He was a supporter of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act of 1968; he was a consistent defender of civil liberties, and an early opponent of the Vietnam War.

I surely do not deny the fact the Kennedys were members of the Roman Catholic Church; but at the same time they shared important values with secular humanists. The mother, Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy was of course devout, but her children were generally either nominal or liberal in their faith.

The purpose of the 1972 meeting at which liberal journalists and thinkers were invited, was to gauge Sen. Kennedy's possible chances for a run for the presidency-coming only a few years after the unfortunate drowning death of Mary Jo Kopechne on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969. Edward Kennedy and Ms. Kopechne were together in the car that went off the road. A cloud of suspicion overhung Edward Kennedy's role in that accident; for he did not report the incident until 10 hours later. One purpose of our participation, I gather, was a trial balloon to "test the waters," so to speak. That was a long time ago, and Sen. Kennedy has had a distinguished record in the Senate ever since.

The point that I wish to make here is that secularists and humanists have many allies among religious people; and that although unbelievers may not be happy with their supernaturalism, there are many other bonds that tie citizens together, and we should be willing and able to work with them on issues of common concern.

Alas, it is now abundantly clear that the Bush administration did engage in torture in violation of this prohibition. The International Committee of the Red Cross had secretly investigated U. S. interrogation practices against prisoners and concluded some time ago that torture was used against suspected terrorists. The Justice Department has now confirmed the use of torture by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

These practices took place in secret prisons maintained by the United States in Pakistan, Dubai, Thailand, and elsewhere. They included waterboarding and other illegal methods—practices for which the United States prosecuted Japanese military interrogators for war crimes after World War II. Waterboarding involves the pouring of water on a cloth held over the prisoner’s face so that he cannot breathe, simulating drowning. Other practices involve forcing prisoners to stand in painful positions for days with their hands chained to a bar above them, keeping suspects awake for as long as eleven days; locking them in dark, cramped boxes, and/or injecting insects into the box to frighten them; forced nudity; slamming them against the wall; and dousing prisoners with very cold water (41° F).

These methods of torture were used by totalitarian dictatorships before and during World War II, and were widely condemned by the civilized world. We now find that they were used by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team with impunity, in direct violation of the Geneva Convention. These acts were   illegal and those who used or condoned them should be held accountable.

We often hear the argument: “What if” the terrorists were going to detonate a nuclear bomb over Los Angeles or Washington? Should we not use torture on suspects to extract information? Well, perhaps, in a clear-and-present-danger crisis situation – though even here, the seeming power of torture to extract information must be balanced against the possibility that using torture will only elicit false information. Still, the so-called “ticking bomb” argument surely cannot be used as a pretext to engage in any and all forms of reprehensible conduct. American democracy is based on laws and it is committed to the defense of human rights. The use of a doomsday scenario to justify any and all forms of bestial conduct is surely inadmissible. The main casualty of this whole sordid affair is American democracy itself, which is based on the ideals of liberty and respect for the principles of due process and justice. Our democracy has suffered great damage because of our tragic excursion into torture. The world will be watching to see how or if we make amends.