An appeals court today, in part relying on the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Morse v. Frederick (the “BONG HITS 4 JESUS” case), held that a high school can discipline a student for disobeying school policy. The student’s crime: substituting an unapproved religious valedictory address for an approved secular speech.

A couple of years ago I blogged (elsewhere) that a Christian legal group supported the right of Joseph Frederick (the student in the “Bong Hits” case) to display his banner free from school discipline because, as they put it, their group “ultimately wants to protect free speech rights of Christian students to be able to pass out religious literature and wear Christian-themed clothing.”

That they saw Frederick’s banner as genuinely Christian is rather naive, but what’s sweet now is that this latest student is having to play by the same rules.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in taking notice of “Bong Hits,” affirmed a lower court ruling that the principal of Lewis Palmer High School, who forced student Erica Corder to apologize for including unauthorized religious material in her graduation speech, did not violate her constitutional rights.

This is the speech Erica Corder gave as one of fifteen
class valedictorians at her 2006 graduation:

Throughout these lessons our teachers, parents, and let’s not forget our peers have supported and encouraged us along the way. Thank you all for the past four amazing years. Because of your love and devotion to our success, we have all learned how to endure change and remain strong individuals. We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don’t already know Him personally I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice He made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with Him. And we also encourage you, now that we are all ready to encounter the biggest change in our lives thus far, the transition from childhood to adulthood, to leave Lewis-Palmer with confidence and integrity. Congratulations class of 2006.

The full decision in Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District No. 38 is available here.

Bottom line, the old Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School Dist. (1969) rule that student speech is OK unless it is disruptive is OUT. Alternatively said, there are so many exceptions that it’s not safe for kids to rely on Tinker.

The Washington Post reports today on how pro-marriage equality organizations have recently been targeting the Mormon Church with advertisements and campaigns:

As more states take up the debate on same-sex marriage, some advocates of legalization are taking a very specific lesson from California, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dominated both fundraising and door-knocking to pass a ballot initiative that barred such unions.

With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.

In particular, the article mentions web ads sponsored by the anti-Proposition 8 organization Californians Against Hate. The ads (which can be viewed, along with their accompanying documentation and campaign information, here), appeared on newspaper websites in three states on the East Coast but were apparently rejected by at least some newspapers for being insulting against the Mormon Church.

Why is the Mormon Church in particular being targeted by pro-marriage equality ads? The Washington Post explains how it may have played a big role in the narrow margin of passage for Proposition 8:

A torrent of last-minute contributions from church members across the country financed well-framed TV ads in the final weekend of the campaign. Opponents’ analysis of campaign-contribution reports indicated that Mormons contributed more than half of the campaign’s $40 million war chest.

The Mormon Church seems to be reluctant to actually take public credit for working for the passage of Proposition 8. The Washington Post notes that the Mormon Church was involved with an anti-marriage equality campaign in Hawaii in 1998 and spent $400,000 of church money but requested that the Catholic Church take the lead when it came to the public image of the campaign. This may have something to do with Mormons’ overall low favorability ratings with the American public in general, which declined to 37 percent last year. Perhaps, for this reason, the Mormon Church doesn’t feel that the most effective public face for the anti-marriage equality movement would be a Mormon one.

When it comes to marriage equality, is it fair to target the Mormons? While I am certainly against stigmatizing any particular individual based on his or her religion, the institution of the Mormon Church is fair game for criticism for its strong support for the suppression of LGBT civil rights. The institution has inserted itself into this issue to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of funding and resources for anti-gay campaigns. This is a campaign of bigotry, and the institution must be held accountable for it in the court of public opinion. In particular, Californians Against Hate has been working to illuminate areas that the church seems to prefer keeping quiet, such as the participation of top Mormon leaders in the creation of the the National Organization for Marriage, the national anti-marriage equality organization that drew attention for its laughably poor attempts to frighten people about same-sex marriage.

My one caveat is that I do not want to see this particular focus on the Mormon Church come at the expense of looking at the broader picture of anti-LGBT bigotry. In the end, for a successful campaign to reinstate marriage equality in California and to bring it to other states, the religious and non-religious alike are going to need to understand marriage equality as an issue that is fundamentally about civil rights and equality. This will require massive outreach, but it can be done; indeed, a movement to repeal Proposition 8 is already under way.

Inspired by the film Milk, a California sixth grader prepared a presentation for a class assignment on the life of slain gay rights pioneer and San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk. But apparently discussing the life of a gay politician and civil rights leader was too much for her school, and now the ACLU of San Diego County may sue on her behalf (hat tip to Atrios):

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday threatened to sue a San Diego County school that refused to let a student present a report on slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk until her classmates got permission from their parents.

David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego County, said the principal of Mt. Woodson Elementary School in Ramona violated the free speech rights of 6th-grader Natalie Jones, who was the only student in her class prevented from giving an in-class presentation.

According to Blair-Loy and Natalie’s mother, Mt. Woodson Principal Theresa Grace concluded last month that the subject of the girl’s project triggered a district policy requiring parents to be notified in writing before their children are exposed to lessons dealing with sex.

Lessons dealing with sex? Was she going to discuss Harvey Milk’s sex life? I doubt it. Any in-class presentation about the sex life of a historical figure would probably be inappropriate at that grade level.

But that’s not the real issue here. The issue is that this student was going to discuss a historical figure who made a name for himself by making the argument that gays and lesbians should have full civil rights. He led a statewide campaign against Proposition 6, a 1978 initiative that went in front of California voters and would have banned gay and lesbian teachers from working in California schools. His leadership helped lead to Proposition 6′s defeat at the ballot box and also went a long way towards mainstreaming the gay rights movement and presenting the LGBT community to America as a legitimate part of our nation’s cultural fabric. Harvey Milk’s courageous legacy resonates to this day in the marriage equality movement, and he is a model for activists all over the world.

So what’s the controversy? Why did the school implement it’s sex discussion policy when dealing with the student’s presentation? It’s because he was gay and spoke up for the LGBT community. It’s as simple as that.

This school needs to join the 21st century. Even though some parents may have complained, the school cannot accommodate everyone’s religious sensitivities on this. Indeed, it would be to confer second class status upon gays to say that a remarkable historical figure cannot be discussed in class without an additional layer of permission from parents — simply because he was gay.

Let’s hope that this will be a learning experience for this school and others. Parents may teach their children at home whatever they would like about homosexuality, including that it is wrong or some kind of religious sin. I strongly disagree, but it is their right to believe so and teach this to their children. But schools do not have to accommodate such nonsense.

Ladies and gentlemen, for your daily dose of stupid, I give you Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) explaining why he doesn’t want to do anything about greenhouse gasses (via Thinkprogress):

“I would also point out that CO2, carbon dioxide, is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term. It’s not hazardous to health, it’s naturally occurring. I am creating it as I talk to you. It’s in your Coca-Cola, your Dr. Pepper, your Perrier water. It is necessary for human life. It is odorless, colorless, tasteless, does not cause cancer, does not cause asthma.”

“And something that the Democrat sponsors do not point out, a lot of the CO2 that is created in the United States is naturally created. You can’t regulate God. Not even the Democratic majority in the US Congress can regulate God.”

Let’s say that a neighbor were spraying lots of water on his lawn, day and night. It’s ruining your garden, flooding your basement, and causing mold and mosquitoes to spawn in the standing water.

Would you be comforted to hear him say, “Did you know that H2O is naturally occurring? It’s in our Coca-Cola, is necessary for human life, is odorless, colorless, tasteless, does not cause cancer, and does not cause asthma! Besides, rain is water, and we can’t regulate the rain!”

No, you would want him to turn off the damn sprinklers.

We know the harmful effects of greenhouse gasses. No longer suppressed by the Bush administration, the E.P.A. recently declared that there was “compelling and overwhelming” evidence that greenhouse gasses “endanger public health and welfare.”

Barton also had this familiar gem:

“If you think greenhouse gases are bad, life couldn’t exist without greenhouse gases. … So, there is a, there is a climate theory — and it’s a theory, it’s not a fact, it’s never been proven — that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the upper atmosphere somehow interact to trap more heat than the atmosphere would otherwise.”

Keep in mind: this man is the highest-ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Wonderful.

The mayor of Bloomington, Indiana, Mark Kruzan, proved himself to be a principled public official yesterday when he took a stand against censorship and instructed the city’s legal services department not to defend Bloomington Transit (BT) in a free speech suit.

The suit in question has actually been brought by our friends, the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign (INABC), who are arguing that the transit company violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights (read the AHA’s press release for more info). As part of INABC’s campaign to foster awareness of atheism, they had approached BT with a proposal for an ad campaign. They wanted to put up signs that read “You Can be Good without God” on the side of buses in Bloomington, but BT turned down the proposal, claiming that the ad was “controversial.” INABC, represented by the ACLU of Indiana, thus launched the suit. (And as well they should. It’s baffling to me how some people can think that a simple matter of fact–that atheists can be good people–is controversial. Zuh? Shouldn’t being good, no matter what your religiosity, be, you know, a good thing?)

In any case, Mayor Kruzan is absolutely on the right side on this issue. As the Bloomington’s Herald-Times reported Friday morning (Subscription Only):

Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan said he disagrees with the BT policy and he’s asked city government’s legal department not to represent BT in court.

“I felt strongly that the city shouldn’t be defending on this issue,” he said Thursday.

Bloomington Public Transportation Corp. operates as a separate municipal corporation, which contracts with he city of Bloomington legal department to provide legal services.

Kruzan said having city legal defend BT in court would amount to “promoting government sanctioned censorship” because the bus service gets city legal’s services at an hourly rate less than that of a private law firm, which is in essence a partial taxpayer subsidy.

As a result of the Mayor’s decision, BT is left in the uncomfortable position of procuring a private practice.

The Herald-Times also published an editorial Friday (Subscription Only), saying, “Faced with the prospect of paying for the lawsuit, BT officials may back off. That would be the better plan, rather than squelching free expression of beliefs.”

I agree. Kudos to the Herald-Times and especially kudos to Mayor Kruzan. Unfortunately, too few politicians are quick to defend atheists in any capacity these days, particularly in his part of the country. We should have more people like him in public office.

Currently, the Herald-Times Online is holding a quick poll to see if BT should accept the ad. What do you think?

James Dobson is such a pessimist these days. From God and Country, this is what Dobson recently told his radio listeners (hat tip to PZ Myers):

I want to tell you up front that we’re not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.

There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can’t stop them.

We tried with [Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and sent thousands of phone calls and emails to the Senate and they didn’t pay any attention to it because they don’t have to. And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation… As I see it, there is no other answer. There’s no other answer, short term.

He sounds frustrated.

I was skeptical the last time James Dobson’s pessimism was on full display — it seemed to me that he was just trying to energize his supporters with a little doom and gloom. But his words now express more of a sense of capitulation. He’s not even asking his supporters to take action, just to pray (I suppose that they might consider that to be taking action, but the Dobson has never been shy about demanding much more worldly acts from his followers).

I am extremely reluctant, however, to ever count the Religious Right out of the political picture. What do you think? Will the Religious Right make a comeback? Or are Dobson and his ilk destined for permanent marginalization in an increasingly secular America?

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam recently spoke at the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life about his latest research on religion in America. He discussed the increasing lack of affiliation with any religion amongst younger generations in the United States, saying that the percentage of Americans in their 20s that declare no affiliation is now between 30 and 40 percent.

This comes on the heels of the recent news from the Pew Forum’s US Religious Landscape Survey that over 15 percent of Americans now report themselves to be unaffiliated with any religion. But looking at Putnam’s recent work, it is clear that there is a generational divide: young people are more secular than ever.

Why? Writing about Putnam’s speech, former George W. Bush speechwriter and Washington Post op-ed columnist Michael Gerson characterizes the trend this way:

The politicization of religion by the religious right, argues Putnam, caused many young people in the 1990s to turn against religion itself, adopting the attitude: “If this is religion, I’m not interested.”

And as ABC news reported on Putnam’s speech:

This movement away from organized religion, says Putnam, may have enormous consequences for American culture and politics for years to come.

“That is the future of America,” he says. “Their views and their habits religiously are going to persist and have a huge effect on the future.”

For just one example of this, look at the generational divide on support for marriage equality (found via Daily Kos)

Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggesting they should be considered legal.

But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll. (emphasis added)

With full marriage equality in five states now and New Hampshire poised to soon be the sixth, it is clear that the political landscape for marriage equality is shifting. The current generation of young voters are less likely to support future efforts to limit or repeal marriage equality. Hopefully Proposition 8 in California will be one of the last of its kind – while two-thirds of voters over the age of 65 supported it, the measure failed to gain a majority in any other age group.

While some of the political implications of this increase in lack of religious affiliation among young Americans are clear, another major question is, will it stick? Are young Americans going to be secular for good? As reported by Gerson::

Putnam regards the growth of the “nones” as a spike, not a permanent trend. The young, in general, are not committed secularists. “They are not in church, but they might be if a church weren’t like the religious right. . . . There are almost certain to be religious entrepreneurs to fill that niche with a moderate evangelical religion, without political overtones.”

Putnam’s book on this research is yet to be published, but I’ll be interested to read it when it comes out, because his discussion with the Pew Forum seemed to mainly focus on politics and the negative impact of the Religious Right on religious affiliation amongst younger Americans. But political and social views are only part of the picture. What else influences younger people’s lack of religious affiliation? In their report Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S., the Pew Forum provided additional research on this very subject, examining the reasons why Americans in general change affiliations or leave their former religious affiliations without adopting a new one. From the executive summary of the report:

Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most religions. Additionally, many people who left a religion to become unaffiliated say they did so in part because they think of religious people as hypocritical or judgmental, because religious organizations focus too much on rules or because religious leaders are too focused on power and money. Far fewer say they became unaffiliated because they believe that modern science proves that religion is just superstition. (emphasis added)

I initially thought that the increase in the number of people that are unaffiliated with organized religions would be driven in large part by increased scientific literacy. But even if this is happening, it’s not a very conscious process; as the Pew Forum reports, not many people credit science for their changes in religious outlook. Rather, the changes take place in light of what the report calls “disenchantment with religious people or institutions.” This is similar to Putnam’s characterization of the younger unaffiliated being driven away by intolerant religious conservatives.

Also significant is the age range at which the Pew Forum found people make their most monumental religious changes:

The survey finds that religious change begins early in life. Most of those who decided to leave their childhood faith say they did so before reaching age 24, and a large majority say they joined their current religion before reaching age 36. Very few report changing religions after reaching age 50.

So the religious decisions that people make in their younger years often end up staying with them. Nevertheless, the report points out that the unaffiliated population is one of the most dynamic religious populations in the United States, with over half of people who are raised without any affiliation later joining one.

I will be very curious to see how Putnam’s research fits with the picture painted by the Faith in Flux report. I certainly feel that humanists should not take for granted that the younger, less affiliated generation is going to automatically join our ranks. The Pew Forum reveals a dynamic religious population that may get disgusted with the politicization of religion or the frailty of human institutions but isn’t necessarily going to march in step with organized non-religion. The key, of course, will be humanist outreach to this population: we have to offer something of value, something beyond a critique of the institution of religion, something that offers the sense of community and togetherness that people are seeking, even as they decide that religious institutions are not serving their needs.

The Washington Post, on its On Faith website, recently asked panelists representing different religious points of view to address the question, “Is torture ever justified?” The responses are by no means representative of all religious viewpoints on torture (the humanist viewpoint of which I have addressed previously), but nevertheless it was enlightening for me to read some of the different viewpoints and how these commentators feel torture and religion relate to each other.

Christian theologian and philosopher John Mark Reynolds is initially direct on the question, writing, “Torture of any human being is incompatible with the Christian faith.” I hope he’s telling that far and wide, because it appears that not everyone has received the message. However, he goes on to spend most of his short essay wondering whether or not what the United States did actually was, in fact, torture:

A general condemnation of torture does not mean that we already know that what the Bush administration did was torture. Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what torture is and some believe that what the Bush administration ordered in prosecuting the War on Terror was not torture. They should be heard and not ignored, but so far the arguments advanced have not been persuasive.

He does believe, though, that John McCain’s condemnation of the techniques that were employed by the United States during the Bush years indicates that they were probably unacceptable. I have to admit that I have a hard time understanding how anyone can equivocate at all on whether or not pouring water into someone’s lungs, slamming a person into a wall, or any of the other methods that were approved constitute torture or not.

Another Christian theologian, Gabriel Salguero of the Princeton Theological Seminary, also condemns torture and says it is incompatible with Christianity. He points out that great people in history have chosen not to meet the violence of their adversaries with equal violence:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr never used violence although violence was constantly used against him, his home, and the many people in the Civil Rights movement. Did the millions of people who partook in the non-violent marches not understand terror? Nonsense. They chose a different way…Did Jesus not understand the way of terror when he was being crucified on an imperial cross? Nonsense. He chose a different way.

I find it very compelling that, in history, great figures and brave groups of people have stood up to injustice and tyranny without resorting to the techniques of their oppressors. They have held the moral high ground without conceding the battle. I wish that the USA had taken this approach in the face of terrorism rather than quickly employing torture and secret prisons, disregarding the rule of law as if it were an impediment to safeguarding our nation in the face of danger, rather than central to the task.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield wants everyone, on all sides of the issue, to examine it a little more closely:

It’s easy to say that torture is wrong and that whatever tradition we hold dear forbids it. I wish it were that simple. Imagine for a moment that you knew the life of someone you loved; your child for example, would be saved by information extracted by torture. Are you really certain that you might not suddenly find some justification which allowed it “just this once”? Anyone answering “no” too quickly is either kidding themselves or doesn’t know the meaning of loving someone close to themselves.

Although this sounds like he is defending torture, he quickly states that he isn’t; rather, he says:

I am more concerned about the endless moralizing around tough issues which makes them seem too easy too fast. In fact, that’s the style of argument which typifies those who defend the use of torture.

Their arguments pose the question about saving a life as if we could know with certainty beforehand that the torture for which they advocate would save a life in immediate danger. I wish it were that simple, but it rarely, if ever, is.

It’s true that the circumstances under which the Bush administration committed torture were ambiguous, something which the pro-torture side seems loathe to admit. No matter how many times the torture advocates talk about it, we have yet to encounter a so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario where the deactivation code to the bomb needs to be tortured out of some single suspect in custody before an entire city explodes (or something along those lines). Television shows like 24 aside, under the Bush administration torture was committed with much more dubious and certainly less noble goals than extracting the location of a bomb located under the city.

Rabbi Hirschfield’s point about these over-simplistic arguments being used to justify torture is well taken. Nevertheless, I feel that he is trying a little too hard to be balanced here with his consideration for why someone might support torture. Surely, if the life of my child was at stake, I would probably justify any number of horrible things to be done if it might save my child’s life; this hypothetical situation, however, doesn’t add very much to a discussion on human rights. It may provide some perspective on how we react to the idea of torture, but the actual laws that codify the preservation of human rights must be written under more level-headed circumstances than how you would feel if your child’s life was immediately at risk.

The preponderance of opinion from the different religious commentators on On Faith is that torture is wrong. But beyond that point is less agreement over what actually constitutes torture and how the United States should move forward from this point. This level of disagreement is indicative of why we need to rely on secular documents to guide how we move forward on torture. For all the room for discussion in the arena of religion, US and international law is not at all ambiguous on this subject.

Little League, stop messing with the kids or I’m going for a home run.

Bob and son manning petition table

My son and I recently participated in our local Little League’s opening day ceremonies — my son as a player and I as a coach.

As the Little Leaguers and coaches paraded onto the field, I saw a man in a black suit and white collar. I thought my heart was going to stop beating. I hoped that there wouldn’t be a prayer given during the event. But my instinct was correct.

Not only was there an invocation, but the players, including my son, were asked to recite the Little League Pledge which begins with “I trust in God.”

I grabbed my son and we turned our back to the pitcher’s mound from which the ceremonies were being conducted. I don’t like being disrespectful, but I’ve had enough of religion being infused into secular events.

I sent the local Little League president an email requesting that future League activities not include an invocation, pledge or prayer (and also not so subtly mentioned that I am co-counsel in a lawsuit challenging the infusion of religion in presidential inaugural ceremonies).

Within a day or two, I received a reply email from the Little League’s national vice president of communications telling me that the their pledge was “historical” (it was written in 1954, the same year “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance) and that the League would not change its policies and practices.

Historical as in treating African-Americans and women as chattel? Is wrong made right by time?

Last Saturday I started a petition drive in support of a resolution that I plan to bring before the local board in a month or two to eliminate the religious practices. (See below photo of my son and I manning the petition.)

To those who don’t understand why I am on a mission, I answer by describing the harm in the petition this way: “WHEREAS such religious practices directly interfere with Little League players free exercise of religion and their parents’ rights to teach their children beliefs of their own choosing — religious or nonreligious.” I confess, I’m a disciple of Jefferson and Madison.

This game is only in the second inning. I’ve got plans to go national with this drive after picking up some steam locally. Stay tuned.

The PEW Forum has yet another interesting survey.  CNN describes the results:

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

Here are the data:

Commenters over at Friendly Atheist are discussing why this would be the case.  Here are some suggestions:

• Religion is tied to a respect for authority
• Correlation between religiosity and conservative political views
• Churchgoing creates a stronger insular group, increasing the distinction between “us” and “them”
• Insecurities about the world lead people both to religion and to a “do whatever it takes to keep us safe” mentality

I hesitate to come to any conclusions from this survey, but I’ll throw another idea out there: The more people go to church (and the more fundamentalist it is) the more they hear about pain and suffering inflicted by an authority figure.  There might be a desensitizing effect.

God inflicts intense suffering upon sinners (Revelation, among other books).  He inflicts intense suffering upon his most loyal followers (Job).  He inflicts intense suffering upon his son.

One technique we’ve banned in the course of interrogation is threatening a prisoner’s family.  How much worse would it be to pretend to force the prisoner to kill family members himself (Abraham and Jacob)?

I know “fire and brimstone” churches aren’t as popular these days, especially in the mainline Protestant movement.  But I wonder how individuals who hear those sermons time after time view torture?