Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister and founder of Médecins Sans Frontières has brought up the radical (to some) idea, of having the United Nations bring in food and other relief aid, to the Burmese people, even if the generals in the military junta object. Of course, as Nick Cohen points out in the Guardian:

He (Kouchner) was opposed by authoritarian regimes the world over. A Western diplomat at the UN Security Council meeting said objections came from China, Kouchner’s old enemies in Vietnam, Russia and South Africa… All knew without needing to be told that if the Burmese military were held to be illegitimate rulers whose wishes could be overruled because they lacked a democratic mandate, the same criteria could be used against them or their allies, too, and their desperate arguments reflected their fears.

To say that the American Left has become sadly predictable in its foreign policy would be an understatement. It should be no surprise after some hemming-and-hawing, to see the Left end up as uneasy bedfellows with dictatorial governments such as the People Republic of China in this matter. After all, the people of Burma cannot compete the ugly strain of isolationism that is creeping into America’s body politic. Nor can the Burmese suffering ease the trauma that the Left would surly face by being called Western imperialists from various quarters.

Though pocketbooks have opened up around the world to help the Burmese, the next few days will require tough decisions in order to prevent an already tragic event turn into a mind-blowing catastrophe. The people of Burma need our help. So what are we going to do about it?

Today, I circulated a press release with information about the Star Hill controversy. This concerns the Village of Holmen, Wisconsin, which decided to sell to the local Lion’s Club a small patch of public land on which a cross and a star are erected. The Lion’s Club will pay $600–despite the fact that the American Humanist Association offered $1,000 and the Freedom From Religion Foundation offered $1,200 for the land. This is because the Lion’s Club will keep the cross and star in the midst of government-owned property while the AHA and FFRF won’t. (Those of you who have followed the San Diego Mt. Soledad case should be pretty familiar with this new tactic.)

As an AHA staff member who deals with public policy, I’ve sent out quite a number of press releases during my tenure here. I’ve rarely ever received editorializing e-mails back from media people. However, today I received two of particular note:

From Daniel S. Brandenburg, Publisher/Editor of the Marion Advertiser

“Three Cheers for the Village of Holmen. I think I’ll use this as an editorial to give these leaders the credit they deserve.”

From Ingrid Schlueter, co-host of VCY America Radio Network

“Ha Ha Ha. This is great. Long live the Lions Club and kudos to the village board of Holmen, Wisconsin. God bless America.”

Clearly, we have a lot of church-state educating yet to do.

Manifestos have been popping up on varying modern movements for dozens of years now. Even Humanists created one in 1933. Now, Evangelicals have one, too.

An Evangelical Manifesto, established by a committee led by Samford University (not to be mistaken for Stanford University in California) theology professor Timothy George, was released to the public yesterday. It was created to “take back the term ‘evangelical’ from politics and return it to its theological roots,’” according to USA Today.

So far, there are over 80 signers, including Princeton professor Sam Moffett, and Sojournors magazine founder Jim Wallis. (There is also a mysterious signer known as “Greg,” a “Minister” at a “Baptist church.” For what reason would he choose not to fully identify himself?)

But where are the bigwig Evangelicals—activists like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson, or media pundits like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh?

Well, it looks like a few of them aren’t satisfied enough with it:

The Southern Baptist Convention’s policy chief, Dr. Richard Land, says he wasn’t asked to sign.

Focus on the Family’s Doctor James Dobson says he was asked, but his board of directors advised against it “due to myriad concerns,” including the lack of African-American involvement.

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America worries the manifesto will confuse Christian voters about the issues that are most important: opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

It’s nice to see that Shaw thinks its more important for Christians to focus on negative, hurtful rhetoric than postively assert one’s beliefs and hopes for the future. Perhaps that’s the reason why such a manifesto is needed.

Major General Robert L. Caslen Jr—one of the seven military officers who caused a minor stir (though it should have been a major one) when he improperly appeared in a Christian Embassy promotional video in uniform—is getting a promotion. The change-of-command date is yet to be set, but at some point Caslen will become the commanding general at the Schofield Barracks.

I wonder if he’d be receiving the same promotion had he appeared in a humanist or otherwise atheist video? Actually, I don’t have to wonder—the answer is clearly no. Just look at what the military did to atheist Specialist Jeremy Hall if you have any doubt of that.

The California State University system has fired another instructor over a 1952 pledge that was created to root out communists. This issue first came to the media’s attention back in February, when a Quaker math teacher, Marianne Kearney-Brown, was fired because she inserted the word “nonviolently” into the oath swearing to defend the U.S. and California constitutions. She was rehired after her case attracted media attention.

Now, Wendy Gonaver, also a Quaker and a pacifist, who was offered a teaching job at Cal State Fullerton, lost her position because she would not sign a loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” She offered to sign the pledge if she could attach a brief statement expressing her views, a practice allowed by other state institutions. But Cal State Fullerton rejected her statement and insisted that she sign the oath if she wanted the job.

Zari Wigfall, a Jehovah’s Witness who testified at a congressional subcommittee hearing in 1998 on the matter said,

“Citizens are entitled to certain rights, and also minorities, including religious minorities, are given certain guarantees. And I just didn’t think that . . . because of my religious beliefs I would have two jobs taken away from me. It makes no sense that they do this to people. It’s people who take it seriously who don’t get hired.”

As Kearney-Brown pointed out, “The way it’s (the oath) laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work for the university, but not a citizen Quaker.” I think she makes a very good point. In its present form, the only people it seems to be preventing from teaching are truly believing pacifists, many of whom come from peace churches. Basically it’s discriminating against a group of Americans, who are largely religious. Although, many Humanists, Atheists and other freethinkers are also pacifist and would be disturbed by the need to sign oaths such as these. Humanists, along with churches, should be outraged by this type of statement. These oaths are a legacy from a dark period in American history, and should be put to bed once and for all.

It’s a pleasure to join the Rant & Reason bloggers, especially on this National Day of Reason. For a blogger, that’s where it’s all at—REASON. Everybody else just has opinions!

If you’re from the Dark Ages, today is also the National Day of Prayer.

Personally, and as church-state lawyer, I think that the National Day of Prayer (36 U.S.C. § 119), established by Congress in 1952, is unconstitutional. Same with President Bush’s proclamation (and those of other presidents). Clearly, these are acts of government favoring religion over non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I’m not a conspiracist, but I have to say that there must be a conspiracy going on because the judges on our courts don’t seem to give a hoot about their oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Whether there is a conspiracy, or just a lot of bad people in public office, I leave that to the readers of Rant & Reason to judge.

But why should I care? After all, I gave up praying a long, long time ago because my prayers for family harmony went unanswered. So did my other prayers. And I’ve been an atheist for over 40 years with no regrets or doubts. In answer to my question, I care because our federal, state and local governments are supposed to serve all of us, not merely the most common religious group. We nontheists should not be made to feel like outsiders.

This brings me back to the National Day of Reason. Reason is one of the pillars of Humanism. Let us enjoy the day by letting reason be our guide throughout today and the years to come. There’s even a website about the National Day of Reason to help out.

And please check an announcement today by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition for Reason (supported by the AHA) of a new billboard greeting outbound Interstate 95 drivers north of Philadelphia with an image of blue sky and the message “Don’t believe in God? . . . You are not alone.”

Rocky Twyman, a choir director from Washington, is doing his part to help decrease the cost of gas—with a little help from God.

Last weekend, he stopped at a Chevron gas station in San Francisco—where gas is now over $4—to stage a pray-in, “calling on churchgoers to ask for God’s intervention where he says politicians have failed.”

Oh, but he’s also quick to mention that those participating in prayer should do more walking and carpooling.

Anyone want to venture a guess at which would work better—prayer or actually using less gas?

I’m not posting about this to poke fun at people who rely on prayer to solve problems. However, I make an exception for those who claim prayer to be “successful” when rational suggestions are obviously better. Twyman shouldn’t claim victory and praise God if the price of gas does decrease. Thank the people around you—for using less resources, taking public transportation, and doing their individual part to save the earth.

The Secular Coalition for America is really excited to be part of this year’s American Humanist Association (AHA) 67th annual national conference this June. One of the great opportunities that will be offered at the AHA conference is a coordinated lobbying day on June 9^th. Attendees have the chance to visit their elected officials in the House and Senate and speak to them and their staff about the humanist and secular issues that matter to them most.

At the conference, a workshop will be offered on Saturday, June 7^th, that teaches everyone “the basics” of lobbying. This workshop would be useful for anyone who is looking to build a relationship with their federal or state representatives because it teaches you the ins and outs of making appointments, holding a meeting, and getting your voice heard on issues important to you and your community.

Knowing the ins and outs of lobbying elected officials is a critical tool for an effective democratic society. When legislation that jeopardizes humanist values or the secular character of government arises, you need to be prepared to take a stand. The Secular Coalition for America will train you on what to do, and then give you the opportunity to test out your new skills by lobbying your federal officials and their staff on Monday morning.

If you’ve never visited a congressional office before and seen exactly where your elected officials work, it’s a great time to do so! And being on the grounds of the Capitol on a beautiful summer day is an enjoyable experience regardless of your political affiliation.

As the lobbying arm of the AHA and our other member groups, the Secular Coalition for America is relying on you to sign up and show your elected officials that the issues we are fighting for are important to their constituents. The best way to convey this critical message is by meeting face-to-face in their offices.

Your participation in this lobby day demonstrates that the nontheist community is a constituency that can no longer be ignored!

I encourage you to join the many attendees who have already signed up and participate in our lobby day on June 9^th. You can sign up here: http://secular.org/lobby_day_2008.html#form

I read an interesting article on Townhall.com by Zachary Gappa this weekend titled “‘Secular’ Discrimination Against Religion.” It made me realize just how easy it is for people to see one story and come away with very different versions of what happened.

The actual article is about a lawsuit against Google. The Christian Institute sought to purchase an advertisement from Google, “so that whenever the word ‘abortion’ was typed into the popular search engine, its link would appear on the side of the screen.” Google refused this request, stating, “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of web sites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content.’” The general web chatter is that Google doesn’t allow “anti” paid ads placed under headings. So an anti-President Bush site won’t show up in paid ads under a search for the president, although it can show up under the regular search. This has been misinterpreted as “modern embracing of secularism” or discrimination against religion, when in reality, it is just a policy to protect the Google image as being fair and above board with the placement of paid ads.

Looking at Gappa’s article brings up further differences in interpretation. The very first point Gappa makes is as follows:

Many people today are concerned about the “separation of church and state.” More often than not, this means keeping religion out of the public sphere. They say the public sphere ought to be “secular,” free from talk of religion lest someone be offended. Religious freedom is interpreted as the freedom not to hear another person’s religious convictions.

His view, though it may be widely shared by some, isn’t exactly the correct way to understand the issue. A separation between church and state isn’t meant to prevent offending people. The public sphere should be free of religious language only so that public sphere isn’t dependent on religion (or one specific religion) to operate. Just as you shouldn’t ask a prospective employee their religious beliefs, when it comes to political candidates, they should be free from having to answer that question, and the voters should be free from having to hear the politician from proselytizing as a part of their campaign. To do otherwise (as the last election has shown) becomes very close to a litmus test. For a candidate to be forced to “verify” their religious convictions to prove their worthiness to hold office almost is almost an infringement on their rights to practice and believe whatever religion they choose.

Regarding morality, Gappa again has an slightly distorted perspective:

Most in today’s culture believe that a person’s religious beliefs do not have a broad impact on their view of life. In reality, a person’s beliefs about right and wrong, justice, and how they live their day-to-day lives are dictated by their religious beliefs. For the Christian, these standards are rooted in a belief in the God of the Bible. For a Muslim, they are rooted in the Koran. And for an atheist, they are rooted in the belief that there is no God.

Most atheists, humanists, et al that I know don’t root their beliefs in the idea that there is no God, but moreso along the lines of rational observation and experience. God is simply not part of the equation. The idea that we derive our morals from a lack of God makes me think people still believe that we have no morals, which is insulting. It’s still difficult for me to understand why people still can’t see that humanists and all freethinkers as moral people. There are so many (perceived or real) differences to overcome before we can find common ground. But I remain hopeful that, over time, it can be found.

Today is the National Day of Silence, which calls to attention the bullying and harassment in schools directed at gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders by encouraging students to remain silent all day (unless called upon to speak in class). The event, with over 6,000 middle and high school students planning to participate, is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and is dedicated to Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot and killed in class last February by a classmate due to his sexual orientation.

On Monday, the Alliance Defense Fund will be holding its opposing Day of Truth to “counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.” Students are encouraged to wear t-shirts or hand out cards with the group’s message.

Both events come at the heels of a recent court ruling that allows an Illinois high school student to wear a t-shirt that reads, “Be Happy, Not Gay.” The Alliance Defense Fund represented the student and stated:

“Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “Public school officials cannot censor a message expressing one viewpoint on homosexual behavior and then at the same time allow messages that express another viewpoint. The court’s ruling is a victory for all students seeking to protect their First Amendment rights on a school campus.”

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case, recognizing the student’s fundamental First Amendment right to free speech, but emphasized that other students have the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

While I staunchly believe that students have every right to express their beliefs, I’m saddened that such negative speech takes place in schools. When will students learn to be tolerant of differences among us?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia adheres to a hardline Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam, and yet he has announced plans to launch a dialogue between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The king states the purpose “to agree on something that would maintain humanity against those who tamper [with] religions, ethics and family systems.” King Abdullah continued, “I want to call for conferences between the religions to protect humanity from folly” and that major faiths shared a desire to combat “the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world.” Now I know an interfaith movement is built on a positive interaction between religions the common ground they share, but “combating” just doesn’t seem like the best anchor for a broad coalition of peace.

Look for instance at Imam Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, NJ. From the americanarabforum:

Before the arrival of the Imam, the Christian-Jewish-Muslim dialogue was virtually nonexistent. Now it is a thriving project which encompasses clergy members across the spectrum. Imam Qatanani has been a leading figure in the “First Annual American Clergy Leadership Conference” in 2004, the Inauguration of the Bishop of the Episcopalian Diocese in Newark, and numerous interfaith Christian-Muslim-Jewish dialogues. He has hosted numerous open-houses at ICPC where prominent Christian and Jewish clergy attended.

The Imam was also involved in inviting leading political and law enforcement authorities such as US Congressmen, US Senators, County Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, FBI Officials, Judges, Prosecutors, etc., to open up communication channels between the Muslim community and law enforcement authorities. In fact, he was the first to open the NJ Senate with a recitation of the Holy Quran. He has received many personal recommendation letters from leading politicians and law enforcement officials including Congressmen Bill Pascrell.

(As a side note the U.S. government may deport Imam Qatanani, not for anything he’s done in the States, but Israel does claim that he has ties to Hamas.)

Iman Qatanani’s work shows that it is possible to have an interfaith outreach that has a positive basis. His outreach may be on a smaller scale but he has done much to open up his community without using a common hatred of atheist, Jews or whoever to bring people together.

I think Humanist can learn from both these lessons. Humanists already reach out to both atheist and liberal religious groups. However, I believe we can do more–and do it louder. We also need to reach out to political and law enforcement authorities and any other groups that we have things in common with. We should reach as Imam Qatanani does, by offering friendship and commonality, and not by offering only a shared dislike of a certain religious or political platform, which at times is where I think we make our bonds. These types of bonds are weak and will fall apart easily. We must make sure we build bridges on a shared, positive vision, or our coalitions will be meaningless and fail us when we need them most.

Hopefully this type of bridge-building will also make others aware of who Humanist, atheists, deists, freethinkers, et al., really are, and what we’re all about. So when any individual or organization wants to cast a slur on any one of us, it won’t just be the outrage of the community of freethinkers, but the outrage of all people who have had the opportunity to work alongside us. At our own peril, we will continue to be the scapegoat of the religious if we don’t let them, and the rest of the world, know who we really are.

Watch out, Floridians.

Local resident Buzz Kelly wrote in yesterday’s Tampa Tribune about an upcoming November ballot proposal by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission that would change the state constitution so your tax dollars can be given to religious-based programs. Coded ‘CP0020,’ it would be the first state that essentially eliminates the wall between religion and government.

Sure, maybe financially supporting Christian organizations is a good thing, especially if they’re doing something helpful, like feeding the poor. But such a broad change would allow money to be used by religious groups—and we do mean any religious group—for whatever they want:

Although sponsored by Christian crazies, the plan would turn our constitution into a church-state shambles the extent of which they certainly haven’t imagined. Maybe the idea of your tax dollars going to support Christian programs or school vouchers is OK with you, but what if they go to an Islamic madrassas? Or a Hindu school? Or a Buddhist ashram? How about a Shinto shrine? And since Satanism is a religion, is it OK if your tax dollars support that?

I doubt many Christians out there would support federal funding for Satanists. It’s the same reason why Humanists don’t support federal funding for any religion. Let’s continue to work toward keeping religion and government separate. It’s worked just fine for us for the past 231 years.

A recent media advisory from Tikkun noted the submission of House Resolution 1078, sponsored by Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) and Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MI). It basically calls for a Global Marshall Plan, which has been outlined by the Network of Spiritual Progressives. This plan offers Americans the opportunity to give 1 to 2 percent of the nation’s GDP and apply it toward poverty, both domestically and globally, for the next twenty years. With participation from other technologically developed countries, as well as a proper use of funds (which is always a challenge in these days) this plan could eliminate–not reduce, eliminate–poverty. As Rabbi Lerner, one of the founders of Tikkun, noted,

“We approach this initiative with a spirit of humility not only because of the legacy of colonialism, but because we can learn much from societies whose economic poverty does not signify a poverty of wisdom. Generosity of spirit as well as financial generosity are an integral part of our Global Marshall Plan, which we affirm not only because it is a central component in any plan to achieve ‘homeland security,’ but also because it reflects our commitment to recognize every human being on this planet as equally valuable and deserving of care. HR 1078 expresses the need for a similar humility in delivering support for the world’s poor.”

It’s an interesting challenge. Can we in today’s political and social climate really effect the kind of change necessary to put the focus of our money on programs that we truly know will do good? The recent success of the PEPFAR program seems to indicate we could, but the Global Marshall Plan is on a much larger scale. I can’t see spending $12 billion on the war in Iraq (which may be the only way we can stabilize the country) and then turning around and denying the chance for what could free so many more people from the tyranny of poverty and hunger.

If we believe we can–and I always will believe–then we must also join with the religious left on this. Humanists need to seize this opportunity to rebuild America’s place in the world, especially when it comes to our status, our friendships and our leadership. And, most importantly, our nation’s moral bearing. This Global Marshal Plan could be the basis of a great Humanist foreign policy, even if credit for it’s inception goes to the religious left.

I had the pleasure of attending a 2008 Perspectives Series at McLean Community Center last night that featured Marjane Satrapi, who is the artist behind the amazing Persepolis comic books. For those of you who aren’t familiar, the books are autobiographical, recounting Satrapi’s struggles growing up in Iran during the revolution. They’re striking for their humor–even in the face of such devastation–and Satrapi’s ability to find the universal in the very extraordinary circumstances of her life.

Satrapi was delightful–very intelligent, funny, and opinionated. One of the most compelling moments of the evening was when she discussed religion, saying she never gave religion much thought at all before the revolution, growing up in a secular household. She said she came to understand that religion at the personal level can be very wonderful and fulfilling, but fundamentalism wreaks horrors. And this is true regardless of whether the religion in question is Islam, Christianity, or even Buddhism. As she said in an interview with Powells:

The real war is not between the West and the East. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people. There is much more in common between George Bush and the fanatics in my country than between me and the fanatics of my country. There is much more common ground between me and normal people here in America who don’t want that. As an Iranian, I feel much closer to an American who thinks like me than to the bearded guy of my country.

In another fantastic moment, she also told us that she was not very concerned that fundamentalists in Iran might wish her harm. In fact she said the most scared she had been since the books gained popularity was during a lecture in Texas. She said one man in particular looked very angry, and she was convinced she was going to be shot by a cowboy and become an inadvertent martyr of Islam. But in the end said cowboy actually had her sign three of her books. Never judge a book by its cover, I suppose.

Stephen Colbert hasn’t called me! Ever since he started his 35,000 part series way back in early 2008, “Better Know a Lobbyist,” he has featured the gay lobby and the marijuana lobby, but there is a deadly silence in terms of the nontheist lobby. What’s up with that?

It’s time for the Secular Coalition Nation to rise up and ask Mr. Colbert why he hasn’t introduced the Colbert Nation to the nontheist lobby. I’ve appeared on Papa Bear’s (Bill O’Reilly’s) show four times now, but have yet to have the pleasure of taking on his better half and mirror image, Stephen Colbert himself.

So, all you friends (and foes) of Colbert, lets start a campaign to get the Colbert Report to cover this important lobby representing humanists, atheists, and other Americans who don’t hold a belief in deities. If we let our voices be heard by Comedy Central, we can convince Colbert to have the Secular Coalition for America on his “Better Know a Lobbyist” segment.

Here’s the place to write: http://www.colbertnation.com/cn/contact.php

I hate starting the week off with a depressing news article, but stories such as these are becoming all too common in a society that should be rooted in reason.

An 11-year-old girl from Weston, Wisconsin, died from diabetes after her parents relied on prayer to save her rather than bringing her to the hospital when her situation worsened.

Turns out the parents don’t actually belong to any organized faith:

“Her mother, Leilani Neumann, told The Associated Press that she never expected her daughter, whom she called Kara, to die. The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God, but they are not crazy, religious people, she said.
…
“We just believe in the Bible, that’s all. …This is our faith.”

Her husband added that, “We believe the word of God and live according to its precepts.”

Leilani Neumann said the family is not worried about a police investigation into her daughter’s death because “our lives are in God’s hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do.”

But the worst news of all? The girl’s diabetes was treatable.

How many more children need to die before we all realize that prayer doesn’t work?

A judge in Scott County, Iowa has come up with a new solution to prison overcrowding–send offenders to church instead. According to a story in the March 20 Quad-city Times, Judge Christine Dalton has sentenced Pachino Hill to a church-run counseling program for charges of eluding and driving while barred stemming from a police chase from Rock Island to Davenport in October. Hill must also attend church for eight consecutive Sundays, pay a fine, and be on probation for one year. In fairness, Hill can choose two years in prison if he prefer. The optional prison sentence aside it’s pretty clear this is a violation of church and state. I mean even the idea of sending Hill to a church-run counseling program is pushing the envelope.

Two things come to mind: What happens if Hill acts out at the church and robs or injures a church member? And what happens next time? Who will receive the next would-be convict—Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Or should we check out some religions that we haven’t thought of.

In all seriousness, in America no one should be forced to attend church even as punishment. That isn’t coming out quite how I mean it but I think you get the idea. You can’t force someone to convert to any religion any more than you can demand that they have no religion. The state shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what citizens’ religion should be. And relating it to crime and punishment is even more incendious as it makes freedom dependent upon one’s beliefs. This absolutely should not be tolerated in a just society.

In Sunday’s New York Times, Paul Berman writes about “Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die” and offers up his theories as to why it is that extremism survives in Iraq, as well as why it flourishes in the West, too. Berman states that,

Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

A dismaying development. One more sign of the power of the extremist ideologies — one more surprising turn of events, on top of all the other dreadful and gut-wrenching surprises.

This critique by Berman can also be extended, to some degree, to the humanist movement. For example, in the January/February 2008 issue of the Humanist, in a piece about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, authors David Schafer and Michelle Koth conclude, in part, by saying,

Her approach is poorly informed about the past and present of Islam, ineffectual at best, mainly counter-productive, and at worst potentially catastrophic in its consequences. It is here, too, that the influences of her principal intellectual environments since 2003—the VVD Party in the Netherlands and the American Enterprise Institute in the United States—taken as a whole, have clearly discouraged her development as a well-balanced defender of human rights and security.

Schafer and Koth are perhaps correct in stating that,

Hirsi Ali’s prior experience of Islam was confined to her youthful and often painful life in Africa: the tribal variety in Somalia, the strict Wahhabi version in Saudi Arabia, and in Kenya the Islamist political formulations of the Muslim Brothers and even more radical Sayyid Qutb—all followed by her intense contact with mainly African (e.g., Somali and Moroccan) immigrant women who had suffered abuse in the Netherlands. She knew little about the complex history of Islam in other times and other places.

While her views on Islam aren’t based on years of study, her intense, personal understanding of the religion also cannot be dismissed. Though what she dealt with is not the form of Islam practiced by every Muslim, it is also difficult to argue that she is taking her stand purely because of the ideology of the VVD Party, and the American Enterprise Institute.

Indeed, as the West continues to encounter Islam, not only on grand geopolitical scales, but everyday at the corner store or in a school hallway, it is imperative to recognize the vast and heterogeneous nature of Islam. What is perhaps forgotten, then, is that this also extends to the varying types of critiques of Islam. For Schafer and Koth to deride Hirsi Ali’s analysis of Islam simply because her view doesn’t conform to their understanding of the religion leads them down the same narrow path that they’re alleging Hirsi Ali has taken. It’s unfortunate that Schafer and Koth have fallen into the trap that so many others on the Left have fallen into.

A shocking article published in The Nation, written by social critic and 1998 Humanist of the Year Barbara Ehrenreich, takes a scathing look at presidential contender Hillary Clinton and her involvement with an ultra-secretive conservative group known as “The Family.”

Also known as “The Fellowship,” members of The Family are Capitol Hill legislators that gather for Bible study and group prayers. Hillary has been an active participant since winning the Senate in 2006, and evidence shows she was involved in The Family’s activities as early as 1993.

Perhaps this is nothing more than a gathering of dedicated religious leaders for private group worship. But Ehrenreich suggests it goes far beyond that, referring to an upcoming book by Jeff Sharlet, who uncovered the following:

The Family’s most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes–knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs.

At the heart of The Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum. They get to use The Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family’s young women’s group. And, at The Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already powerful.

Humanists often say that religion shouldn’t play a role in politics, but that doesn’t mean it does anyway. So when the time comes, how will Hillary explain her relationship with “The Family” to the millions of church-state separation supporters in America?

It’s always troubling for me to see the emptiness of the rhetoric and the lack of coherent arguments that has emerged from our movement regarding the liberation of Iraq. T.F. Kelley’s recent online column for the Humanist is unfortunately no different in this regard (for a more nuanced view of Iraq at this five-year anniversary, check out a Week in Review article from the New York Times). I am continually astounded that when the topic of conversation turns to Iraq, we, who claim the mantle of critical thinking and humane values, suddenly cannot help but point out the conspiratorial hand of Big Oil, and the supposedly secular utopia that was built by Saddam. Only two of Kelley’s points appear to require any serious rebuttal.

Kelley writes, “I don’t believe it’s a ‘tragedy of the Left’ to be unwilling to apply the idea of justice for all by supporting an illegal war, not one declared by Congress and in contradiction to [the] will of the United Nations.” If Kelley wishes to be told by politicians and bureaucrats what is ethical and what is not, he is free to do so. However, considering the social and legal struggles humanists, atheists and all freethinkers have fought for, we know that the institutions that we as a society have created are not always fully just, and that what is right and wrong is not always the same as what is legal and illegal.

The implied claim by Kelley that liberal hawks did not apply any rigorous or critical thought to the question of Iraq in the lead up to March of 2003 is laughably ridiculous, at best. By simply typing “liberal hawks” into Google, readers will find a plethora of articles by liberal hawks discussing amongst themselves the difficulties in rendering a decision on this matter, as well as articles about the choices – and reasoning behind those choices – that were made. Liberal hawks were not drawn into the right-wing culture of fear created by the White House, but they also refused to stand alongside a Left which is becoming increasingly isolationist in it’s outlook. Our first and foremost concern was, and continues to be, the people of Iraq. Kelley may not wish to acknowledge that, but the weight of evidence easily available on the Internet belies his claims.

At the end of his essay, Kelley speaks of the Iraqi boys in the photo that accompanied the print version of my article. It’s encouraging to see him show some concern for their wellbeing. I wonder, though, if Saddam were still in power, would Kelley still have been concerned about their fate? Or would they simply have been someone else’s problem?