I decided to read up on the Second Amendment after reading this week’s Reuters report stating:

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said. . . . U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

In my reading and searching, Wikipedia tuned me into a disturbing grammatical fact surrounding the Second Amendment. There was a discrepancy in comma usage between the version ratified by the US House and Senate and the version ratified by the first states.

House and Senate version: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

State’s version: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I read the original text as ratified by the House and Senate to inextricably link the right of the people to bear arms to the formation and functioning of militias. The version then sent to the states for ratification removes the non-restrictive participial phrase by deleting the second comma. All of the sudden, the right to bear arms is the central element of the sentence, rather than the ability to maintain well-armed militias. The discrepancy between the two versions, all over a simple comma, has muddled the full understanding of the Second Amendment.

Do you agree with me that this is the comma that armed America?

It’s no surprise that a federal court upheld the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Texas Pledge of Allegiance. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott cited Supreme Court precedent in similar court cases involving the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. But what bothered me most was Abbott’s presumption:

The Attorney General’s brief argues that, instead of conflicting with the First Amendment, the Texas Pledge reflects the constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

Can someone please explain to me how a pledge that identifies with monotheism DOESN’T conflict with the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” part of the First Amendment? The Texas Pledge excludes all nontheists and other religions (Paganism, variations of Hinduism and Buddhism, and others) if we are forced to recognize one God–or any God at all–in its recitation.

It is my hope that the plantiffs will appeal this case so that the Pledge will one day reflect the richness and freedom of our country, without the need to identify with a supreme being.

Alberto Gonzales has until this time refused to step down, in some “Big Brother” type belief that he was the right man to repair the damage he had done–damage he apologized for doing even while denying that he had done it. It makes sense in a “Shrub” sort of way doesn’t it? As does the timing of Gonzales departure.  If Gonzales had left earlier, his then-deputy, Paul McNulty, could have minded the shop until the Senate could confirm a successor. But McNulty has already left the building, so there is no Senate confirmed associate attorney general to hand off the post to until the senate confirms a sucessor to Gonzales. As other key slots also only have temporary occupants, Solicitor General Paul Clement will have to step in. The solicitor general is usually representing the United States before the Supreme Court which comes back in session in October. So you see it’s as if Gonzales resigned at a time guaranteed to cause as much chaos as possible.

This may be an effort to pressure the Senate to confirm a successor who’ll either not investigate, or who will drag his or her feet in doing so. With talk of independent counsels and continued investigations the White House may need to bargain.

This is a scandal that should be rocking the headlines and the country. The coverage seems almost boring. I mean, thanks to the leaked Gonzales memo, (the infamous Geneva Convention memo) this country can never support any United Nations war crimes laws, not only in fear that our soldiers might be tried for war crimes in foreign lands, but that our president might. So we’re investigating Gonzales, and we forced him to resign. But not when the memo first came out. And look who have we left in office.  And so it goes.

Also see The Christian Science Monitor Departures of Gonzales and Rove won’t change Bush’s agenda By Linda Feldmann

I wasn’t going to comment on Tom Krattenmaker’s August 20 USA Today column, “Secularists, what happened to the open mind?” but I keep getting directed back to it. Then I discovered his big question is really Jacques Berlinerblau’s question. So I’m still not going to comment on Krattenmaker, but on atheist writer and religion scholar Berlinerblau’s July 16 WashingtonPost.com question:

Can an atheist or agnostic commentator discuss any aspect of religion for more than 30 seconds without referring to religious people as imbeciles, extremists, mental deficients, fascists, enemies of the common good, crypto-Nazis, conjure men, irrationalists, pedophiles, bearers of false consciousness, authoritarian despots, and so forth? Is that possible?

As a matter of fact Berlinerblau wrote an entire book, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously, which according to the reviews takes on the bible itself without calling religious people any names. So I guess his question really should be, Can an atheist or agnostic commentator besides Jacques Berlinerblau discuss any aspect of religion for more than 30 seconds without referring to religious people as… (et cetera, and so on).

Still, it’s an interesting question. But it begs another question: How long can a theist or evangelical commentator discuss any aspect of atheism or secular humanism without referring to atheist or humanist as something inflammatory or derogatory? Moreover, would anyone bother reading what was written and quote it if it wasn’t?

Look how well Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris have sold. I hadn’t heard of Berlinerblau’s work until he wrote something inflammatory about atheist and agnostic commentatators so that Krattenmaker picked it up. Perhaps I should be more up on atheist author’s like Berlinerblau, but I think you see my point: conflict gets reported by the media.

I’m also not sure about Berlinerblau’s original ideas. On page 131 of the aforementioned book he says, “If secularism is to be perserved as the minority position that it has always been (and should always be), it will need to rethink itself.” Now I don’t know if he just thinks it could never be more than a minority position or if he has an internalized athiest-phobia, but I don’t know why secularism should be a minority position and not a majority position.

I’ll just have to get his book I guess and find out where his opinion is coming from. Maybe I can comment on it without criticizing it. Will anyone read it?

Today is the one-year anniversary of Plan B’s approval for over-the-counter status (OTC). Sales of the drug remain high, though Nancy Keenan of NARAL said many women still don’t know you can now get Plan B without a prescription. If the conservative Family Research Council has their way, this lack of awareness will ultimately matter very little–the group has sued the FDA to overturn their decision to offer Plan B OTC. (Ironically, one of their complaints is that the decision to approve Plan B for OTC was made under political pressure. In fact, the FDA had delayed approval of the drug for years due to what many people–including many within the FDA itself–believed was an inappropriate politicization of the issue.)

To raise awareness of Plan B’s availability, Planned Parenthood created a short PSA and posted it on the internet. Watch it here.

The past few weeks have witnessed an amazing turn in global stock markets. As recently as this June the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached an all-time high of just over 14,000 points, however it has since lost nearly 1,000 points.

Financial experts have pinned the losses on turmoil in what is known as the sub-prime housing market. Namely, foreclosures and late payments on these loans are reaching historic highs and that is having an adverse effect on the banks that issued these loans and, perhaps more importantly, on those investors who bought the divided packages made from these loans–known as “mortgage-backed securities.”

So, you may be wondering, what does this have to do with me or humanism? Maybe your IRA has dropped a few points, a temporary blip in an otherwise healthy market. But is it? Recently, prominent Democratic senators such as Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, and Charles Schumer have suggested that they intend to allow the Federal Housing Agency (FHA) to take on the mortgages of those who are at risk of defaulting in order to preserve the “American Dream.”

Is this right? Why should the government be responsible for protecting people from foreclosure? It seems to me that many of the people who were buying homes in the past three to five years were doing so because they thought that home-buying was the ticket to getting rich quick. I understand that it’s possible that some people were victims to predatory lending, but I believe the overriding responsibility of the government is to allow people to suffer for their poor decision making so as to prevent it from happening again.

What do you think? Is this a cold-hearted, conservative position at odds with a Humanist philosophy, or is it a rational, reasonable response to the excesses of the past few years? Let me know.

In an attempt to put the American people at ease with the concept of remaining in Iraq, the president gave a bumbling, historically inaccurate speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Kansas City yesterday. In his attempt to draw parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, Bush said:

One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people’, ‘re-education camps’, and ‘killing fields’.

What about the 4 million Vietnamese civilians indiscriminately killed in a conflict perpetuated by US involvement? South Vietnam was a dictatorship supported in the vain fight against Communism, and more blood was shed during our long involvement in Vietnam than in the years after the war. That’s the real legacy.

Bush also believes that Iraq is currently a democracy. Ok, yes, they have elections, but there are multiple car bombs a day and hundreds of civilians die a week. I would personally rather lived repressed than in constant fear of dying at the market. And you?

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) sums it up nicely in saying, “instead of providing the country with a history lesson…[Bush] should be reevaluating his flawed strategies.”

On a final note, the Los Angeles Times provides a thoughtful take on yesterday’s speech, saying it contained

rhetoric that would stir any patriot but logic that should persuade few. . . . The real lesson of Vietnam is that its civil war was a nationalist struggle that toppled no communist “dominoes” across Asia. Bush’s rhetoric implying an Al Qaeda “domino effect” in the Middle East has the same false ring.

Sorry Georgie, but maybe you should consult a college student who has taken a modern history class, as I think they may be more help than your current aides.

The latest email from the Institute for Humanist Studies draws attention to an August 18th article in the Chicago Sun Times on the controversy surrounding The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HR 1592), also called the Matthew Shepard Act, which still awaits a Senate vote.

Bishop Harry Jackson, a pastor from Beltsville, MD, and one of more than 30 other black ministers around the country who signed a full-page ad published in the July 11 issue of USA Today protesting the Matthew Shepard Act, had this to say:

“I don’t think somebody else’s lifestyle preference should be made equal to my struggle as a black man. [But] my primary argument with this bill is religious liberty.”

So how do we balance this trade between First Amendment rights and the need to protect individuals and society from hate crimes? Which is more important to Humanists? Moreover, is it fair to equate sexual (or as I prefer “affectional”) preference with race, religion, gender, or physical ability? I think so but not because the struggle of a member of the LGBT community is the same as that of a person of color, a Jewish person, a woman, or a person with a disability. Rather, to unfairly discriminate against, or in this case to attack or injure, anyone because of their membership in a group that you fear or dislike is wrong.

Let me be clear, not all clergy are against The Matthew Shepard Act. In fact some have put up a website in support of it. It is a complex and controversial issue. The U.S. Department of Justice under Janet Reno created A Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes to address this issue in 1997. It’s 77 pages long and the issues have only become more complicated since then.

The Matthew Shepard Act provides funds for expanding coverage of federal hate crimes legislation and for fighting hate crimes, and specifically says it cannot usurp constitutional law–that would include the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. I personally think, given the precedents I’m aware of (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn. and Wisconsin v. Mitchell explained in the above document), if the the Matthew Shepard Act is passed what we will end up with will allow for added penalties for crimes committed that include a bias rather than outlawing speech. However I’m not a lawyer. If people know of other aspects of this law that would change the above precedents I would really like to know about it.

Isn’t it time to put an end to prejudice on the books?

According to an article published yesterday at CommonDreams.org, more than 80 percent of all U.S. toys are now made in China and few of them get inspected. The discovery of dangerous levels of lead paint in toys, jewelry, and bibs–and the recent Mattel toy recall–is finally putting scrutiny on the Bush administration for not taking action to ensure the safety of toys and other imported products. With less than 100 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) inspectors and none in foreign countries, we maybe looking at the era of recalls. The Sierra Club alerted the government to the bib problem. How do we cope if we can’t trust the government to be watchdogs?

By the end of September 2004, the top seven trading partners to the Chinese mainland were the European Union, the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), South Korea, and China’s Taiwan Province, according to state statistics from China’s Ministry of Commerce. At number eight of course is Wal-Mart, although I can never find out if the above U.S. number includes the Wal-Mart total or not. What it does mean is a lot of Chinese goods are coming into a lot of countries. This is important because 60% of the products recalled this year came from China and over three-quarters of our toys our coming from China.

China is the only country out of 48 interested parties to tell a CSPC panel that to bring the lead restrictions in children’s jewelry to the same levels as those imposed on toys and furniture–six parts per million, basically a ban on lead in children’s jewelry–might be a barrier to trade. Since we’ve already seen how well the ban on lead in children’s toys is working via the Mattel and other recalls I don’t know why China is balking. But Guo LiSheng, the deputy director of a Chinese global trade agency, had this to say:

“We agree with the viewpoint of USA of protecting the children’s healthy and safety. And we consider that the method of stick warning mark on the children’s metal jewelry … may be more efficient than setting the limit of lead content.”

Is it China’s fault for resisting control? Or do we blame Wal-Mart for pushing prices down so that suppliers are forced to cut costs no matter what, and how about the Bush administration for cutting the CPSC and siding with business? Bill Maher was recently on Larry King and lamented that on many issues he would look to the Democrats but, “Where’s my champion on this issue?” I think as Humanists we must strive to find champions.

See: Who Regulates America’s Toymakers? in Time and Recent Toy Recalls in the New York Times.

When the dust settled and the Logo candidate forum on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues was over, the press (as well as the LGBT community) focused most of its attention on Governor Bill Richardson’s response to Melissa Ethridge’s question regarding whether he thinks sexual orientation is a choice or is biological. I don’t think the answer to that question should determine whether a minority group receives equal treatment. After all, nontheists (as well as members of theistic religions) can certainly choose their belief systems.

But for me, the most important part of the forum was hearing Senator John Edwards admit that he should not have claimed that it was his religious beliefs which led to his opposition to gay marriage, because he shouldn’t impose his religion on civil law. He stated that he believes strongly in separation of church and state. He then went on to explain that he would still oppose same-sex marriage and would instead work for strong civil unions with exactly the same rights as marriage. [Despite the obvious “separate but equal” logic in this position, he joins Obama, Clinton, and Richards in embracing civil unions instead as a matter of pure political expediency. Richards was more honest about this rationale than the others, though they hinted at it.]

Neither the Secular Coalition for America nor the American Humanist Association makes political endorsements and I am not personally endorsing any candidate or party. I am always thrilled to hear, especially during recent campaigns, any candidate reiterate the importance of church/state separation. It is especially heartening to hear this from Edwards, a candidate who made a disturbing comment questioning the right to “freedom from religion” earlier this year.

The Los Angeles Times recently printed an opinion piece by Nick Street, “Meditation in schools is not a religious practice that raises any church-state issues.” I disagree with this idea (as does the AHA). My letter to the editor was published on July 27th:

Thoughts on meditation

Re: “Take a breath,” Opinion, July 25, 2007

Specific court precedent prohibits teaching transcendental meditation in publicly funded schools. Humanists, Christians, and others came together in the 1979 New Jersey case that led to this ban. They can be expected to unite again should current teaching repeat old mistakes.

If a meditation technique is rooted in transcendental meditation, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other specific religious practice, then it is clearly religious in nature. To pass constitutional muster, a meditation session would need to be completely sanitized of ritualistic sectarian religious undertones. Otherwise it would show a preference for one religious belief over another as well as for belief over nonbelief.

It has been shown that meditation’s benefits can also be attained through a regular midday nap, the use of long-established secular relaxation techniques, and by other means that are clearly free of religious undertones. There is no need to import stealth religion into the public classroom to get children to chill out.

What do you think about meditation in public schools? Is it inherently religious in nature, and therefore should it be banned in public schools? Or can the religious nature of meditation be stripped away to a secular core, making it appropriate for public schools?

And what about the general safety of meditation? The new issue of the Humanist magazine features an interesting story on this topic by Mary Garden titled “Can Meditation Be Bad for You?”

Nick Street’s article is posted online at the Buddhist Society of Western Australia’s website.

Recently, observers of the international scene have noted the declining state of Russian democracy. While it has been over 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of democracy behind from behind the “Iron Curtain,” it seems increasingly likely that the democratic Renaissance has come to an end.

Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his desire to return to the command-and-control years of the Soviet era. For example, he has interfered with the legitimate right of the Russian people to protest. Furthermore, he has clamped down on business owners, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was the founder and CEO of the Yukos oil company, and taken control of these major sectors of the Russian ecomony–under the pretext that these companies owed back taxes to the Russian government.

One of the most widely recognized anti-democratic signals from the Russian administration is of course the mystery surrounding the untimely death of Alexander Litvinenko–the former KGB agent who died from radioactive poisoning in London last year. While there has been no clear evidence to suggest that the Russian government was behind his death, there have been strange signals from the Russian government that suggest they have become wary of the West–namely, their refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, the man that Scotland Yard considers as the prime suspect.

The larger significance? Political trends in one of the world’s top economies affect U.S. foreign policy. So while this country may now be focused on fighting “The Global War on Terror,” it is wise to consider that at some point we may be fighting a Cold War II, if we don’t do something to encourage reforms.

The September/October issue of the Humanist online features a “Web Extra” article by Carl Coon, titled “Beyond the New Atheism.” In it, Coon states:

Something big and creative is happening these days in the continuing search to understand religion from the outside. Theories vary, conclusions have yet to be reached, and division in the scientific community has certainly surfaced.

He briefly describes a back-and-forth between evolutionary biologists David Sloan Wilson and Richard Dawkins, concluding:

While such exchanges wouldn’t appear to unify the secular community, a multiplicity of theories could be turned to its advantage if we were to undertake a full-court press in seriously studying religion from an evolutionary perspective.

What do you think?

Last month after a weekend-long board meeting of the Secular Student Alliance, I sat at the Albany airport for five hours thanks to heavy thunderstorms across the East delaying hundreds of flights. But no complaints, since I was able to finish my newly signed copy of I Sold My Soul on eBay by Hemant Mehta (aka the Friendly Atheist and a fellow SSA board member).

I feel that Hemant’s book is great for Christians looking to understand atheists better. He expresses his honest opinions with an open mind about his visits to several different churches across the country. And even though he could have used the book to convert readers to atheism or badmouth each church he visited, Hemant takes the high road and remains true to his “friendly” form.

So my question to our Christian readers is this: What book would you recommend that could help atheists understand Christians better, without trying to convert the reader? Is there a “Friendly Christian” out there willing to sit with atheists and Humanists and write about his/her experiences?

I tried to blog about a Congressional issue, but it’s too hot, Congress is in recess, and I’m thinking more about my upcoming vacation cruise to Canada with the New York City Atheists, than about how to wrap 200 words around the unwieldy issues surrounding the Christocatic forces pervading the U.S. military (from Christian Embassy video to harassment of nontheistic soldiers to the Pat Tillman investigation, to Defense Department approved “care” packages from religious groups which include evangelical literature translated into Arabic and the Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game, this issue is getting more extensive every day), or the need to hold someone’s feet to the fire regarding the President’s explicitly stated objective of shifting government dollars away from secular social service providers in favor of (and privileging in the process) religious institutions.

No, instead of addressing an issue topic this week, I’m going to brag about what I get to do between now and the end of the month. Before I spend the last week of August on my first real vacation since starting as director of the Secular Coalition for America (in September, 2005), I’ll be heading for New York City later this week, and in addition to a workshop I’m giving and some other meetings this weekend, I’ll have the opportunity to sit down with author Nica Lalli (“Nothing, Something to Believe In”). Nica and I appeared together on a radio show about a month ago, but we didn’t get to chat before or after. Since she lives in New York, we’ll be meeting while I’m there. As I read Nica’s book, I was surprised by all the similarities in our lives – from deciding how not to be a “bad Jew” when you’re also an atheist, to our both having a fundamentalist Christian sibling-in-law. And now, it’s back to work on all those unwieldy, but important, issues.

Maybe you’re a person of a particular religious faith that sees homosexuality as a “mortal sin.” So should you be forced to attend a parade that goes against your religious or philosophical beliefs?

Well, a group of firefighters in San Diego were recently forced to participate in a Gay Pride Parade, despite religious objections:

The firefighters claim parade attendees made obscene gestures, uttered inappropriate remarks and displayed lewd behavior that made them uncomfortable. They also demanded a work environment without discrimination and harassment.

“While I was sitting there waiting for the parade to start, I felt that I was forced against my will to be at the Gay Pride Parade and forced to see men in tight shorts dancing provocatively and other men kissing and hugging wearing sexually suggestive material on T-shirts with writing ‘Girth and Mirth,’ ‘Suit Up Before You Dive In,’ according to the complaint.

“I was forced into a situation that would compromise what I hold true and what I believe in, my reputation, my character, my integrity, my morals, and my religion,” the complaint says.

I’m siding with the firefighters on this one; no one should be forced to attend a rally or parade that they don’t agree with. Your work should provide the opportunity to opt out of such activity due to religious reasons. Hey, I’d complain if a company I worked for made me attend a Catholic Pride event. Why should this be any different?

Note: Special thanks to Rob for passing along this article!

Last week non-religious doctors were lauded for helping the poor. Now comes another case of religion impeding certain doctors from helping certain patients. The Humanist Network News ran a story yesterday about doctors asserting their “right to decline.” More doctors, based on their religious beliefs, are refusing to perform abortions, prescribe the morning-after pill, perform artificial insemination, or even prescribe Viagra.

States are stronger in supporting doctors’ rights not to perform certain services than you might expect. Forty-six states permit the right to refuse to provide abortions, 17 states permit refusal to perform sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation), and 13 states permit refusal to provide contraceptives. Do doctors give up the right to act according to their conscience when they decide to become doctors? Can patients simply go to other doctors or is the embarrassment they suffer when being refused service or being lectured by a doctor too traumatic for patients?

The reason this is in the news again is the case before the California State Supreme Court. Guadalupe Benitez was refused a medical procedure, artificial insemination, because she was a lesbian patient even though the two doctors charged in the case readily provide artificial insemination to heterosexual patients. Other Californians say they were denied artificial insemination or other procedures because of their doctors’ objection to single parenthood.

The doctors in this case want to be able to chose who they will perform services for instead of as in the above issues, choosing what procedures they will or won’t do.

Kenneth Pedroza, the doctors’ attorney, counters that an “all-or-nothing” rule will drive physicians out of certain specialties. But this begs the question, what good is the world’s best heart surgeon to you if he won’t operate on gays and you happen to be gay? Why shouldn’t a doctor be forced at least to choose a specialty based on his religious convictions if he is then going to invoke those convictions to say what procedures he will and will not perform?

See Elaine Friedman, More Doctors Refuse Service Based on Religion and
Freedom of Religion or Discrimination?

Woo Suk Hwang, the leader of the team of disgraced South Korean researchers who claimed to have produced the first stem cells from a cloned human embryo, had, in spite of everything, achieved a significant first. Recent analysis by Children’s Hospital Boston and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts reveals that the cell line Hwangs’ team created represented the first example of parthenogenetic human embryonic stem cells. These type of cells have since been created in several countries and might represent a significant alternative to regular embryonic stem cells, so why aren’t we hearing more about them?

Parthenotes are eggs that divide without sperm, sort of a virgin birth. In some lizards and fish they may produce viable offspring, but not in mammals. Parthenotes typically result in embryos that survive for only a few days or weeks. That still makes them a potential source of embryonic stem cells, and because human parthenote embryos can’t develop to term, this could potentially raise fewer ethical issues around destroying potential life in working with stem cells. The Washington Post goes so far as to say that “embryonic stem cells derived through parthenogenesis cannot develop normally, so they are free of ethical objections.”

After initial genetic analysis on Hwang’s stem cells were inconclusive, Kitai Kim and George Daley of Children’s Hospital and the other Boston scientists got involved. They compared the genetic signatures of mouse embryonic stem cells made through nuclear transfer and those made from parthenogenetic embryos. The pattern seen in the Hwang cell line matched that seen in the mouse parthenote-derived cell lines.

Here’s the kicker– the U.S. prohibits federal funding for working with parthenogenetic embryos. It has been proven that work with parthenotes is much more efficient at producing stem cell lines than the more common nuclear transfer method, and one would think that using parthenotes should be a more sought-after method as we aren’t killing a viable embryo. So where is the hue and cry for this research? Is it too early in the research to know? Does it seem like farming embryos? If so where should humanists come down on this technique?

If ever there was an example of the profoundly “faith-based” nature of Republican politics, than Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is it.

Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts, a stunning fact by itself considering the widely-held view by many Americans that the “Bay State” is a bastion of progressive, liberal politics. Indeed, as governor Romney helped pass a major overhaul of healthcare in Massachusetts that has served as a model for what many progressives believe could be used across the nation. But, what seems to be talked about most is that Romney’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (and only the second Mormon ever to run for president).

Romney has tried to downplay his Mormon faith by saying that the presidency is a “secular office.” But so far it has been backfiring as evidenced by polls that show him trailing front-runner Rudy Guilani in the Republican primary.

The issue came to a head this weekend as evidenced by Jonathan Martin in his Politico.com blog. Romney is shown discussing the issue with a local radio talk-show host in Des Moines, Iowa. As the host presses the issue during a commercial break, Romney clearly becomes more agitated with the issue. While Romney is clearly uncomfortable with the line of questioning, as Martin points out in his blog, the host felt it was an important issue to raise. And I certainly agree. Humanists are all too aware of the increasingly important role that religion and faith is playing in politics and public policy. The interviewer had every right to bring up the issue with Romney and if he is too uncomfortable with the issue, then he needs to consider backing out of the race.

If abortion were illegal, how much jail time should a woman serve for obtaining one?

That’s the question being asked of anti-abortion protesters in a fascinating mini-documentary posted on YouTube. Taking place outside of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill., these series of interviews highlight an aspect of the anti-abortion crusade that in retrospect seems so glaringly obvious that I’m chagrined to admit it’s one which I myself hadn’t considered before. But I’m definitely not the only one — upon being asked how much time women should serve for obtaining hypothetically illegal abortions, protesters in the video appear taken aback, many of them stammering while admitting they’d never given it much thought. When pressed for answers as to the punishment such a crime would warrant, the ones given range from “counseling” to “pray for them.”

If you believe that abortion is murder then it follows that you should endorse severe punishment for women who undergo the procedure. However, most of the protesters seem to shy away from such a position and my guess is that most people in the broader society who identify as pro-life would as well. This logical contradiction — it’s unreasonable to argue abortion is murder but should go lightly punished — illuminates the highly emotional aspect of the abortion debate for anti-choicers: it’s a moral issue, not a rational or even practical one, and who cares about the consequences of a ban? Perhaps if we in the pro-choice camp can begin demanding answers to these sorts of very practical questions we can begin to get anti-choicers to at least consider their position more rationally, if not moderate their stance.