One of the issues on my radar here at the Appignani Humanist Legal Center is non-theists being required to participate in a religious drug or alcohol rehabilitation program as a condition of parole.

Thus I guess it should not have been a surprise when I got to work today and opened my email inbox.

I received two emails – one from Barry Hazle, Jr. of California and the other was a press release from his attorneys.  Both emails discuss how Hazle, 40, a computer services specialist residing in Redding, California, was required to attend and complete a 12-step drug rehabilitation program (at Empire Recovery Program) as a condition of parole following release from state prison.  As most know, such programs include references to God, acknowledgment of a higher power and prayer.

Aside from obvious problem of government sponsorship of religion, Hazle specifically requested that he be assigned to a non-religious rehab program. For his complaints, Hazle’s parole was revoked and he was returned to state prison for 125 days.

Yesterday, Hazle’s attorney filed a lawsuit in federal district court claiming that the policy of requiring parolees to participate in religious-based rehabilitation programs is an unlawful use of state funds and asks the court to prohibit such misuse of funds in the future.

My own research on this issue confirms Hazle’s attorney’s opinion that the law at the time Hazle was returned to prison (April 2007) clearly prohibited this type of conduct. This is significant because the offending state officials could lose their qualified immunity and be held personally liable for their wrongs.

I wish Hazle success in his legal effort to correct this violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

For more information on this story, see Sacramento Bee article and Redding.com article.

A fifth grader in Colorado doesn’t support Obama for president. Well, that’s not of any real concern because he’s too young to vote.

But the fact that Daxx Dalton wore a T-shirt saying “OBAMA A TERRORISTS BEST FRIEND” was enough to land him a suspension from Aurora Frontier K-8 School in Aurora, Colo.

Naturally, there were the usual “you violated my free speech” and “I’m going to sue.”

But did the school actually violate Dalton’s free speech rights when it asked him to turn his shirt inside out and suspended him when he refused?

In the past, I would have supported Dalton’s free speech rights just as I supported Joe Frederick’s a couple of years ago when I blogged (elsewhere) against the Supreme Court’s decision in Morse v. Frederick (2007). You may recall that Frederick (and others) held up the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” sign across from Juneau High School to get media attention when the Winter Olympics torch relay ran by in 2002.  Supposedly, Frederick was suspended for 10 days defying his principal’s request to put down the banner, and not for initially displaying it.

But with all the hate and violence going on in the world at this time, I think that the school used the proper judgment in Dalton’s situation and did not violate the basic holding in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) in which Justice Fortas said: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

State Rep. John LaBruzzo, Republican of Louisiana, believes that he has the answer to poverty:

Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

He says that his proposed voluntary program would reduce the number of people “that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare” and could also include tax incentives for people with college degrees to have more children.

The Roman Catholic Church has already condemned the plan, with Archbishop Alfred Hughes calling it a form of eugenics. He goes on to say: “Our lawmakers would do better to focus on policies that promote education and achievement to counteract poverty and the bigotry of low expectations.”

Is it eugenics? Let’s look at the plan: Rep. LaBruzzo has identified a population, people living in poverty, for which he believes reproduction is undesirable. He proposes a solution: offer them sterilization in exchange for $1,000. And given the desperation of poverty and the current hard economic times, I expect that the sum of money would be a powerful incentive for many people to accept sterilization. Thus, Rep. LaBruzzo would meet his goal of reducing the rate of reproduction in the target population that he deems unworthy. So yes, I call that eugenics, for even though sterilization is not forced by the government, the incentive of money in desperate economic circumstances is powerful enough that the sterility of the recipients would essentially be bought. Is that free choice?

I would like to think about this plan for a moment in the context of the following paragraph from Humanist Manifesto III:

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Does this plan treat people as having “inherent worth and dignity”? Absolutely not, not when Rep. LaBruzzo is telling people that the solution for them and for society is that they don’t reproduce. He isn’t talking about reducing population in general; he even mentions that there could be tax incentives for people that he considers to be desirable to reproduce more. He wants to target a particular population that he regards as having less worth and dignity than the rest for sterilization. That strikes me as grotesque.

All people should have access to tubal ligation or vasectomies as part of reproductive choice and comprehensive health care. But no one should be faced with the decision to accept money that may very well be desperately needed in exchange for giving up the ability to reproduce. Perhaps Rep. LeBruzzo could find some money instead to improve health care and education for the residents of Louisiana? I’m not holding my breath.

I was asked this afternoon by Interfaith Alliance to review its new YouTube video Pulpit Politics: The Race for Pastor-In-Chief.

On a few occasions, I’ve felt uncomfortable, as a nontheist, with some positions of the Interfaith Alliance, because I’m a strict advocate of separation of church and state.

But, I am in complete agreement with the organization’s opposition to pulpit politics — including this Sunday’s call by the Alliance Defense Fund for ministers to endorse a candidate in November’s presidential election despite it being a clear violation of the U.S. tax code.

The video shows some clips of extremist pastors endorsing John McCain and Barack Obama — with the implicit message that we should oppose pulpit politics because extremist pastors are the ones who typically endorse candidates.

I guess using fear is the best tactic (though not typically my favorite approach) because asking pastors to comply with the First Amendment’s mandate of separation of church and state based on the U.S. being a religiously diverse nation is a hard sell.

Hope you enjoy the video, and pass the link on to a friend or two.

Guest post by the AHA director of communications, Fred Edwords:

A Public Religion Research poll commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University is most revealing. Released this past Thursday, September 11, and reported today in USA Today, the poll found that 57 percent of white Southern evangelicals regarded torture as often or sometimes justified in efforts to get vital information from suspected terrorists. This is a higher rate of acceptance than the 48 percent of the general public that expressed similar views in an earlier Pew Research Center poll. Only 38 percent of those in the latest poll regarded torture as never or rarely justified. But this figure rose to 52 percent when the Golden Rule was brought into play with the statement: “the U.S. government should not use methods against our enemies that we would not want used on American soldiers.”

Clearly, conservative religious doctrine and certain aspects of Southern culture seem capable of trumping one’s humanity. But it’s encouraging to learn that many of these individuals–when reminded of their humanity through a reference to empathy, fairness, and reciprocity–may be able to set that doctrine or culture aside.

As to how much these opinions are attributable to religion and how much to culture (itself influenced by religion in many ways), the new poll revealed that 28 percent of white Southern evangelicals said they rely on Christian beliefs or teachings to inform their views about torture while 44 percent said they rely on common sense and life experiences. So this study, taken by itself, doesn’t give strong evidence for any claim that Christianity is an inherently heartless belief system or that people are necessarily or largely made heartless by it. (Though Leonard Doyle comes close to this position in his provocative Independent blog post entitled “Who would Jesus torture?”) The study does, however, show that there’s something about membership in this demographic group that coincides with increased heartless attitudes on this subject.

What, then, would an appropriate humanist response be?

Well, first, we need to remind people that some form of the Golden Rule has existed in every culture and religion. It is thus regarded by humanists as a product of our evolved social nature, as further developed by reason and experience.

Second, we need to note that the American Humanist Association, as an organization, has taken official positions against torture in resolutions in 1978 and 1998, has supported basic human rights in numerous other resolutions, and has pointedly challenged the logic of torture in articles and essays published over the years.

And third, we need to be vigorous in our appeal to humane ideals as superior to religious doctrine, political doctrine, and culture. Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein put it most boldly in their closing paragraph to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.” We thus call on white Southern evangelicals, and everyone else, to place their humanity first.

File this one under better late than never:

The Church of England owes Charles Darwin an apology for misunderstanding his theory of evolution and making errors over its reaction to it, a senior clergyman said today…

An essay by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the church’s head of public affairs, called Good Religion Needs Good Science directly addresses Darwin. It concludes: “We try to practise the old virtues of ‘faith seeking understanding’ and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests.

The essay, posted here on the Church of England’s website, states that the Church of England was wrong to lash out at Darwin, but goes on to say that Darwin’s work has been misapplied in the form of “Social Darwinism” and used as a justification for racism. The author writes:

‘Darwinism’ has become something bigger than Darwin’s own theories, and raises many moral questions. This doesn’t make the church of the 1860s right to have attacked Darwin, but it does suggest that the question is deeper than deciding whose side you would have been on in that historic debate between Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and Darwin’s supporter, Thomas Huxley.

Despite all of the attention that this essay has received in the British media, the Church of England is quick to say that this isn’t really an apology. The Guardian notes:

A Church of England spokesman said Brown’s piece was a “personal view” of Darwin’s contribution to science and did not amount to an official apology by the church.

This essay is part of a website launched today by the Church of England about evolution. It comes on the heels of a controversy stoked by comments from the Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, who called for creationism to be taught in science education classes in the UK, calling it a “legitimate worldview.”

What better way to start your day than with Monty Python:

Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king!
Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

We humanists, like Dennis, don’t blindly submit to someone claiming Divine Authority. We’re taking the hard road: deciding for ourselves how to govern a nation.  In America, we settled on a representative democracy in which citizens elect officials to make those decisions.  But there are still details to be worked out.

In comments on an earlier post, Chris V put forth one popular view, that “These representatives are elected to represent us and OUR views, not their own views… This Congressman should do what his constituency wants and nothing else.”  It’s known as the delegate view, in which the representative is there to be a voice for his constituents, speaking for them and not himself.

I prefer the opposing stance, in which representatives are treated as trustees.  I can’t put it any better than Edmund Burke did when elected:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion… Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.

It’s not a long speech; it’s well worth reading the whole thing.  Burke was elected to serve his constituents and the nation, and he could best do so using his own judgment.  There are a number of reasons we elect representatives instead of having a direct democracy.  For example, we don’t all have time to spend discussing political issues.  But just as importantly, citizens don’t have the knowledge, experience, and expertise necessary for successful governance.  On individual issues, we say we’re in favor of lower taxes.  And more government spending.  And a balanced budget. All at the same time.

I disagree with Chris V that “the possibility of ignoring the constituency in favor of opposing them ‘in their best interest’… is plain wrong.”  When an uninformed public asks for something that would have disastrous long-term effects, violate minority rights, or break the budget, I believe a representative has a responsibility to oppose them.  It’s his duty to convince them that his actions are taken for the best, or face losing the next election.

Ultimately, legitimacy comes from the will of the people, and representatives must serve them.  But Plato argued that it is foolish to give weapons to someone who isn’t in his right mind.  How much influence should an uninformed population have over policy specifics?  With a largely uninformed and apathetic citizenry, representatives should be given leeway to use their experienced judgment.  If we as citizens became more informed and involved, we could assume more responsibility in running our country.  That’s my hope, but I’m not holding my breath.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals says that they should not be:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cab drivers’ attempt to block penalties for refusing service.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission adopted an ordinance in March 2007 that suspends a driver’s taxi license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The penalty for a second refusal is a two-year license suspension.

Why would a cabdriver refuse to pick up a passenger? In this case, some Muslim cabdrivers were refusing to pick up passengers from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who were carrying alcohol, citing Islamic prohibitions. As a response, the Airports Commission made these regulations, stating that cabdrivers at the airport cannot refuse passengers. And now it has been playing out in the courts after some drivers challenged the rules on grounds of religious freedom.

While religious freedom should be accommodated whenever possible, in this case the cabdrivers were simply refusing to do their job at great inconvenience to travelers. Allowing the cabdrivers the right to discriminate would be a slippery slope; why couldn’t cabdrivers then refuse to carry gay and lesbian passengers on religious grounds? Consumers depend on cabdrivers to perform their work in a nondiscriminatory manner. Travelers arriving at the airport should be able to get the next available taxi without going through the inconvenience of finding one that does not object to carrying them.

To me, the issue is analogous to pharmacists who refuse to prescribe certain medications, such as the morning after pill or birth control, because they object to those particular medications on religious grounds. Certainly, the refused customer can attempt to find another pharmacy that will fill the prescription, but it is a great inconvenience, and it is conceivably difficult to do in some areas that have very few pharmacies. At this point, the rights of the consumer must be protected.

If you go to a pharmacy, you should be able to expect that the pharmacist will fill your prescription. And if you are seeking a ride at the airport, you should be able to expect that the next taxi in line will not discriminate against you.

In a representative democracy, we elect officials to serve America’s best interest. Politicians must wrestle with difficult questions: Is it best for America to allow abortion? What would the costs and benefits be if we allowed gays and lesbians to marry? Does America want to pledge unconditional support to Israel?

But instead of acting in America’s interests, many politicians – I don’t care which party they belong to – shirk their responsibilities and decide to do what they think God wants. In a 2004 interview with PBS’s Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) said:

The way I would work this through in my mind is, the closer to the clearness of the Bible, the less ability I should have to compromise. So I view, on abortion, there’s really not much room to compromise. On certain very difficult issues, because I have friends who are homosexual — gay — but there just isn’t much room to compromise…

Rep. Souder is perhaps more famous for his statements on separation of church and state, saying:

To ask me to check my Christian beliefs at the public door is to ask me to expel the Holy Spirit from my life when I serve as a congressman, and that I will not do. Either I am a Christian or I am not. Either I reflect His glory or I do not.

This is a common argument against secularism. It is also an unconvincing one.

His wife is part of his life. I have no doubt that he loves her deeply and cares what she thinks. But when he acts as a Congressman in the House of Representatives, we demand that he consider what is best for his constituents and for his nation. If his justification for voting against a law was, “My wife didn’t like it” we would ask for his resignation. Instead, he would have to explain why his action was best for the U.S. – regardless of how it affects his wife.

We are not asking Rep. Souder to check his faith at the door any more than we expect him to check his wedding ring. But if he cannot ignore her wishes – or God’s – when he makes political decisions, he is unable to perform the duties of his office. If anything, he should pay more attention to his wife’s opinion than God’s. She lives in his district.

The Washington Post reports today on an effort by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) to encourage pastors to openly defy IRS regulations and endorse political candidates from the pulpit. The ADF claims to have several dozen pastors ready to make open endorsements on September 28th in a direct challenge to tax regulations that require churches to remain nonpartisan in order to keep their tax-exempt status. The Post quotes ADF attorney Erik Stanley:

“For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church…It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It’s not for the government to mandate the role of church in society.”

The movement hopes that a subsequent IRS investigation could be challenged in court, leading to a Supreme Court ruling that overturns the prohibition on endorsements from tax-exempt political entities as unconstitutional.

To counter this action, a group of clergy, cooperating with several former IRS officials, are pushing back before the ADF protest begins. The group is asking that the IRS investigate whether or not the ADF itself is putting its tax-exempt status at risk and also if the organization is violating ethical rules by having its attorneys advise pastors on how to break the law.

Project Fair Play, a new website sponsored by Americans United For Separation of Church and State, outlines what IRS regulations have to say about politics from the pulpit. Not only do IRS regulations expressly forbid endorsing candidates from the pulpit or in any other way by using official church resources, but in cases where churches violate these regulations, punishments have been handed out, including the revocation of tax-exempt status.

What I find particularly frustrating about this discussion is how the ADF attempts to portray itself as standing up for freedom of speech and religion in the face of supposedly onerous government restrictions on religious speech. But churches simply face the same restrictions that other nonprofit, tax-exempt entities face. Nor are pastors excluded from participating in politics; they may discuss social and policy issues and the importance of voting in general in their official role and endorse candidates or campaign for them as private citizens off-the-clock. What the IRS regulations prevent is churches bringing their tax-exempt resources to bear on behalf of a candidate. This is one small counter to the already enormous influence of organized religion on the political process in the United States.

Violations of tax law by churches in the United States can be reported to Americans United at Project Fair Play.

Many psychological studies have emerged in recent years detailing the decreased risky behavior and low rates of depression amongst church-going adolescents. Religious services create a social community where kids can gain the support of peers and feel like they belong.

As it turns out, however, such studies failed to recognize that these rates can increase among particular minority groups, including females, Latinos, and Asian-Americans. A new study, conducted by Richard Petts, a sociology professor at Bell State University, unveils new information about the relationship between religion and depression:

The study found that white and African-American adolescents generally had fewer symptoms of depressive at high levels of religious participation. But for some Latino and Asian-American adolescents, attending church more often was actually affecting their mood in a negative way.

Asian-American adolescents who reported high levels of participation in their church had the highest number of depressive symptoms among teens of their race.

Likewise, Latino adolescents who were highly active in their church were more depressed than their peers who went to church less often. Females of all races and ethnic groups were also more likely to have symptoms of depression than males overall.

What could explain this?

The results suggest that something unique was affecting adolescents within these two groups when they went to church often. Petts believes that the traditional nature of religion for these two groups may be conflicting with the ideals and customs of mainstream American society. This conflict may be putting additional stress on these youth as they try to balance competing principles and traditions, he said.

“Asian and Latino youth who are highly involved in a culturally distinct church may have a more difficult time balancing the beliefs of their family and their traditional culture with mainstream society. Their religious institution is telling them what should be important in their lives and how to behave, and mainstream society is saying something else,” he said.

It should be noted that the study also discovered that Latinos who never attended church services did have higher depression rates than white and African-American teens, though Asian-Americans who never attended church services had the lowest rates.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has won a victory for the separation of religion and government in a lawsuit they filed in Florida along with a coalition of civil liberties and education groups and which was heard yesterday by the Florida Supreme Court.

At issue yesterday were three ballot amendments, two that directly involved church and state (subject to the AU lawsuit) and another addressing property taxes and public education. As the Miami Herald reports:

Amendment 5 — known as the tax-swap amendment — would have eliminated property taxes that pay for schools, lowering average tax bills by 25 percent and forcing legislators to replace the money with sales and other taxes.

Amendment 7 would have repealed the 100-year-old ban on direct state funding of religious institutions, including religious schools.

And Amendment 9 would have overturned the state Supreme Court decision that invalidated state-paid vouchers for students in failing public schools to attend private schools.

All three amendments were placed on the ballot by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, a panel of citizens that only meets once every twenty years. The court ruled that the commission had exceeded its authority on the voucher-related amendments and that Amendment 5 was worded in a misleading manner and struck all three amendments from the November ballot.

What is really striking about the juxtaposition of the three amendments is that Amendment 5 would have denied the state a primary funding source for public education by cutting property taxes but made no provision for a new revenue stream for public schools (beyond protecting funding for one year after passage), while Amendments 7 and 9 would have stepped up state support for private, religious education, thus delivering a one-two punch to both the public education system and the separation of religion and government. Voucher supporters often point to failings within the public school system as a reason to support paying for students to go to private schools, but they ignore another answer: giving public education the support it needs. In this case, passage of all three amendments would have denied public schools funding while channeling state money to private, religious schools, giving students in Florida more incentive to leave failing public schools and attend private religious ones at taxpayer expense.

Fortunately, these rulings will not allow this scenario to unfold. Congratulations to Americans United and its partners in the lawsuit for this victory in defense of secular public education and the separation of church and state!

After far too much kvelling, I’ve been asked by my colleagues in the Secular Coalition for America office to take a moratorium on mentioning the name Stephen Colbert. But He who shall not be mentioned was so much fun! A few weeks back, I taped a two hour interview for the Colbert Report that was cut to a five minute segment. (We were aware in advance that this is how it is done.) While I am sworn to secrecy on some of the more detailed descriptions of the process, I can generally attest that the Colbert folks, including Stephen himself, were very gracious and put this guest quite at ease.

Many individuals have asked which parts of the long interview I would have liked to have seen in the final cut (as opposed to on the cutting room floor). There was a very funny pledge of allegiance, much information about military proselytizing, and my insistence that Stephen and I don’t have to agree on theology to agree to live in a civil society – not a theocratic one. Of course I covered lots of issue oriented things that didn’t make the final cut, but the goal was to let the Colbert Nation viewers know that the Secular Coalition for America exists and then have them go to our website to get more extensive information. Mission Accomplished.

I received numerous e-mails after the show expressing excitement about the interview and those who “get” Colbert’s format understood how it works. But I also got one very funny e-mail, though the sender didn’t realize it was funny. The gentleman wrote about the issues I should have covered during the five minute interview (I guess he thought it was a live-to-tape five minute stint). He seemed to think it was supposed to be a serious debate with a serious opponent – and missed the satire completely.

After the taping, I asked Stephen to autograph my copy of his book, I Am America and So Can You. For anyone who hasn’t read it, he has a terrific section on the “Big Secularist Agenda” and how the secular “caucus” of Representative Pete Stark (the only out nontheist in Congress) – he, himself and him – is taking over. Mr. Colbert inscribed the following in the front of my book: “Better watch your back. GOD [underlined three times] bless you. Stephen Colbert.” Ya gotta love this guy!