Does the installation of foot baths for Muslims at a Michigan university show preferential treatment of religion, or protect the rights of students’ to practice religion?

The Islamic practice of washing one’s feet before praying has caused problems for the bathrooms at the University of Michigan in Dearborn, with water spillage creating unsafe floors and sinks being pulled out of the wall. The school is paying $25,000 to install foot baths on the basis of increasing safety and improving plumbing.

But Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is right in highlighting the preferential treatment of Muslims in this issue. What’s to stop Catholics from demanding the installation of holy water fonts by every classroom door? If I was a member of the Church of Cognizance, which advocates the use of marijuana as a sacrament, would the school pay to build a special smoking room for my religious ritual?

The university should certainly allow for the building of foot baths, so that Muslim students’ right to practice their religion is not violated. But the Muslim community, or other private donors, should pay for it.

Bill O’Reilly’s producers were setting up the car pickup and hair and makeup for me (yes, I get the star treatment when I appear on Fox), when they stopped to ask me why I disagreed with O’Reilly about a chastity ring with biblical verse being religious in nature.

You see, a girl in London was not allowed a religious exemption from their uniform policy of “no jewelry” in school. The English court held that the chastity ring was not a religious symbol. The ring was part of the Silver Ring Thing program, which your tax dollars have previously supported to the tune of over a million dollars. Yes, our Congress paid for this religious proselytizing in U.S. public schools, until they agreed to stop such funding after a challenge from the ACLU. Like many other abstinence-until-marriage sex ed programs, this one was theologically based.

When I explained that I agreed with the ACLU and not the London court, I was told they would need to bump me in favor of a guest who would argue that the ring was not religious. But I wonder if it gives Bill O’Reilly pause to note that on this specific part of the issue, he is on the side of the ACLU and the Secular Coalition for America.

The Hinchey Medical Marijuana Amendment failed in the House Wednesday night by a vote of 165 - 262. The amendment would have prohibited the federal government from prosecuting people caught with a small amount of pot so long as they had a doctor’s permission and medicinal marijuana was legal in their state.

Though this vote is certainly a huge disappointment for those of us who are against locking up sick and dying people for the crime of, you know, trying to ease the pain of being sick or dying, at least a few more votes were gained this round — last year it was defeated 163 - 259 — marking the best record yet since the amendment was originally offered in 2001. But I’m still dismayed that the 110th Congress failed to muster up more than 2 additional votes than the last time around when the Republicans were in the majority. Even worse, out of the nine members who voted “yes” last year but this year switched their vote to “no”, eight are Dems. This from the party that is supposed to be so sympathetic to the medical woes of the American people.

I expected so much more from this Congress, but I guess the political fear of appearing “soft on drugs” never abates. Let’s hope the reality of being hard on patients starts to weigh on some consciences.

In an article on the website Townhall.com Mike S. Adams writes about finding out a friend believes he’s living a moral life even though he has quit attending church. Adams writes, “I asked myself the crucial question: ‘How does one know he lives a moral life if he does not ever attend church?’” I’m afraid I don’t understand how one lives a moral life by simply attending church. While charging that writers like Dawkins or Harris don’t know enough about the Christian religion to evaluate it, many Christian writers assume they know what Humanist morals are without really reading anything about Humanism.

How should Humanists educate others about the reality of Humanist moral and ethical systems? Would books on morals sell? Or is there some other way to reach out? Adams suggests that Christians invite 5 friends to go to their church with them, so why don’t Humanists invite friends to Humanist meetings or share Humanist or atheist magazines or other writings with friends?

If a nontheist falls in a war, and no Congress member is there to hear it, does his death make a sound? The silence surrounding the killing of Pat Tillman, professional football star turned volunteer soldier, is deafening. First his family is kept in the dark about the true circumstances surrounding his death. Next, the military is slow to respond to a Congressional request for information regarding what–if any–punishment was meted out to the military commander who insulted the family for even seeking the truth (he claimed they would just let it go if they believed in anything beyond their child becoming “worm dirt”). See: An Un-American Tragedy

Now the military claims it needn’t testify under oath in Congress regarding the original cover up. It is amazing to me that, according to the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, nontheists are overrepresented (compared to their estimated numbers in the population) in the military. See: http://www.maaf.info/ (citing a report by the Population Reference Bureau.) Given the way they are treated, one would think it might make a nontheist think twice about joining the volunteer military. But, like lesbian and gay soldiers who must contend with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, there are many men and women in our nation whose desire to serve their country goes beyond the discomfort and discrimination they must endure as part of this system.

Watergate changed the face of the presidency, but it seems Bush the younger is trying hard to return to that face.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows him within a percentage point or two of taking the title of most unpopular president, a title currently held by Richard Nixon.

GWB, in his first election campaign used a smear campaign tactic against John McCain when McCain was leading by 19 points going into South Carolina. Karl Rove arranged for a poll of South Carolina McCain supporters asking if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. McCain has an adopted daughter from an orphanage in Bangladesh.

Nixon used similar tactics against Edmund Muskie forging a letter called the “Canuck Letter” and most damagingly made up rumors that Musie’s wife drank and used “off color” language. In defending his wife Muskie broke down. This was also reported and his campaign never recovered.

Several other Bush scandals including illegal wiretaps have leaked to the press through various “deep throats” and others very willing to be named such as Nasa’s James Hansen on Global Warming, Stephen E. Abraham on Guantanamo, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona on health issues, or even J. David Kuo on Faith-Based Initiatives. What we seem to lack is the reporter or editor to tie the stories all together so we see the Bush White House in the same light that we saw the Nixon White House.

So I ask not only what has changed in the White House and the presidency, but what has changed with the how news is written? Or maybe the question is how we want to receive our news. Has the internet and television changed our ability to bring facts together over a long period of time?

The Humanist movement lost a visionary this weekend. Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine, the creator of Humanistic Judaism and the 2003 Humanist of the Year, was killed Saturday, July 21, in a car crash while vacationing in Morocco. He was 79.

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association said:

“[Rabbi Wine] taught that values such as reason and compassion were humanity’s saving grace, not adherence to religious dogma. He knew that we must live our one and only lives to the fullest, and do as much good as possible in the limited time we have on this earth.”

Rabbi Wine founded several humanist organizations, such as the Center for New Thinking, the Society for Humanistic Judaism, the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, and the Humanist Institute. In addition, he lectured and debated frequently, taking on such fundies as Jerry Falwell and Meir Kahane. He will be deeply missed, but his legacy will live on.

Today, homosexual couples in Oregon can register for domestic partnership, giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in the state. While I believe that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights in every facet of life as everyone else (they are people, aren’t they?), this whole business of domestic partnership reeks of ’separate but equal’ treatment.

When we allow those ‘different’ from us similar access to services though under different circumstances, it is not equal treatment at all. Think back to when African-Americans had to drink from different water fountains throughout America. It was the same water, right? Yes, but access was restricted for “colored” folks to “white” water fountains. So then why can homosexuals not have access to the same marriage as heterosexuals?

The Jim Crow laws were officially overturned in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education decision. I would like to see a legal challenge mounted against these ’separate but equal’ domestic partnership laws on the legal precedent of the cases that desegregated America. As Humanists, we can’t sit idly by and be content with this segregationist legal logic being currently applied by the most liberal states in America.

The town of Ave Maria, Florida, isn’t just any old town. It’s a vision-turned-reality for Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan, whose lifelong dream was to create a community of residents who share his Catholic values. The town comes with its own Catholic church and university, while adult book stores, strip clubs, and even pharmacies that dispense birth control are strongly discouraged, of course.

Ave Maria is open to everyone, but does anyone else see how difficult it would be for an atheist, Muslim, Jew–anyone who’s NOT a Catholic, for that matter–to actually live there? Why can’t they just be honest and say that this is a Catholics-only community? To be honest, I’m not entirely opposed to it, as many Humanists have been in favor of creating Humanist living communities for years, but I fail to see the value in shunning diversity by restricting oneself to Catholic-only neighbors.

And what would a classified ad for housing in Ave Maria look like?

Spacious 3 bedroom/2 bath in quaint Florida town. Walking distance to church. Five minutes to public transportation, shops, and restaurants. Serious inquiries from Catholics only; others need not apply.

Susan Sackett, current board member of the AHA and former colleague and friend of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, talks about Humanism and tolerance for religious diversity in an interview with Trekdom, a history of Star Trek Fanzine:

“Diversity and religious belief are entirely different areas when it comes to tolerance… [Roddenberry's] non-belief in religious illogic was true to his own philosophy. That does not mean that he did not grant others to the right to their beliefs. He merely commented upon them from his own standpoint… I think because of his high hopes for humanity, he was impatient with the superstitious beliefs that religions do sell. He wanted to see humanity progress, and, as many people today such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will point out, being bogged down in these petty beliefs (my god can beat up your god and we have only one true way) holds humanity back from greatness. It is too bad he didn’t live to see the beginning of this new enlightenment, this new humanistic movement that is beginning to awaken in this country.”

After utterly anti-religious polemics of the likes of Christopher Hitchens’ and Sam Harris’, this is a refreshing reminder that religious tolerance necessarily works both ways — as Humanists we can’t possibly expect theists to respect the right to our beliefs if we don’t respect theirs. It’s important that we give voice to this truism more often.

The Washington Post recently reported that a judge agreed to a $660 million clergy abuse settlement between the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and alleged victims of clergy sex abuse. Cardinal Roger Mahony issued an apology an then said Monday that he would spend the rest of the day praying for those who claimed abuse. In reality, it seems that what made the most difference for the abused was not prayer but their taking action and telling their own stories.

Michael Hennigan, the archdiocese attorney, said private meetings with 70 of the plaintiffs made the most impact on him.”It changed us all, and it changed our perspective on what’s happened here,” he said. “I’d like to say that the church would have been reformed without these cases, but I don’t know that’s true,” he said. “These cases have forever reformed the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It will never be the same.” Does it take 70 cases to change an Archdiocese? How many to change a church?

As Westerns from a developed country, there is often the feeling that passion about a cause places the passionate individual above all others. While I cannot fault the Save Darfur campaign for raising awareness about the crisis in Sudan, it cannot be forgotten that much of the work to “save Darfur” is being done by Africans. The African Union has sent troops and aid, and it is mostly Africans on the ground helping the people of Darfur. And while raising awareness is very important, if the campaign will not push the U.S. government to get involved in the crisis (which I doubt will happen), then it is only Africans providing material assistance on the ground. In a Washington Post column today, Uzodinma Iweala writes:

News reports constantly focus on the continent’s corrupt leaders, warlords, “tribal” conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like “Can Bono Save Africa?” or “Will Brangelina Save Africa?” The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and “civilization.”…There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one’s cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans… Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head — because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West’s fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West’s prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems… How is it that a former mid-level U.S. diplomat receives more attention for his cowboy antics in Sudan than do the numerous African Union countries that have sent food and troops and spent countless hours trying to negotiate a settlement among all parties in that crisis?

I could not agree more with the author’s sentiments. We not only need to better understand the dynamics of conflict evolution/de-evolution and humanitarian assistance in Africa, but we need to give credit where credit is due; not to the Bonos and Angelinas of the world, but to the Wangari Maathais and Dr. Cynthia Muangs. As activists, we must remember what we are doing and why we are doing it. It is to enrich your own ego? Or is it to enrich the lives of others? We need to start looking toward the creation of a new kind of issue-based campaigning — with goals of enabling people who live in and with conflict daily to continue to help themselves. As the old adage goes, “Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day…”

Last month the Supreme Court (in Hein v. FFRF) decided that whether or not taxpayers get to enforce the Establishment Clause will depend on whether Congress appropriated the funds used or the money was funneled through the President’s office. One of the fears expressed by the plurality was that if the executive branch’s actions could be challenged by taxpayers, there would be too many lawsuits.

Surely these jurists know that if a lawsuit is frivolous, not only can the loser be liable for the other side’s costs, but the court can also impose penalties for such abuse of the legal process. Additionally, as the dissenting opinion points out, such frivolous lawsuits could be dismissed and the courts wouldn’t deal with trying these cases. Here’s the clincher: What if there are numerous REASONABLE claims of unconstitutional behavior on the part of the executive branch? The dissent (in a footnote) explains, “To the degree the claims are meritorious, fear that there will be many of them does not provide a compelling reason … to keep them from being heard.”

If we accept Justice Scalia’s reasoning that we simply can’t allow too many claims, then the government would have an incentive to violate the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights as much as possible. After all, we could secure our rights against a government that only violates them occasionally, but if they violate them numerous times, it’s too burdensome on the courts to do anything about it!

“You’ll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want,” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said to a group of atheists last week in Edina, Minnesota.

Over 100 members of Atheists for Human Rights gathered to hear Ellison discuss the recent controversies surrounding the Bush administration, from the Iraq war to Scooter Libby’s prison pardon. However, it was his comparison of the September 11th attacks to the 1933 Reichstag fire that drew the most ire. (An excellent editorial in Minneapolis’ Star Tribune defending Ellison’s comments can be found here.)

Controversy aside, it is refreshing to see another member in Congress, particularly a member of faith, standing up for the rights of atheists. Having members of Congress like admitted nontheist Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) on our side is great, but I’m pleased to see people like Rep. Ellison, who are able to look beyond the differences in our beliefs to protect our right to have them.

Last week I was privileged to attend a unique presentation at one of Washington’s premiere think-tanks, the CATO Institute. The evening was devoted to the DVD release of a very insightful documentary about an icon of conservatism, Barry Goldwater. The documentary was made by Goldwater’s own granddaughter and presents a warmer side to what many people living through the early to mid nineteen-sixties remember as the ultimate “cold warrior”.

Watching clips of the documentary that evening and listening to the question-and-answer session that followed got me to thinking about the tremendous changes that have taken place within conservative philosophy since then. What would a humanist have to say about Goldwater for president, if he were running in 2008 instead of 1964?

It may seem crazy to suggest that Goldwater be uttered in the same sentence as humanism, given that many people recall his extremely hawkish positions on the Cold War and President Lyndon Johnson’s infamous “Daisy Girl” commercial. Yet, not nearly remembered was the fact that he defended the right for women to choose to have an abortion, supported the right for gays to serve in the military and was genuinely disgusted by the antics of people like Jerry Falwell claiming to be conservatives.

In essence, I believe, Goldwater hails from the libertarian strain of conservatism. And while I know that many humanists hold progressive/liberal viewpoints, there are several issues that libertarians and humanists share in common, and in times like these when the influence of religious extremism is growing in American politics, it is important to reach out to those whom we might not agree with on everything, but can at least agree with on the big issues.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed today titled “What Atheists Can’t Answer.” Though the author, Michael Gerson, certainly takes pains to appear fair and balanced – he correctly points out that human beings can be good without God and acknowledges that morality is an innate human condition – I’m still irked by his supposition that only a god-belief provides an objective reason to be good:

“So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it… Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: ‘Obey your evolutionary instincts’ because those instincts are conflicted.”

This kind of argument really bugs me. If the drive to do good or bad things is innate, why isn’t the ability to choose the better between them innate as well? Gerson — and many other theists — would likely argue that without religion it is impossible to know what is right or wrong. But the fact that there are so many religions — and so many sects within each religion — claiming different versions of what is “good” and “evil” should give us pause. So which particular religion’s god or gods is Gerson talking about, and which particular interpretation of that religion then has the monopoly on morality?

Chris Mooney wrote The Republican War on Science, but Christopher Lee’s Washington Post article, “Ex-Surgeon General Says White House Hushed Him,” implies we may just be seeing the tip of the iceberg. In 2005, Susan F. Wood, an assistant FDA commissioner and director of the agency’s Office of Women’s Health, resigned. She offered her frustration with political interference that was delaying approval of over-the-counter sales of Plan B as her reason for leaving. Gathering more publicity NASA scientist James E. Hansen and other federal climate researchers said the Bush administration had made it hard for them to speak in an open and honest manner about global warming.

Today it’s former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona making accusations that he was silenced in the name of politics. Carmona, appearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform made the following statement:

“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried. The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds.”

Are we to assume there will always be some skewing of science when it gets into the political arena, but that the Bush Administration has taken it to extremes? Where do we draw the line? Should it be up to Congress or the science community and the community at large to police the use and misuse of science? Obviously Carmona felt like his hands were tied during his tenure as Surgeon General so he didn’t speak out during the debates on embryonic stem cells and abstinence only versus condom use. How do we empower the position to speak out?

Joycelyn Elders was basically fired in 1994 for her controversial remarks that public schools should consider teaching about masturbation. If we have to fire someone for an unpopular but reasonable remark (and given the state of HIV at the time, Elders remark, although ill-considered, was arguably reasonable), how do we protect current surgeon generals in our now politically and religiously charged environment? I don’t have the answers and it worries me. I hope that the Democrats or some other party are also worrying and more importantly thinking of solutions.

“Deport the Pilgrims,” opines the graffiti on the mailbox at 18th and S St., NW in D.C. This urban art illustrates my point exactly. How does a nation WHOLLY comprised of immigrants decide that the doors are closed?

My family came to America in the period between 1860 and the 1880s (albeit legally). I am sure the Anglo-Saxon immigrants that had already settled in New York and Savannah were pretty unhappy when the boatloads of tired, weathered Eastern European Jews showed up on Ellis Island and elsewhere.

I don’t understand how today is any different. I believe the people and the organizations that represent those who have a fear of illegal immigration really have a fear of the un-whitening of America (one ex: http://www.mothersagainstillegalaliens.org). Help us all if America is not a white majority!!

The ongoing guestimate is that we have upwards of 12 million illegal immigrants in America, largely Hispanic. How does maintaining the status quo of the current system actually help to DEAL with this problem? Should we be rounding up hard working illegal immigrants who create a backbone of the U.S. economy (think seasonal agricultural workers in California)? Some of the fallacious arguments on the subject come to mind: illegal (and legal) immigrants stress our welfare system (we have one?), “they” refuse to learn English, “they” won’t assimilate (assimilate into a melting pot? hmm….), “they” don’t respect our laws.

We have to have a plan that deals with the ills of the current system. The status quo of underfunded U.S. agencies, massive raids and deportations, cities pitted against the feds, and splitting families up is just not acceptable. For once I actually liked a plan endorsed by G.W. Bush. Importantly, I think opposition to the plan had a heavily racist tinge to it. What do you make of this ongoing debate?

When is sex ed really Bible study? Only a few years ago, certain federally funded abstinence-only courses were discovered to have, in their curriculum materials, bible quotes requiring girls to be subservient to their husbands. Even without the quotes, federally funded abstinence-only courses are still telling all students that the only way to express one’s sexuality is to remain abstinent until they marry someone of another gender. Regardless of your individual feelings about this teaching, it is a theological requirement, not the factual basis of a health class or sex education.

Sure, comprehensive sex ed will always include the positive aspects of abstinence–it is the only foolproof way to avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases—but including that along with other factual information is a lot different than preaching abstinence-until-marriage as the only way to deal with one’s sexuality. And it certainly does nothing for the approximately 10% of students who are likely to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender except make them even more invisible and discounted than they already are in our society.

It’s not that sex isn’t always on my mind, but this has been an especially “hot” subject in Congress this particular week, as the House Appropriations Committee gets set to vote on how much money to throw at these abstinence-only programs.

The Washington Post had a nice editorial today regarding the recent proposal in Annapolis, Maryland to ban retailers from distributing plastic bags to shoppers. The idea is to get retailers to offer only recycled paper bags and reusable bags, and thus cut down on the environmental costs of making plastic bags and eliminate the clog of plastic litter that threatens the Chesapeake. Though the Annapolis government certainly has good intentions, the Post rightly points out that paper bags aren’t a particularly green alternative to plastic: they’re costlier to make (plastic bags cost 2 cents each, whereas paper bags cost 5 cents) and create more pollution in the process than recycled plastic. Moreover, banning plastic bags isn’t exactly good for business–retailers can swallow the cost of a ban or reflect the cost in higher prices, but in either case business loses out.

The Post offers a much better solution than a complete plastic bag ban, which is to create incentives for customers and retailers to use and offer reusable bags. Examples include Giant Food, which gives discounts to customers who use reusable bags, and IKEA, which charges customers for disposable bags. (Side note: IKEA was given an A- grade for social and environmental responsibility by Better World Shopper.)

Not only do these solutions encourage customers to go green without the costs associated with a plastic bag ban, but they also raise money that can be spent directly on green causes: IKEA donates all the money they earn from disposable bag sales to local community forests. Whoever said that being pro-business and loving the environment can’t jive?