Finally, some positive, uplifting news for once!

This weekend the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason (PhillyCOR), encompassing several atheist and humanist organizations including the AHA-affiliated Humanist Association of Greater Philadelphia (HAGP), are working together with Lighthouses of Oxford Valley, a Christian group affiliated with the Reform Church in America.

Sure, at face value, these groups may not be much in common. But one thing’s for certain: they have a passion for helping others. Together, the groups will be volunteering at Philabundance, the area’s largest food bank and hunger relief organization. PhillyCOR initiated the project with the desire to show that, “despite doctrinal differences, people can still work together to help others.”

The American Humanist Association recently worked with PhillyCOR to launch national billboards on I-95 promoting humanism. The billboards read, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”

A U.S. court of appeals issued a decision earlier this week that held that, under Florida law, the right to excuse a child from recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools lies with parents, and not their children.

So if all you see is a headline like “11th Circuit Holds Parental Rights Can Trump Child’s 1st Amendment Protections,” you would get the impression that the court held that parents’ rights are superior to children’s rights. Don’t be fooled by headlines.

Different issues are involved in Frazier v. Winn (11th Cir., July 23, 2008) than the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), which held that parents have a constitutionally protected interest in guiding the religious future and education of their children. Yoder involved a constitutional right.

The issue on appeal in Frazier, on the other hand, involved a statutory right. The relevant part of the Florida statute reads: “Upon written request by his or her parent, the student must be excused from reciting the pledge.” Clearly, under the statute, children cannot write their own excuse.

The good news is that the court said that it was not deciding the statute’s constitutionality as applied to “a specific student or a specific division of students.” As a result, the case will go back to the trial court for a determination of whether a student has a constitutional right (i.e., independent from the statute) to refrain from reciting the Pledge. I predict that Cameron Frazier, the student, will win the next round.

By the way, each week day I check the 9^th Circuit’s website for a decision in Newdow v. Carey – a case that involves a challenge to the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge. I’ll keep you posted.

What does humanism and the Supreme Court case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal have in common?

Here’s a hint. “The responsibility for our lives . . . is ours and ours alone.”

You’ve got it — personal responsibility.

The actual questions before the Court are how specific Javaid Iqbal’s allegations must be to sustain a suit against high-level government officials and whether the officials can be held personally liable (i.e., accountable) for the unconstitutional acts of subordinates.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller argue that the bar should be high, otherwise the officials will be afraid to give the President advice for fear of being sued. They also argue in a case to be heard this fall that “September 11th” justifies heightened security measures — translate as meaning that Americans need to give up some of their constitutionally protected civil liberties.

As I said on a recent American Dream show, “the Preamble of our Constitution starts with the words “We the People,” not “King George [Bush]. ” The point is quite simple. In a representative form of government, officials necessarily must be accountable to the people or democracy fails.

Generally, government employees – at all levels – are not personally liable for injuries they cause in the ordinary course of their employment. In stead, personally liability only occurs when an official knew or should have know that their actions violated established law and the conduct was egregious. Whether the policies established by policies Ashcroft and Mueller led to the mistreatment of Iqbal is for the courts to decide.

My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that the U.S. Court of Appeals will hold that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by not dismissing the Iqbal’s case so early in the proceedings.

And my hope is that the case will go to trial (or settled) and, if the evidence shows that the actions of high level government officials contributed to Iqbal’s being abused in a federal detention facility, then they will be held personally accountable.

Pop quiz. True or false.

Did Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 “wall of separation” letter tell the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association that there are limits to the free exercise of religion?

I was multitasking at the neighborhood park last night – watching my children while reading Rob Boston’s book Why the Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church and State – when I was blown away by a passage in Jefferson’s Danbury letter.

I have read, perhaps I should say “seen,” Jefferson’s Danbury letter many times. My focus has always been on the part that says:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

What set off bells and whistles last night was what Jefferson said immediately preceding his famous “wall of separation” statement. Read the following quote several times: “the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”.

While eminently intuitive, perhaps too obvious, is an implication that I now draw from the letter — that, in Jefferson’s view, government can regulate (some) religious acts without violating the free exercise clause. I admit that this interpretation of Jefferson’s words is so far reaching as to be astounding.

Or is it? For example, neutral laws of general applicability apply to actions by everyone, including those actions performed in the name of religion. See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990). Stated another way, the free exercise clause is not a free pass to violate federal, state or local laws in the name of religion.

So the answer to the pop quiz is: TRUE.

Oh, I can hardly wait to quote Mr. Jefferson in a future brief to the Supreme Court and drive the Christian Right batty.

This morning, USA Today reported that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in defense of religious freedom, will take on a case representing a group of Amish men in Mayfield, Kentucky, who were charged with not displaying mandatory lights and an orange triangular symbol on their horse-drawn buggies.

On one side, the Amish men contend that putting lights on their buggies constitute accepting “possessions that are too worldly,” a violation of their religious beliefs. On the other side, Kentucky state law requires that slow-moving vehicles have flashing lights for safety reasons.

Where do we draw the line between the best interest of public safety and safeguarding religious freedom? The ACLU would have to prove, in the tradition of other religious freedom cases, that adhering to the law would cause an unnecessary burden on practicing one’s religious rituals.

I’m not a scholar of the Amish religion, but “possessions that are too worldly” sounds pretty vague to me. Perhaps flashing lights and symbols can pass as “worldly,” but not “too worldly.” The point is, such a phrase is open to interpretation, which might make it difficult for the Amish to win their case.

As for me, I might be in the minority among humanists who tend to lead toward religious freedom “no matter what,” but in the interest of safety for both the Amish men driving the buggies and every day drivers of motorized vehicles, I’m in favor of keeping the Kentucky law. The rules of the road protect everyone.

When we hear about biofuels we tend to think of happy, green, renewable and sustainable energy. Bio anything is usually a good thing right? Well a new report called The Gallagher Review indicates that biofuels may not be our salvation but just another step deeper into trouble. Amoung other things the report concludes

“… there is a risk that the uncontrolled expansion and use of biofuels could lead to unsustainable changes in land use such as the destruction of the rain forest to make way for the production of crops,” she said. “This might in turn actually increase greenhouse gas emissions as well as contribute to higher food prices and shortages.”

The problem with biofuels comes, as does our oil dependence, from a supply and demand issue. The European Union is looking to meet 5.75 percent of its transport power by 2010 and 10 percent by 2020 from biofuels. The United States is looking for 35 billion gallons a year. If we could meet our own quotas, there wouldn’t be any problem. But while we create jobs in other countries we are moving into rain forests and reducing the number of plots being used for food production.

In an opinion piece from the International Herald Tribune Eric Holt-Giménez, the executive director of the Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy says this:

Hunger results not from scarcity, but poverty. The world’s poorest already spend 50 to 80 percent of household income on food. They suffer when high fuel prices push up food prices. Now, because food and fuel crops compete for land and resources, both increase the price of land and water.

The International Food Policy Research Institute has estimated that the price of basic staples will increase 20 to 33 percent by 2010 and 26 to 135 percent by 2020. Caloric consumption declines as price rises by a ratio of 1:2.

This again raises the issue of how interconnectedness of humanity and nature. Normally our actions impact animals and plants, but this time we’re directly having an impact on human welfare. Jobs may help people have income to spend, but if those jobs force the price of food up we’re faced with an unending cycle. I know we need alternate fuels and we need them now, but we also need to keep our heads on straight when thinking about these issues. We have the ability to implement the use of biofuels in a way that limits the impact, while decreasing our dependance on oil, and hopefully doing something to clean up the environment.

Army Spc. Jeremy Hall defies the old phrase, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” He’s an atheist in the United States military who even served time in Iraq. But after he was pressured to pray at meals, denied a promotion due to his lack of belief, and even had his life threatened by fellow troops, enough was enough.

In March, Hall sued the U.S. Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated, as several activities occurring in the U.S. military suggest an endorsement of religion.

Hall said there is a pattern of discrimination against non-Christians in the military.

Two years ago on Thanksgiving Day, after refusing to pray at his table, Hall said he was told to go sit somewhere else. In another incident, when he was nearly killed during an attack on his Humvee, he said another soldier asked him, “Do you believe in Jesus now?”

Hall isn’t seeking compensation in his lawsuit — just the guarantee of religious freedom in the military. Eventually, Hall was sent home early from Iraq and later returned to Fort Riley in Junction City, Kansas, to complete his tour of duty.

He also said he missed out on promotions because he is an atheist.

“I was told because I can’t put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn’t make a good leader,” Hall said.

Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is also participating in the lawsuit and claims over 8,000 military members who have complained of “pressure to embrace evangelical Christianity.” He cites groups like Christian Embassy, where seven top military leaders participated in the group’s promotional video endorsing Christian evangelism, and the Officers’ Christian Fellowship, whose vision is to create “a spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform empowered by the Holy Spirit.”

Gates can’t comment on pending litigation, but does tell CNN that, “Proselytizing or advancing a religious conviction is not what the nation would have us do and it’s not what the military does.”

On a similar note, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent a formal letter to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, on behalf of nine students who experience discomfort at having to stand during prayer at noon meals.

The Department of Defense has until midnight tonight to respond to Hall’s lawsuit. It is my hope that Hall seeks justice for his proud work defending our civil liberties. True patriots not only defend our country from terrorist attacks abroad, but defend our constitutional freedoms at home.

“Two wrongs make a right.” That is my lead in a friend of the court brief I filed in the Supreme Court on June 23rd.

Can you believe that I dare inform the High Court that that would be the principle if it affirmed the appellate court decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum? The fact of the matter is that sometimes cases are very simple.

In the Pleasant Grove case, Summum – a small religious group in Utah — asked the city if it could put a monument of its Seven Aphorisms in the same park where the city had allowed the Fraternal Order of Eagles to put a Decalogue in 1971. Certainly what is fair for one religion, is fair for another. Let’s call that either free speech or government neutrality.

In deed, that is precisely what Summum is arguing in a case to be heard by the Supreme Court this fall.

But not so fast. In a brief written by my legal intern, George Younger, and myself, we argue — on behalf of the American Humanist Association, The American Ethical Union, Atheist Alliance International, the Institute for Humanist Studies, the Secular Student Alliance, the Society for Humanistic Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association — that just because the city was wrong in permitting one religious monument to be put in its park doesn’t mean that it can fix that wrong by allowing a second religious monument to be put in its park. And then a third, fourth and so on.

As persons of reason, we tell the Supreme Court that the way to fix the problem is to dismiss Summum’s free speech claim and have Pleasant Grove remove the Decalogue. Well, its a little more complicated than that because the Decalogue and Establishment Clause claim that it raises are not officially part of the upcoming oral argument. No problem, AHA tells the Court. Send the case back for briefing and oral argument on the real problem, namely, inherently religious monuments that are owned, controlled and maintained by the city send the message that nontheists and persons of differing religions are unwelcome and, therefore, violate the First Amendment prohibition respecting an establishment of religion.

Click here to read AHA’s brief in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. I highly recommend section IV for a discussion on the Establishment Clause problem.

Last month I found myself on a plane seated next to the reportedly recently deceased Congressman Jeff Flake.

On my visit to speak to the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix (a wonderful visit to a terrific group), one of the audience members informed me that their House member, Representative Jeff Flake, had died two days before. I was quite surprised, especially since I generally receive real-time updates on such matters from Roll Call and hadn’t heard of this.The local humanist assured me he was certain that the untimely death of this 45-year-old member had occurred only days earlier.

Needless to say, I was quite surprised when Representative Flake took his assigned seat (next to me) on his flight from Phoenix to D.C. I turned to Mr. Flake, introduced myself and the Secular Coalition for America, and said, “This will certainly sound strange, but I just spoke to a local humanist group, and one of the members told me that you had died a couple of days ago.”

“Oh yes,” he responded, “My uncle, Jake Flake died a few days ago, and everyone is getting us confused. The rumors of my death…”We both said the rest of the famous Mark Twain quote in unison, “…are greatly exaggerated.”

The rest of the trip was uneventful, but our conversation about the Secular Coalition for America’s constituency, nontheistic Americans, and the issues that the Secular Coalition works on was fun. Mr. Flake is definitely not known for supporting any of our positions, but by the end of our conversation, I think he had a much better appreciation for our values and who we are.

In a June 25th article from the Science section of the New York Times we discover that the latest link between fish and tetrapods has been discovered.  The 365 million year old skull and sundry body parts discovered in Latvia is thought to be the oldest tetrapod, or four-legged creature in the Earth’s history.  The discovery continues to close in on the transition between fish to four-legged animals “by presenting the skull, exceptionally preserved braincase, shoulder girdle and partial pelvis of Ventastega curonica from the Late Devonian of Latvia, a transitional intermediate form between the ‘elpistostegids’ Panderichthys and Tiktaalik and the Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates) Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.”

Now the sixty-four million dollar question; So how does this knowledge benefit us today?  Well as biologist Neil Shubin explains:

“When you know how to look, fish are just one way station in our historical path. In fact, we share deep similarities with all living creatures on our planet. Seeing the history inside our bodies is like peeling an onion: The first layers we see reveal the history we share with primates (large brains and opposable thumbs). Peel deeper and we find the layers of history shared with other mammals (hair and breasts), reptiles (our distinctive way of chewing food), fish (arms, legs, backbones and heads), worms (an anus on one side of the body and a mouth on the other), jellyfish (the DNA recipe that builds our bodies), sponges (our many celled bodies) and so on.

Even as we are discovering more about the DNA that builds animal bodies (including our own), new fossils from around the world are continuing to crop up that help explain our anatomical history. Just as we have a family tree that extends to our parents, grandparents and so on, our human family tree extends to other living beings. The same DNA technology that allows courts and forensics experts to identify perpetrators and fathers allows us to categorize the relationships between our species and others. Do this and we see that inside every organ, cell and gene of our bodies lies more than 3.5 billion years of the history of life.”

If we didn’t share a history with the everything from bacteria to apes, we might not have the physical ails that afflict us.  The evolutionary path that winds through the many twists and turns that have created our less than perfect and at times fragile physiques.  Still, the problems we share through are evolutionary history also mean we can study other species mean that work with flies and bacteria may be the source of great medical advances for humans. Work on a worm that is no bigger than a comma is helping us understand how our genetic material functions in both health and disease. 

Our shared history makes it possible for work done on flies and even worms to lead to health advances for our own species.  I think we ignore these possibilities at our own peril.  Again as Neil Shubin says,  Is there any more powerful statement about the importance of our deep evolutionary connection to the rest of life than that?”

While this may be more of the same old same old, Anglican conservatives declared on Sunday that they would defy the church’s historic lines of authority and create a new power bloc within the church led by a council of predominantly African archbishops. The decision was announced at the end of a week long meeting of Anglican conservatives in Jerusalem. The conservatives are upset over what they consider to be a “false gospel” that allows a malleable, liberal interpretation of Scripture. More specifically, a gay bishop and acceptance of homosexuality in general.

This group called The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FOCA) held a conference in Jerusalem called the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). A statement was issued that,while not officially creating a schism, is none the less calling for big changes. They have announced that Anglicanism was not “determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury”, Rowan Williams. They also revealed plans for a new “primates council” comprising senior bishops and archbishops who had attended the Jerusalem summit.The council will serve to to “regulate the “chaos” within the Communion and at the same time “defend the Gospel … from revisionist or liberal theologies’.”

The statement also calls for the creation of a new province, in the United States and Canada that would absorb the churches that have been outraged by the American church’s consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003 and the Canadian church’s blessing of same-sex unions. The new province is hoped to unite believers who left the church over the last few decades over the ordination of women priests and bishops as well as the acceptance of homosexuality.

Schism is obviously a dirty word here, because this sounds like a schism even if they aren’t officially breaking away.  Given the situation around GLBT rights in America, Gay Marriage in California and ultimately the entire country and the general battle over including GLBT in hate crimes legislation versus the churches right to proclaim it’s message which may include negative messages about GLBT people, I think it’s worth taking the time to follow this story.  How this all plays out may impact the election as well as this very large church.