Ed Buckner on Secular Leadership, Humanist Unity, and Christian Identity Politics

How does Ed Buckner view leadership transitions, secular cooperation, and the future of atheism in an era of Christian nationalism?

“We must focus on improving humanity and, in our case, doing so without religious domination.” – Ed Buckner

Ed Buckner is a prominent advocate for secularism, former president of American Atheists, and past executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism. With decades of experience, Buckner emphasizes the importance of nurturing future leaders and recognizes the need for unity in the secular movement while acknowledging differences. He believes in focusing on improving humanity without religious dominance. Buckner continues to share his insights through his Substack blog, Letters to a Free Country, which reaches readers worldwide. Now nearing 80, Buckner remains engaged in writing and reflection.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Ed Buckner about secular leadership, humanist cooperation, and the future of atheism. Buckner reflects on mentoring successors, distinguishing atheism-centered advocacy from broader humanist ethics, and resisting ideological purity within freethought communities. He warns against Christian nationalism while emphasizing consensus, education, and humane progress without religious domination. Nearing 80, Buckner remains active through reading, writing, and his Substack, Letters to a Free Country, reaching readers worldwide.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Ed Buckner, the former president of American Atheists.

Ed Buckner: Before serving as president, I was the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism. I’ve had a varied career.

Jacobsen: So, which parts are the dark moments and which are the highlights? There are stories scattered throughout.

Buckner: I am old and have held many different roles. I am no longer involved as a representative of any organization, not even the Atlanta Freethought Society.

However, I am a life member of the Atlanta Freethought Society, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and American Atheists, among others. I maintain strong ties with many individuals in these organizations.

Jacobsen: One significant lesson I have observed in the general history of service to the community, which people often overlook, is that leadership is seasonal.

Leaders do not stay in leadership positions forever, especially when the organizations are democratic. Leaders serve terms of varying lengths and may be re-elected, but eventually, they step down and move on.

What lessons have you learned about the seasonal nature of humanist and freethought leadership, and what insights do you take from your time as a leader?

Buckner: Well, I learned early on—and it is a lesson that every leader should learn—that one of the critical responsibilities of a leader is to nurture and develop future leaders while remaining aware of the processes needed for a smooth transition of power. I have been fortunate not to be dismissed from these organizations; I have retired on my terms.

However, regardless of the circumstances, every leader needs to understand that they will no longer be in their position one day. It might seem far off, but most of the time, it is relatively near. You must adequately prepare the next generation of leaders to be as effective as you are.

Jacobsen: What insights do you take from the institutions you were part of, such as the Council for Secular Humanism and American Atheists? What distinguished these organizations during your tenure?

Buckner: Well, I’m still trying to remember that far back. I mentioned that I am old. American Atheists then—and probably now—placed more emphasis on atheism and the absence of religion. In contrast, the Council for Secular Humanism focused more on humanistic values. Over time, my personal preference has shifted more toward the humanist side of things, though I am still an atheist. I believe it is important for American Atheists to continue their work in defending atheism and advocating for the separation of church and state.

I was not part of its leadership, but I greatly admire Herb Silverman, whom you have interviewed. He dedicated an enormous effort—not just financial—to develop the Secular Coalition for America. Many people, myself included, doubted he could accomplish this, but he did, and it was impressive. The culture of secular humanism in those days, under Tom Flynn and Paul Kurtz, emphasized a reaction against the view of American Humanists that humanism is a religion. I do not think humanism is or should be a religion.

The American Humanist Association had moved past that, for sure. Formally and officially, one of the challenges they faced was their religious tax exemption. They no longer have that; although it cost them something to make the change, it was a necessary and positive step. It was the right decision, and I am glad they made it.

We, as secular humanists and humanists in general, need to understand that when we strive to change the world, we must focus on what is truly important and avoid getting caught up in minor technicalities or labels. Whether we identify as humanists, atheists, or freethinkers, we should not be so purist that it undermines our main mission. The primary goal should be advancing humanity and broadening education so that people understand how to live together and progress as a society without religion. This deserves serious consideration, but it is optional. Simply removing religion does not guarantee positive outcomes.

We must deliberate about what we want and how to move forward.

Jacobsen: In my recent interviews with various freethinkers, particularly in the United States, where there is a substantial community and many freethought organizations, I found that they tend to share unified values. While they may disagree on a handful of issues, they can become contentious, depending on the cultural climate. This can cost people friendships and professional connections.

These conflicts can divert attention away from the broader mission of many organizations. For example, even if there is a 10% disagreement—which would be substantial—that should be acceptable. In most of my interviews, people tend to agree on about 95% of issues. However, that remaining 5% sometimes reflects what I might call–not as a judgment but an assessment– the “narcissism of minor differences,” which can hinder the movement’s progress legally, politically, and socially, especially regarding equality and other essential matters.

So, what do you observe about this trend, and what would you hope for, as a point of reflection and self-critique for the community, to maintain focus on the bigger picture while acknowledging legitimate differences on certain topics?

Buckner: I have certainly observed a similar trend, and this week, in particular, as Donald Trump has just been re-elected as president, most Americans, myself included, have been focused on electoral politics. Some of what we are discussing here applies to that context as well. For instance, if an exit poll showed that short men were not supporting Trump as strongly as before, people might react with confusion. Yet, when such data is broken down by other groups, like race, region, or gender, it is often deemed crucial.

While these distinctions can matter, and I am not saying they do not, we should avoid overly focusing on them. This approach holds not only for the progressive, liberal, democratic movement that seeks to reclaim power from Christian nationalists but also for organizations like the American Humanist Association, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists, and others.

We must remember that an inevitable characteristic of humanity is that we will disagree on some things. We must remember that purity of commitment to ideas is not what we need. We need strong consensus and commitment, but we also need to tolerate differences, recognize some things as trivial, and acknowledge that some issues may be important but not resolvable. We must focus on improving humanity and, in our case, doing so without religious domination. I must say, I am far more concerned about those Americans who push for Christian nationalism than I am about some religious Americans who do not. In my opinion, Christian nationalists are not even good Christians, but that’s for Christians to decide—not me.

I’m certainly not a Christian. However, the danger they pose is not just the imposition of religious values but using religion as a tool to impose illiberal political values. As a socialist, social democrat, and liberal, I find that quite alarming.

Jacobsen: Atheism does not have moral content from a philosophical standpoint. If someone assumes a theological framework in which “God is good,” then rejecting that framework could lead them to infer that atheism implies immorality, a lack of ethics, or evil—typically framed in supernaturalist terms and based on sin. However, atheism itself does not carry moral content. I understand why fundamentalist preachers often equate non-belief in God with advocating for moral anarchy or evil.

In my experience, and I have asked Herb Silverman this as well, plenty of negative stereotypes and epithets have been thrown our ways.

Buckner: Some of them quite silly. I remember going to a library in Minnesota to give a talk on whether the U.S. is a Christian nation. A woman who saw the placard approached me and said, “Why don’t you go back to Russia?” I’ve never even been to Russia. I laughed at her, which might not have been the most diplomatic response.

As an individual, I have not suffered significant consequences, even though I am a Southerner and grew up amidst the influence of Baptist culture. I haven’t experienced a notable loss of power or prestige due to being an atheist. There was a time in academia when I did not get tenure, and it’s possible my irreligion had something to do with that, though it was not overt, and I cannot be certain.

Online, I have been called names and faced some hostility, but it hasn’t seriously impacted me. We, as atheists and humanists, have much more to lose when we get caught up in the nuances of our differences in labels than we do from external attacks on our non-religious stance. The approach of J.D. Vance and Donald Trump in promoting Christian nationalism is certainly concerning to me. However, until that approach gains more ground, we have made significant progress over the past generation or two.

You interviewed Herb Silverman. I give him much credit for unifying the movement in the U.S. to a much greater extent than before. He succeeded in that, and other notable individuals are contributing significantly. For example, Alison Gill of American Atheists is a brilliant attorney who has been quite successful in fostering cooperation among organizations and proposing measures to stop certain legislation. We’ve seen some unity recently, and it has paid off. What causes that unity? Who knows?

However, American society has undeniably become more secular than it was when I was a child over 55 years ago. It’s difficult to say whether organizations were the main drivers of this change. It’s also uncertain whether Christian nationalism, especially with support from the upcoming administration, will erode some of the progress we’ve made. Still, it’s crucial to stay focused.

Jacobsen: To delve deeper, what terms or epithets have been directed at you that you recall?

Buckner: I don’t remember many specifics apart from that lady in Minnesota telling me to return to Russia. I’ve been called a commie, immoral, disgusting, and similar things. I understand what you were saying—if someone believes there is a God who commands specific actions, then not following those commands is, by their definition, immoral. It makes sense from their perspective, but I reject that premise entirely, as any reasonable person should. So, I don’t think the epithets thrown at me hold much importance.

Jacobsen: These labels often arise from creating a version of atheism within a theological framework rather than addressing the fundamental question: What is theism? Approaching from first principles is the better way to go.

Buckner: I know a preacher in the Atlanta area who, in strict confidence, admitted to me that he is a staunch atheist and does not believe in God at all. He and I disagree on whether religion is inherently beneficial. He leads a large church and believes he accomplishes good by encouraging his congregation to treat each other well, be humane, and act decently. His congregation is liberal enough not to challenge him on his specific theological beliefs too deeply.

Can religion do some good, and can religious leaders be moral forces for positive change? Yes, they can. But in the long run, it’s more likely to be beneficial if they shed the false trappings of theism and act as decent human beings and strong leaders.

Jacobsen: Last question. What does a regular day look like for you now that you’re outside the leadership stresses of those organizations?

Buckner: I drink coffee and listen to my wife read Heather Cox Richardson’s blog every morning. I do a lot of reading and writing, but it’s not high pressure. I have a Substack blog called Letters to a Free Country. It has a ‘vast, vast readership’—about 350 people or so. It’s not great; I wish it were more. However, it’s scattered across the world. I have readers or subscribers from 35 countries and 40 different U.S. states. So, I do write, although not daily.

I write twice a week. One post is typically about perennial freethought topics, such as Pascal’s Wager and other recurring questions. I usually publish those on Fridays. On Mondays, I write something more original, often unrelated to atheism. Wednesdays are typically reserved for guest essays from others. I managed to keep myself occupied. I am nearing the end of my eighth decade and will soon be 80 years old. It’s been a gradual decline into old age, and I do struggle with memory.

Your name is… Scott. I sometimes lose my train of thought and ideas, and I’ve certainly experienced physical decline. It’s natural and normal, but that doesn’t make it any more enjoyable—it doesn’t.

Jacobsen: Good. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak with you, Ed.

Buckner: It was a pleasure, and thank goodness you got to that last question. I was worried you were going to start grilling me on tougher topics.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Take care, and we’ll be in touch.

Buckner: You take care. Bye-bye.

Photo by Nik Shuliahin 💛💙 on Unsplash