Minutes ago, I read a religious legal news story that read: “23-year old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was executed by stoning after being convicted of committing adultery — an offense to which she had confessed.”

Duhulow was burred in the ground up to her neck and her head covered with a black sack before . . . (it’s too horrible to write). This occurred yesterday, on the 27th of October, in the Somalian port city of Kismayo.

I don’t claim to know or understand Shariah law. I guess I only hear about the bad side because that’s what typically makes the news.

But I have no hesitation in saying that the above punishment is way out of line with the offense — indeed, it was barbaric — and the judge who imposed the sentence and the stoners are guilty of murder, in my book.

I’ve read some articles recently that in some non-Islamic countries Shariah law is cropping into judicial decisions involving Muslims. This, I must caution against, because Shariah law appears to lack fundamental notions of justice like equal justice under law (what happened to the man who participated in the offense) and that the punishment is commensurate with the crime (capitol punishment for sex?).

Six in ten Americans believe that God has uniquely blessed America and that the United States should set the example as a Christian nation to the rest of the world, according to a new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., for the PBS news program Religion & Ethics Newsweekly and the United Nations Foundation. (Interestingly enough, the poll found that a third of non-religious Americans agree that America should set the example as a Christian nation and slightly fewer believe that America is uniquely blessed by God. Go figure.)

Is this kind of thinking positive or problematic? On the one hand, it does appear that because Americans believe in their own exceptionalism they are more likely to support an interventionist role on the global stage. And encouragingly that belief doesn’t just extend to an imperative to protect our national security interests: Most Americans believe that preventing global disease, stopping genocide, and international relief for humanitarian disasters should be some of our top priorities–and there’s little difference there between the religious and non-religious. In addition, the belief in our status as a shining city upon a hill thankfully does not make the United States infallible or undeserving of criticism in Americans’ eyes–the poll revealed an ambivalence about whether or not we have a positive influence around the world and most agreed that sometimes our involvement does more harm than good.

On the other hand, there’s evidence that Muslim countries view our military with suspicion because they see it as a distinctly Christian entity. And it certainly doesn’t help that many within our military also see it that way, nor that President Bush has framed our military involvement in the Middle East as a crusade. It can’t bode well for our global endeavors and our nation-building inclinations to be seen as a force for Christian proselytizing and conversion.

So, then, we’re caught in a global catch-22: we think we’re exceptional and are thus motivated to do good in the world, but those we want to help don’t trust us because we’re motivated by our belief that we’re exceptional. How do we extract ourselves from this tangled web? First off, we must keep our institutions strictly secular–especially the military. No more special privileges for Christian soldiers. And lets start investigating claims that military commanding officers have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Also, we must be more sensitive to other cultures when we’re engaged abroad–particularly Muslim cultures. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Center for American Progress’s William Schulz argues that we need to be more flexible in promoting the separation of church and state if we want to stay on good terms with Muslim moderates.

In and of itself, the belief in God-bestowed American exceptionalism isn’t a bad thing if it motivates us to do a lot of good in the world. But we must be wary of letting that belief get in the way of implementing sound, executable, and ultimately secular military policies. No matter how well-intentioned or exceptional, we’re not immune from mucking things up–a fact that’s painfully exemplified by our disastrous endeavors in Iraq.

There’s a new ad purchased by the Judicial Confirmation Network. It starts out just fine: “America: land of opportunity and prosperity.  But what made America great is what we stand for.  Liberty, equality, inalienable rights.”  I’m with them so far.  Actually, they don’t lose me for another 12 words or so.  Here’s the full ad:

America: land of opportunity and prosperity.  But what made America great is what we stand for.  Liberty, equality, inalienable rights.  Fixing the economy is crucial but America’s principles and Constitution are threatened by one more liberal activist vote on the Supreme Court.  Please join Judicial Confirmation Network.  Help spread the word. It takes just one vote.  Judicial Confirmation Network paid for this message and is responsible for it.

While the voice-over is talking about “America’s principles and Constitution” a list of issues appear on screen:

“Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance
Same-Sex Marriage
Partial Birth Abortion
Taxpayer-Funded Abortion
Protecting our Homes
Human Cloning
The 10 Commandments
Expanding Right [sic] for Terrorists

Now, the ad doesn’t specify where they stand on each of the issues (do they support ‘protecting our homes’?) but we can make a few guesses from context.  Am I the only one who finds it ironic for them to tout America’s commitment to equality ten seconds before criticizing the right of gays to marry?  Or to praise America’s long tradition of liberty before trashing the separation of church and state that was so important to the Framers?  Or to speak of inalienable rights before implying that suspected terrorists (remember, they haven’t been tried) shouldn’t have those rights?

The Constitution grants everyone the liberty to be a full citizen no matter what their religious views – nobody should have to affirm a belief in God to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Treating everyone equally means granting all adults the right to enter a legal marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Some rights – such as habeas corpus – are absolutely fundamental to rule of law.  Giving the president unconditional power to imprison citizens without trial is directly contrary to the inalienable rights the Framers envisioned.

If they like, the Judicial Confirmation Network can openly state that they’re against civil liberties, against equality, and against due process of law.  But they have no business invoking our “Principles and Constitution.”

On the 10th of October I attended Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs symposium titled “The Future of U.S. International Religious Freedom Policy: Recommendations for the Next Administration.” The morning’s session on religious extremism contained some interesting advice for fighting Islamist terrorism from the Center for American Progress’s William Schulz.

Schulz argued that though there is an undeniable religious element to the Islamist movement, to say that Islam is somehow uniquely conductive to terrorism is misguided. In fact, out of the estimated 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, the five countries with the largest Muslim populations are Indonesia (170.3 billion), Pakistan (136 million), Bangladesh (106 million), India (103 million), Turkey (62.4 million); all democracies. In addition, even in Saudi Arabia, with its authoritarian Sharia regime, less than 10 percent of the population had a favorable view of Al-Qaeda and 15 percent had a favorable view of Osama bin Laden.

So, then, how do we fight terrorism within this context? Says Schultz, it’s ineffective to try to coax Islamists to a more moderate religious stance. Rather, we must convince the sympathizers of terrorism–those aforementioned 10 and 15 percent–of the ineffectiveness of terrorism and persuade them to ultimately abandon support (mostly monetary) of terrorists. He enumerated a few DO’s and DON’Ts of this strategy:

DON’T: Conflate uses of terror by some Muslims as terror by all Muslims. Recognize that most Muslims are moderate, peaceful people.

DON’T: Use inflammatory language and tactics against Islam.

DON’T: Play into the terrorists’ hands by spreading democracy at the point of a gun, allying with authoritarian regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and using torture.

DO: Show terrorism as a dead end.

DO: Embrace moderate Muslims.

DO: Denounce corruption in government.

DO: Renew access to Muslim students who want to study in the United States.

DO: Be flexible on separation of church and state in the Middle East.

DO: Honor results of free elections even when we don’t like them.

Though I do think these are good, practical suggestions and comprehensively constitute a constructive plan for combating terrorism, I’m less convinced that terrorist tactics can be so easily separated from a radical interpretation of Islam that, I’m assuming, supporters of terrorists espouse. For example, if the U.S. were to denounce the Saudi regime, we may convince Islamist terrorists and their supporters that jihad is no longer necessary, but I’m doubtful that we’ll convince them of the illegitimacy of employing terrorism in the first place.

If Islamists and their supporters believe and act upon the notion that suicide bombers are entitled to 70 virgins in the afterlife, I’m not sure that rationalizing terrorism as an ineffective means to an end is possible.

The latest drug store to stop selling contraceptives and filling birth control prescriptions–appropriately named Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy–has set up shop in Chantilly, Virginia, according to today’s Washington Post.

Apparently, this pharmacy is also not selling candy or soda. And don’t forget about the bishop who came in to sprinkle holy water on the store’s shelves. What is this, the 19th century?

Virginia already has the unfortunate law that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription without any justification whatsoever. It’s a classic case of an individual’s faith trumping safe, medical access for all, and a spokesperson from NARAL Pro-Choice America sums this up nicely:

“If this emboldens other pharmacies in other parts of the state, it could really affect low-income and rural women in terms of access,” said Tarina Keene, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League.

If pharmacists are allowed to refuse service to “sinful” men or women having–God forbid–sex, what could stop other pharmacists from filling prescriptions for lung cancer patients because they object to the individual’s history of smoking? Or worse–pharmacists who will eventually be allowed to discriminate based on race?

One surprising statistic: a Gallop poll reveals that 75 percent of U.S. Catholics believe you can be a “good Catholic” even if you use birth control. The culture is already changing, and pharmacists need to be available to provide safe contraceptives for people who need it.

One reason people believe what they do is that evidence and observation suggest that the belief is true.  But people also hold beliefs because they’re emotionally invested –- they’ll feel better believing something is true.  It’s generally called self-deception, as people try to subconsciously deny or rationalize opposing evidence in an attempt to hold on to their cherished viewpoint.  But when the facts are overwhelmingly against previously held beliefs, most self-deception gives way to resigned acceptance of reality.

And yet faith doesn’t work that way.  Even if their beliefs are contradicted by observation, people are encouraged to believe anyway.  There’s no deception going on –- religion is quite open about its distaste for evidence.  It’s a fascinating defense mechanism -– our tenets might not make sense, but you should believe anyway! Many of my religious friends have expressed this idea to me in one form or another.  For example, one friend told me that faith is so simple a child can understand it, but so complex the smartest scholar will not.  She was not amused by my earnest follow-up question on why faith only makes sense to those without critical thinking skills.

I dislike this kind of nonsense even when it’s not religious.  The always-misused expression “The exception that proves the rule” is just as bad.  Normally, when a theory makes no sense or is contradicted by evidence, we discard it.  With faith, that’s when you’re considered even more virtuous for believing!  The human eye is a complex organ that works well?  It’s evidence of an intelligent designer!  There’s an inconvenient blind spot right in the middle of the retina?  Well… we don’t know why God would put that there, but we don’t expect to understand his higher reasoning.

I’m trying to make a list, and was hoping you could help me out with more examples.  We’re looking for religious excuses for why people should believe without evidence supporting that belief.  Here’s a start:

• “’Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’” John 20:29
• “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”  Isaiah 55:8-9
• “God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform.” Light Shining out of Darkness, a hymn by William Cowper
• “In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.”  Luke 10:21

I know there are more, and I’d love to hear them.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) gathered 33 ministers together and on September 18th, they spoke to their congregations about the Bible and the upcoming elections, and at the very least, suggested who they should vote for.  After delivering the sermon, they are expected to send copies of their sermons to the IRS, to protest the current restrictions placed on churches as tax free entities. They called the event Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

The protest is testing their ability to, get a court of law to repeal a 1954 amendment to the tax code that restricts charitable organizations known as 501(c)(3)s, which accept tax-deductible contributions, from intervening in political campaigns. The legislation was intended to prevent nonprofit organizations from funneling money and resources to political candidates.

The arguments in favor of removing this restraint revolve around freedom of speech and religion and the notion that this law gives the IRS the right to decide what can and can not be preached.  This, opponents of the law contend violates the spirit of separation of church and state.

The argument while sounding valid is a bit spurious to my reasoning because churches agreed to state involvement when they took the tax exemption.  They can renounce it just as easily.  Churches, like non-profits do benefit greatly from the ability to accept tax free donations, but I wonder who would stop giving money to their church, even if it wasn’t tax deductible?  Do they not love God enough to give money without a tax credit?  And can’t churches create 501c(3)s to do there charity outreach and simply allow their ministers to say what they want?  Why is there this need to have it both ways?

All freedoms in America have a limit.  I had a teacher who used to say something like “My personal freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.”  Well, religious freedom and freedom of speech end for all tax exempt entities at the point of intervening in political campaigns.  No one is complaining that the heads of non-profits and charities can’t tell their constituents who to vote for so the freedom of speech complaint doesn’t seem valid to me.  It all comes down to the misguided notion that religious freedom has no limits.  Yet it must, or child abuse, honor killings and other crimes could be hidden or excused as religious acts.

Separation of religion and government would include the state neither helping nor hindering any church.  The state helps churches by allowing them tax exempt status, but then hinders them with the restriction on political speech that tax exemption entails.  We haven’t true separation of church and state in this country, but that doesn’t mean we need less separation and not more.  We have achieved a balance where the church is helped to do good works, but restricted from becoming a political force, to undo this balance could undo the religious freedom and diversity this country now enjoys and would hurt more churches than it would help.

Mark your calendars: Darwin Day is just around the corner!

Darwin Day, a project of the Institute for Humanist Studies, celebrates the birthday of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin with events all around the world on or around February 12. The year 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of his birth, so many organizations will be going the extra mile. Science organizations that are part of the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) have already declared 2009 “The Year of Science.”

The Institute for Humanist Studies recently launched a newly designed Darwin Day website at www.darwinday.org. Groups and individuals can post their Darwin Day events, submit photographs and artwork, or learn more about Darwin’s significance in the scientific community.

The website’s launch couldn’t come at a better time in light of an article in today’s Dallas News: In Texas, three critics of evolution were appointed to a six-member State Board of Education committee that reviews curriculum standards for public school science classes.

It probably comes as no surprise that one of the appointees is the vice president of the anti-evolution think tank Discovery Institute, while another is a signer of the Institute’s “Dissent from Darwinism” document which states, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

But progressive groups are speaking out:

Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller, who frequently spars with social conservative groups, called it “simply stunning that any state board members would even consider appointing authors of an anti-evolution textbook to a panel of scientists.” The textbook is titled Explore Evolution.

“Texas universities boast some of the leading scientists in the world,” said Ms. Miller, of the progressive, nonprofit group. “It’s appalling that some state board members turned to out-of-state ideologues to decide whether Texas kids get a 21st century science education.”

Miller hits it right on the nose. I hope that the Texas Freedom Network and other grassroots efforts to counter the so-called ‘intelligent design’ movement find success and keep all forms of education masking as creationism out of our public schools.

Suddenly, Darwin Day seems more than just a party with a birthday cake–it’s a battle for the future of science education. What will you be doing?

In one of his acts, comedian Lewis Black describes a conversation he had with presidential aides prior to his appearance at the Congressional Correspondents’ Dinner: “[The aide] said the President’s handlers wanted to know what I was going to say in order to be sure that the President could handle it.”  After 10 seconds of silence Black says, “That’s the joke. It’s the punchline, really, but I’ve not been able to think of a set up. It’s one of the greatest punchlines I’ve ever said and nobody ever laughs, they just stare into space.”  There’s no better way to describe Oliver Stone’s new film W.

Although the presidency of George W. Bush should be a punchline in both Black’s routine and the film, I couldn’t bring myself to laugh with the rest of the audience as Bush (Josh Brolin) said or did foolish things.  Stone paints the picture of a man clearly out of his depth: uncurious, immature, and yet somehow overconfident in his own abilities.  It’s funny when Ricky Gervais makes a sitcom out of the scenario, but it’s not funny when the events are real and the main character is President of the United States.

Of course, Stone’s job was practically done for him.  Reality provided him with a compelling cast of characters and an unbelievable series of events.  The Downing Street Memos wrote the scene in which President Bush tells British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he’s considering painting a plane in fake UN colors and baiting Saddam to shoot it down.  Journalists and whistleblowers wrote the scenes in which Cheney twists evidence to suggest Iraq has WMDs.  Exposés from former White House officials wrote the scenes of bitter in-fighting, idiotic gut-calls, and finger-pointing.  With such a story based on true events, it’s a wonder that Stone felt the need to include a pointless dream sequence.

I found it particularly powerful that there are no heroes or villains – just men and women with their own ambitions, flaws, and virtues.  George H.W. Bush, Colin Powell, and Laura Bush are all painted in favorable light, but don’t qualify as heroes.  Vice President Dick Cheney is cynical and ambitious, Donald Rumsfeld is uninterested in small details, and Karl Rove focuses only on winning elections.  But they’re not evil men.  Similarly, Bush is not portrayed as a bad person.  He’s just not suited for the presidency.  You watch as he fumbles for words, struggles to understand complex issues, or fails to grasp the magnitude of his own mistakes, and you feel a sense of pity rather than anger.

I was left thinking… how did we let this happen?  I have difficulty blaming Bush for what happened any more than I could blame a 5-year-old for breaking a lamp.  It’s easy to blame Rove for helping an unqualified man become president, or Cheney for abusing his power, or Rumsfeld for not planning well enough for what happens after the initial Iraq military operation.  And they certainly deserve some blame, along with Bush for being unable to recognize his own flaws.  But what can we do in the future?

Simply put, our institutions need to function again.  We know that humans are flawed.  Our founding fathers established a system of checks and balances to minimize the risk to society from individual flaws.  My wishlist for the future includes:  A Congress willing to use its oversight power, a media that helps educate the public instead of simply repeating anything they’re told, a Department of Justice that doesn’t try to twist the law, and an executive that recognizes the legitimacy of the other branches of power.  Our Constitution lays the framework for success.  We Americans need to tell our leaders to follow it again.

Last week, I found a phone on the metro.  I spent some time tracking down its owner, but managed to return it.  (The next day I got into a car crash, which raises serious questions about the theory of karma…)  What struck me – besides the white Camry – was that the phone’s owner thanked me by calling me “a good Samaritan.”

I was inspired to reread the parable.  A man is set upon by thieves and left half-dead along the side of the road.  A priest and Levite pass by him without helping.  It is a Samaritan, a despised group of people with different religious views, who has compassion and helps the man.  Jesus tells the audience that it is the Samaritan they should love as their neighbor.

On its face, the story is quite apt.  A person from a distrusted and disliked group (Samaritan/atheist) doing “the right thing” to help another.  But I had forgotten how humanist the story is.  In my reading, Jesus makes it seem as though there is a code of morality that exists independent of our perceived responsibilities to God.  The priest and Levite represent two “holy” classes while the Samaritan is reviled and seen as an outcast.  And yet it is the Samaritan who does the right thing and should be loved as a neighbor.

What a novel idea.  It doesn’t matter whether you have the ‘right’ views of God; it matters whether you do good deeds and treat your fellow men with respect and compassion.  Of course, to Jesus, that’s only half of the equation.  He says that we should love God with all our hearts, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.  But hey, everyone makes mistakes.

Scientists in Virginia are reporting the second known case of a shark pup being conceived without any shark sex involved.

Scientists have confirmed the second case of a “virgin birth” in a shark. In a study reported Friday in the Journal of Fish Biology, scientists said DNA testing proved that a pup carried by a female Atlantic blacktip shark in the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center contained no genetic material from a male.

Many around the Internet are hailing the new Shark Messiah, but as a skeptic I would have to personally witness the shark pup perform some miracles first.

But in all seriousness, this is a rather remarkable finding, and it raises so many questions, such as, is this a frequent occurrence in nature? What impact could this have on shark genetic health? Are there other animals as large as sharks that can reproduce asexually? Is there anything in particular that triggers this kind of reproduction in sharks?

I write this not to weigh in on a topic in science on which I am no expert, but rather to point out that those of us who do not believe in a creator of the universe or an all-powerful god or the supernatural still live in a world of mystery and wonder. No matter how much we learn about the world through science, there will always be more questions, more unexplored territory, more new ideas. The pursuit of knowledge is never ending, and I, for one, love the journey, even if there is no definitive destination, no end point where we can see that we know all that there is to know. I shudder to think of the complacency and stagnation that would come with such a time, when we lost the will to explore, whether it be the planet, the universe, or the DNA of a shark.

As a member of the Supreme Court bar, I know that the Court accepts only a fraction of all cases appealed to it. I also have seen the courts super accommodative of religion lately.

So even while it was no surprise that the Court declined on Monday to hear Lucero v. Texas (No. 07-1492)  — the bid of a death-row inmate to set aside a jury’s death sentence — the circumstances of the jury’s deliberation churn my stomach.

Jimmie Urbano Lurcero was convicted by a jury, who heard the jury foreman read a Bible passage aloud to the entire jury, before the panel returned the death sentence. What was the passage?

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. … For he is God’s servant to do the good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

According to a Christian Science Monitor story, a straw poll taken before the Bible reading was 10 to 2 in favor of conviction. And at the conclusion of deliberations, the jury vote 12 to 0 in favor of death. (A unanimous verdict is necessary to impose a death sentence.)

Were the two jurors who changed their votes persuaded by the biblical passage? I don’t pretend to have a crystal ball to say absolutely that the Bible reading did Lurcero in. But as a civil liberties attorney, the decisions by the Texas trial court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and now the U.S. Supreme Court seem so out of touch with constitutional due process requirements — that is, the defendant’s right to a fair trial. (It also seems to me that there is an Establishment Clause problem of government endorsement of religion, but I am not aware that this issue was raised on appeal.)

In my view, and that of the 1st (Boston), 5th (New Orleans) and 11th (Atlanta) Circuits, the introduction of a Bible into jury deliberations violates the right to an impartial jury. However, the 4th (Richmond) and 9th (San Francisco) Circuits have ruled the presentation of specific Bible versus during jury deliberation does not violate the Sixth Amendment because the Bible’s teachings are a matter of common knowledge in American culture. (That’s BS.)

Why didn’t at least four Supreme Court justices vote in favor of taking this opportunity to resolve a split among the federal circuits?

My crystal ball is still cloudy (that is, I don’t know), but let me take a wild guess. Two cases involving religion in the same term is too much to handle. The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum on November 12th. (NOTE: Yours truly submitted a friend of court brief in Summum on behalf of the AHA.)

Check out this new site, brought to you by the Secular Coalition for America: http://election08.secular.org/. Make sure to read up on the issues that are important to you as we near Election Day, November 4, 2008. For those of us concerned about the erosion of the Jeffersonian Wall this is an indispensable resource.

Last week the American Humanist Association invited local members and allies to an advance screening of Bill Maher’s new film Religulous in downtown Washington, D.C. If you haven’t heard of the film by now, I’ll still spare you a detailed summary; in short, Bill Maher does religion as only Bill Maher can.

The showing was preceded by an introduction from Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA, and Jenny Kalmanson of the Washington Area Secular Humanists (WASH). They introduced the AHA and WASH to the audience and invited everyone to stay after the film for a discussion.

As for the film itself: well, we laughed, we cried, we howled, we bawled (that may be just a slight exaggeration). The audience was probably predisposed to be friendly towards the content, but, given the controversial nature of the film, I was nevertheless surprised that I did not see a single person walk out while it was in progress. Not that I get invited to a whole lot of advance screenings, but nevertheless I was under the impression that audience members, having not paid anything for their tickets, would feel free to express any displeasure with their feet. But I did not see this happen. And while I was watching it, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I had stepped into some sort of alternate universe, where a person could go to a mainstream movie theater and watch a mainstream documentary released by a mainstream major movie studio and hear a full theater guffaw at send-ups of religion and theology. We’ve certainly made progress, at least toward creating a nation more tolerant of different views. Feel free to argue with me on that one, though.

After the film the AHA had a discussion moderated by Fred Edwords, director of communications. It started off with comments from Ambassador Carl Coon, vice president of the AHA, who characterized the film as containing a lot of “vinegar” and being rather undiplomatic in its delivery. Following him came AHA program manager Jende Huang, who supported the film’s core conclusion that the world needs to get beyond religion. Then came comments from the audience, which reflected a diverse range of views. Some weighed in that it was scattershot in its approach, with the apocalyptic ending standing in stark contrast to the various humorous (and somewhat disconnected) vignettes throughout the body of the film. Others supported Maher’s core message that the modern world needs to “grow up or die” and overcome religion.

Religulous ended up taking in $3.5 million over the weekend, showing on about 500 screens in the United States. Love it or hate it, it is another step towards the mainstream for the increasingly visible freethought movements of the United States.

One of the most common criticisms I hear of the new movie Religulous is that Bill Maher only addresses people on the fringe of religion.  It’s the same complaint I hear about Sam Harris because, let’s face it, Maher isn’t saying much that wasn’t said in The End of Faith.  Harris’ point was that religious moderates create a society in which faith is seen as a virtue and a legitimate belief system, making it difficult to criticize the more extreme believers.

On the walk to Metro this morning, I remembered a charming short story by Isaac Bashevis Singer.  A poor man asks to borrow a pair of silver spoons from the town miser.  The miser grudgingly agrees, and the next morning the poor man returns the spoons with one of his own silver teaspoon, claiming that the spoons gave birth! The miser is delighted, and so when the poor man asks to borrow the set of very expensive silver candlesticks, he is more than willing.  The poor man sells the candlesticks, claiming sadly to the miser that they passed away in the night.  Furious, the miser hauls him before the rabbi, who says with a grin, “If spoons can give birth, candlesticks can die.”

If we smile and say nothing when our neighbor claims that he’s giving money to the poor because God wants him to, we lose standing to object when he claims God wants him to disown his gay son.  Yes, faith can motivate people to do good as well as bad, but it’s still a poor way to make decisions.

I’ve been told that I shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth, that we should encourage charitable works no matter what the motivation.  But when our neighbor claims he’s donating because the Bible tells him to, we shouldn’t laugh in his face and criticize his decision-making process.  Instead, we can merely say, “And you’re helping people in need, right?” in an attempt to tie his actions to secular moral values as well as religious ones.  In doing so, we present an alternate set of ethics in which God’s opinion isn’t the only factor.  Humanism isn’t just the rejection of supernaturalism.  It’s the next step.