No good deed goes unpunished, as is illustrated once again with yesterday’s rebuke of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders by East County Republicans for recently reversing his position on gay marriage. The mayor, a moderate Republican who had long been against gay marriage but for civil unions, last week held an emotional press conference in which he recanted his previous position and pledged to sign a bill passed by the San Diego City Council in support of same-sex marriage. While holding back tears, Sanders explained that,

I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation.

Mayor Sanders should be lauded, not criticized, for his amazing show of integrity. The reversal is politically very risky—San Diego is a generally conservative city and Sanders faces re-election in which he’s challenged from the right. But, as Sanders acknowledged, his daughter and one of his staffers is gay, and, “In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana.”

Politicians and pundits have argued against Sanders’ position by pointing out that the majority of San Diegans are against gay marriage and thus Sanders is ignoring the will of the people. But politicians don’t just have the responsibility to serve by following popular sentiment; they also have the responsibility to protect minority rights, no matter how unpopular such measures may be. If the right to marry is up to a majority vote then it’s not really a “right” at all. Can you imagine many heterosexual couples tolerating the government deciding they were undeserving of marriage and they’d just have to be content with a civil union instead? Certainly not. In fact, that marriage means so very much to people is exactly why gay marriage is such a big issue in the first place, and also points to the whole Jim Crow-esque feeling of civil unions.

Thus, no matter how politically unpopular supporting gay marriage might be, it’s the right thing to do. I only wish that there were more politicians like Jerry Sanders across the U.S. willing to take a political hit for what they know in their hearts to be just (Ahem, Dick Cheney?). Here’s hoping his courageous move will inspire others to follow suit.

On August 15^th, 2007, the Burmese military dictators raised gasoline and natural gas prices by as much as 500 percent, citing global rises in fuel prices and a constricted supply. Serving as the straw that broke the camel’s back in this socially repressive, economically depressed, and technologically deprived South East Asian nation of about 50 million, small protests erupted in many cities around the country. Growing in fervor and size every day during August, despite threats of action by the generals, these first protests in almost 10 years in Burma brought international attention once again to the despotic regime and their suffering people.

As the protests gained momentum, the junta physically assaulted protesters and attempted to incite rioting using plain-clothed security forces. The junta used these same tactics rather effectively during the failed 1988 uprisings, but things would be different this time. This time, the monks are taking the lead.

Buddhism has in it a special place reserved for reverence of enlightened rulers who make laws using and upholding Buddha’s teachings. For centuries, Burmese leaders have claimed legitimacy through the practice, protection, and promotion of Buddhism, in a similar tradition to the kings of Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. The military junta, in the shadow of the kings, claims to be upholding the teachings of the Buddha and his followers. It is the monks, as the clergy in Buddhism, who, in performing sacrament and accepting alms, signal to the people that the government is upholding these teachings, including tolerance, understanding, compassion, and purposeful social actions. But any glance at the various annual reports on the disastrous human rights situation in the country makes it clear that the junta is not walking in the shadow of Buddha or the ancient Burmese kings, but more marching with the likes of Pol Pot and Mao. And so, after 20 years of deadly silence, the monks are engaging in a boycott of the government. The junta can no longer claim to be working in the name of Buddha.

It appears that the lack of separation of church and state in Burma has actually helped the chances of this Saffron Revolution’s success. Because the monks are boycotting the junta, and since the junta claims legitimacy based on Buddhism, it is precisely the lack of separation between the church and state that may bring down the government.

No one can say for sure where this Saffron Revolution will lead. Just today in Burma up to 7 monks and nuns were killed, tens more injured, and hundreds more arrested. But the people didn’t retreat; 100,000 took to the streets despite the mounting violence. The thoughts of the world are with the Burmese people and their monks in their time of need.

As the popular Burmese freedom chant goes, “Do Ye, Do Ye, Democracy Yashi Ye!”—”Our Cause, Our Cause, Democracy Now!”

[UPDATE: As of September 28th, the military has cut internet communications off, occupied key monasteries (sieged in the night), arrested hundreds of monks, and killed at least 200 unarmed protesters and monks. But the people continue to march, with near to 100,000 taking to the streets of Rangoon for an 11th day.]

Senator John McCain’s recent declaration, “I’m not Episcopalian, I’m Baptist,” would seem to be not only well scripted but carefully calculated. After all, a presidential candidate who throws out the fact that his religious affiliation is not what almost everyone in the country believed it to be is inviting scrutiny and its bedfellow, publicity.

The Associated Press (AP) asked McCain on Saturday how his Episcopal faith plays a role in his campaign and life. McCain grew up Episcopalian and attended an Episcopal high school in Alexandria, VA.

“It plays a role in my life. By the way, I’m not Episcopalian. I’m Baptist,” McCain said. “Do I advertise my faith? Do I talk about it all the time? No.”  But he does apparently use it to gain political momentum and publicity.

This is one of the reasons I think that religious faith should not be a question we are allowed to ask a political candidate. A cynic (as I obviously am) would say he’s using his faith for votes. We’re obviously using faith as a litmus test in this case; Episcopalian is acceptable with a ph of 5 but Baptist is better with a ph of 7.

According to the Associated Baptist Press the AP story was picked up by scores of newspapers and on several national television news programs. McCain even got air time on CNN to explain that he had been raised an Episcopalian but had attended North Phoenix Baptist Church “for many years.” And then he got to bring it all home: “And the most important thing is that I am a Christian, and I don’t have anything else to say about the issue.”

He doesn’t have to. He’s already indicated he’d give the religious right every thing they want—overturning Roe v. Wade, restrictions on gay marriage, alternatives to evolutionary theory in the curriculum, vigilance on Islamic radicalism, school vouchers, and so much more. The only thing he isn’t right on for the conservative is stem cell research. As Jacques Berlinerblau says, “McCain delivers like no other first-tier Republican. Even if he were Wiccan, Evangelicals would have to put aside their revulsion for skyclad pagans and consider his candidacy very seriously.”

We can’t ask a job candidate their religion before hiring them, so why can we talk so freely about a political candidates religion? This is an unfair practice and yet we as the American Public revel in it. How as Humanists can we condone this practice? Or better yet, how can we best lead the public away from this practice? 

The well-publicized Jena story started on September 1, 2006, when a black high school student in Jena, Louisiana asked an administrator if he could sit underneath a tree in the courtyard where traditionally only white students sat. The administrator told him that he could sit wherever he wanted. The next day there were nooses hanging in the tree. No action was taken as the nooses were written off as a prank and not a threat aimed at the students who had dared to sit under the tree the day before. When black students protested, the local district attorney threatened that he could take their life away with a “stroke of my pen.”

After a series of alarming altercations where authorities time after failed to do the right thing, a black youth named Mychall Bell punched Justin Barker, a white youth who had taunted him with racial slur. Several of his friends joined the fray. They would become the Jena 6. Barker,who hit his head on the pavement went to the hospital, but was released that day and even went to a school function that night. The six black students were for some reason charged with attempted murder. It took a national outcry to reduce the charges to conspiracy and battery.

The impact of this case, especially from a Humanist perspective is summed up brilliantly by Bell’s Lawyer, Louis Scott:

Immediately after the facts were explained, I can remember thinking, Wow, this is a 1957 case that jumped into 2007. This is my second reaction, that the tree symbolized America. And the question was, Can all Americans share the shade of the system that we operate under? But the next thing that happened was the most frightening thing of all: They cut the tree down. I was hoping that didn’t symbolize the attitude of America, that before we allow some Americans to share the same rights, the same privileges and the same responsibilities, we’ll just get rid of the whole thing. It seemed to me that that was the message to be conveyed. If Americans allowed this to occur, that would be the first step toward unraveling the civil rights gains of the last fifty years.

Scott may not be a Humanist, but his question resonates: Can we all share the American system? Are we so frightened that we have to tear the things we love apart or break them down rather than let people who are different from us share even the tiniest piece?

The latest events in the gay marriage controversy occurred on September 18th when Maryland’s Court of Appeals upheld a 34-year-old state law defining marriage as the union of husband and wife, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry. The judges in a 4-3 decision acknowledged that LGBT people have been targets of discrimination, but held that the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state’s interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children. However the judges gave advocates another tactic to pursue. Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. writing for the majority said this:

Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex.

I didn’t know the state had an interest in promoting procreation. (Maybe we should have a Day of Conception like they do in Russia.) Nor do I see how gay marriage infringes on the state’s interest in protecting children. So how do Humanists view this issue?

Another story relating to the gay marriage issue appeared in the New York Times: “Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue.” The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization in New Jersey is losing it’s tax exemption for a Boardwalk Pavilion it owns after the group rejected the requests of two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies at the Pavilion. Lisa Jackson, the state commissioner on environmental protection, said this:

When people hear the words “open space,” we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people. And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.

Read the rest of this entry &raquo

As fellow Rant & Reason blogger Lisa Smith reported on Wednesday, Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers sued God for causing “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

Believe it or not, “God” has responded. According to the AP story:

Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he’s trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.

Not so, says “God.” His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.

It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.

“I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you,” according to the response, as read by Friend [John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha].

There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.

To the person who wrote the court filing, (because—let’s face it—it was a human being), thanks for making many Humanists and atheists laugh this morning.

Yesterday if you overheard people on the subway blurt out “shiver me timbers” or saw a few more people donning pirate hats than usual it wasn’t because there’s a new Pirates of the Caribbean movie out and you completely missed the memo. It’s because it was International Talk Like a Pirate Day—a day when everyone in the world can join together in brotherhood and, well, talk like pirates.

Yarr.

Though most people may pass off the day as a fun excuse to sneer, drink rum, and terrorize parrots, few people realize that it’s actually a religious holiday—ITLaPD is observed by Pastafarians, who believe that pirates are divine beings. Pastafarian is basically a peaceful religion whose adherents keep to themselves, although it did have a run-in with the Kansas School Board a few years back…

A state senator in Nebraska has filed a lawsuit against God, who he accuses of causing untold death and horror and threatening to cause more still. God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear, and caused “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.” The Omaha senator, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, also says God has caused “fearsome floods . . . horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes.”

State Senator Ernie Chambers is seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty to make a point about frivolous lawsuits. Although the case that set him off doesn’t necessarily seem frivolous to me. Personally, I’d be pretty pissed of if I was involved in a rape case and couldn’t use the words “rape” or “sexual assault” when testifying.

Anyhow his point is the court is open to all cases regardless of their merits. In theory this should be a good thing so that we can all be free to seek redress of wrongs but is it a good thing? Should the courts indeed be open to all lawsuits? Are the million dollar drycleaning incidents the price to protect our rights?

Humanists should get to know a little more about Senator Ernie Chambers. Here is a man who could be a champion for me even if he isn’t a Humanist. He’s good on a lot of issues that make me wish he was a U.S. Senator or even a presidential candidate.

This past weekend, the Boston Globe Magazine featured an excellent article on the rise of non-theists in America. What’s even more refreshing is that the article took the time to point out the distinction between atheism and humanism.

Particularly encouraging was the article’s focus on the increasing attraction of young nontheists to organized secularism. For example, the article points out the following statistics:

The number of campus groups affiliated with the Secular Student Alliance, for example, has increased by more than 50 percent in the past two years, to more than 80 groups, says August E. Brunsman IV, executive director of the Albany, New York-based alliance.

I can certainly attest to this trend just by looking around the AHA’s offices. More than half of our staff is under the age of 30. It is certainly interesting to wonder why this might be the case. Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that this generation—the children of the Baby Boomers —have grown up seeing the perverse side of religion. This includes most notoriously the attacks on 9/11 and the rise of the Christian Right here in the U.S.

But, as the article also goes on to state, the rising tide of nontheists (or “nonbelievers” as the article uses, a term that I, personally, dislike) has drawn criticism for what others see as a bombastic and anti-religious nature. Personally, I don’t see a problem in pointing out the failures of religion, but if others feel threatened by nontheists/Humanists, then perhaps they need to look deeper into their own belief system and question it themselves.

What do you think? Should Humanists tread carefully when pointing out the flaws of the religiously-inclined or should we go full force ahead?

When the Bureau of Prisons came up with their list of “approved” religious books for prison libraries, I suspect they included as approved the book which contains this incendiary violent tract: “… If it is proved and confirmed that such a hateful thing [serving other gods than one’s own] has taken place among you, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword.” Surely, the list would not exclude the Bible, in which the preceding quote appears in Deuteronomy 13:12-16.

It’s not that I believe they SHOULD censor the above—books don’t kill people; people with guns, knives, bombs, etc. are generally responsible for killing people. I suppose if a book thrown at just the right angle were to hit an artery, well … I’ll leave that for the forensics experts.

It looks like the response to this censorship is going to be using the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which along with its predecessor, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), makes members of certain religious groups exempt from rules and regulations with which everyone else is required to comply. In everything from following zoning laws to the right of possibly violent groups to assemble in prisons, RFRA and RLUIPA are being invoked to take advantage of the different and privileged position which members of specific religions receive. These Congressional Acts allow members of the UDV Church to legally use hallucinogenic drugs, but if anyone else does so, it’s a crime. RLUIPA sets a different standard for the doubling in size of a megachurch as compared with an individual adding a fourth floor to her three-story townhouse, when both require zoning variances—amazingly, the huge megachurch has MORE right to its expansion.

Rather than fight a “war on books,” perhaps Congress should take a hard look at the laws they passed which make it impossible to apply the same standard to actions by members of certain religions as those to which the rest of us must adhere.  RFRA and RLUIPA need to be revised or repealed.

A picture of Jesus will be allowed to continue hanging in the Slidell courthouse as a result of some quick thinking by the Slidell City Court.

The court changed the display to include 15 other people who were important to legal history. There is also a reproduction of the U.S. Constitution and a notice posted to explain the significance of the each of the 16 figures.

U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle said that he would have ruled that the lone picture of Jesus constituted a religious display and that one legal question remains—whether the city must pay the ACLU’s legal fees. The judge said that could be the case because the group’s lawsuit was what prompted the change to the display. He scheduled a hearing on that question for October 18.

Both sides are claiming victory in this lawsuit since the image of Jesus remains, but by adding the extra paintings the city court made the religious seem secular. According to the Alliance Defense Fund:

The court today recognized that the First Amendment allows public officials, and not the ACLU, to determine what is appropriate for acknowledging our nation’s legal and cultural heritage.

The ACLU quoted Judge Ivan Lemelle:

As much as we might like the image—I might make a copy and frame it in my house . . . I’m not going to display it in my courtroom.

So who really wins in this case? The separation of church and state was better respected by the new display, but will this inspire more religious works to go on display with disingenuous notes explaining their significance to the legal field? I fear the right has found a loophole in this case. The question remains how big that loophole is, but I don’t rest easy with this decision.

The National Secular Society of Great Britain reported that Prince Harry “declined the opportunity to give a religious reading” at the 10th anniversary memorial service for the late Princess Diana, opting instead to give a personal eulogy. The text of his speech contains no overtly religious themes—or even a reference to God.

But does that mean Prince Harry—third in line to the British throne who would also hold the title of “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” if he were to become King—is an atheist?

Well, let’s not be too quick to claim Harry as “one of us.” His elder brother, Prince William, electing to read Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians in the Bible. Perhaps there was no need to give another, and Harry instead opted to give a special, more personalized tribute to his mother, making the NSS’s wording of Harry “declining the opportunity to give a religious reading” questionable.

Maybe it’s just better that we only call someone an atheist if they’ve stated—loud and clear—that they don’t believe in a god.

This weekend the New York Times reported on a startling occurance in Utah, whereby teenage boys are being abandoned by their parents for having engaged in the “deadly sin” of watching blockbuster movies.

Consider these passages from the story on members of a polygamous settlement largely controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and ponder for a second how depraved and outright “messed up” this is.

When his parents discovered his secret stash of DVDs, including the “Die Hard” series and comedies, they burned them and gave him an ultimatum. Stop watching movies, they said, or leave the family and church for good.

With television and the Internet also banned as wicked, along with short-sleeve shirts — a sign of immodesty — and staring at girls, let alone dating them, Woodrow made the wrenching decision to go. And so 10 months ago, with only a seventh-grade education and a suitcase of clothes, he was thrown into an unfamiliar world he had been taught to fear.

Is it really all that surprising that people this fanatically devoted to a religion would do something so horrendous to their own family members?  After all, this is the same group/cult whose leader was recently arrested for having sex with minors–whom he considered to be his wives. 

I’m tempted to wonder if the First Amendment’s protection between the church and state applies to a group like this?  If so, is any group allowed to claim themselves a religion and then engage in any sort of unlawful activity–all the while proclaiming it “official church doctrine”?  It makes one wonder whether the framers had this in mind when they were writing the Constitution–then again, one has to consider that such crazy religious activity has been with us for centuries (e.g., the Puritans burning of witches).

In an online piece titled “Liberals Love the Sin and Hate the Sinner,” conservative columnist Star Parker tells us that:

“Democratic politicians, who now are quietly luxuriating in the Craig scandal and Republican Party woes, will tell us that what they’re about is fairness, income gaps, two Americas and the poor.”

Her thesis is that Senator Larry Craig’s (R-ID) personal behavior has nothing to do with the validity and relevance of the traditional values he espoused before the scandal he is now embroiled in. I agree with her, it’s just that I don’t think they were valid to begin with. I think raising healthy, happy children who will grow up to fulfilled by being active in society and by following their own gifts are the best family value. I think this can be achieved in a one- or two-parent household, and I don’t think it matters what sex the parents are.

She sites Lawrence Mead, a professor of politics at New York University and author of seven books on poverty and welfare reform. He provides his conclusions as to the roots and causes of poverty:

“Although impediments to working may still affect some people, poverty is overwhelmingly a result of dysfunctional patterns of life. Families are poor in America in 2007 typically because unmarried parents have children and then do not work regularly to support them. … It has become difficult to avoid the conclusion that serious poverty in America is rooted in the culture of the poor.”

Read the rest of this entry &raquo

A federal judge temporarily blocked a new Missouri abortion law Monday after Planned Parenthood said the law would harm women by dramatically reducing the clinics available to provide the procedure. The new law, Missouri Senate Bill 370, would categorize any facility that provides more than five first-trimester abortions a month, or any second- or third-trimester abortions as outpatient surgery centers.

The law requires the facilities to meet specific state building, staffing, and health standards. These standards include regulations such as requiring that hallways at the facilities be at least six feet wide and doors at least 44 inches wide.

U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith granted Planned Parenthood a temporary injunction after hearing the argument that the organization would have to halt abortions at its Columbia and Kansas City offices–either permanently or while expensive and “medically unnecessary” renovations were made. Ortrie will hold a hearing today, September 10, to determine if the injunction should be made permanent.

Some conservatives claim that if Planned Parenthood truly wanted abortions to be safe, legal, and rare, they would be all about supporting this bill. But what about the charges that the law does little to support safety and in reality merely puts “medically unnecessary” blocks up to women getting abortions?

This law and the conservative response to it seem like scare tactics and false advertising to me. If we really want to make abortion safe, legal, and rare, we would provide real sex education, provide condoms, and have better laws protecting women in general against domestic violence and rape. Plan B would be made more accessible especially for rape and incest victims and if an abortion has to be performed we would make it possible early in the pregnancy. I think those are the humane choices, but how do other Humanists weigh in on this issue? Do you agree that clinics should be treated like outpatient surgery centers, even if they only prescribe medication? Or do you think they should be exempted from this law because of the nature of what they do?

1. “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.”
Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003

2. “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.”
Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

3. “I’m also mindful that man should never try to put words in God’s mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God.”
Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2005

4. “Well, first of all, you got to understand some of my view on freedom, it’s not American’s gift to the world. See, freedom is God — is God given.”
Interview with TVR, Romania, Nov. 23, 2002

5. “And there’s nothing more powerful in helping change the country than the faith — faith in Dios.” National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., May 16, 2002

6. “God bless the people of this part of the world.”
Minneapolis, Minnesota, Aug. 4, 2007

(Thanks to Atheist Perspective for compiling the list from Dubya Speak and bringing it to my attention. The complete list can be found here. )

During the course of a recent online journey through the wonderful world of conservative blogs, I was distracted by an strange advertisement for “The Nazareth Cross: the World’s Largest Cross.” Based on the picture used in the ad I didn’t think it could be real. I was mistaken.

Yes, the Nazareth Cross Project aims to build a 60 meter (180 foot) tall cross in the northern Israeli city of Nazareth, which is widely considered to be the birth place of Jesus.The website for the project is mostly an effort to get people to donate the funds needed to build the cross. Donors will be able to include their personal engraving on one of the 7.2 million tiles that will adorn the cross. These tiles will be made of local stone, gold, silver, or platinum, depending on the generosity of the donor. Since the website exists primarily to bring in donations, I am somewhat comforted by the possibility that this is all a scam.

Of Nazareth’s 64,800 inhabitants, approximately 70% are Muslim. I wonder how they feel about this? Is it really helpful to have a 180-foot cross obstructing the skyline of this predominantly Muslim city? Sadly, the crusades of the high Middle Ages continue to serve as a powerful symbol and starting point in a long history of perceived Western meddling in the Middle East. Well, here we have a newer, more tangible 180-foot, gold/silver/platinum plated symbol of Western meddling.

That oughta win a few hearts and minds, not that we’re doing a very good job anyways.

Common Dreams reports that Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are demanding an investigation of Daniel Cooper, President George W. Bush’s undersecretary for benefits at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Cooper made an appearance in a fundraising video for the evangelical group Christian Embassy, which carries out missionary work among the Washington elite.

VCS and the MRFF are arguing that Cooper violated the First Amendment by advocating a particular religion while on the job. They also believe Cooper violated ethics rules that prohibit government officials from using their name, picture, or title for proselytizing or fundraising.

In the video, Cooper says of his Bible study,

It’s not really about carving out time, it really is a matter of saying what is important. And since that’s more important than doing the job—the job’s going to be there, whether I’m there or not.

“We’re very concerned about this because hundreds of thousands of veterans are waiting for their benefits while Cooper himself says that promoting his religion is more important than helping the veterans,” Veterans for Common Sense’s Paul Sullivan told IPS.

Sullivan’s right. Even if Cooper had made the video on his own time (which he didn’t) he’s still endorsing a particular religion from an official position of authority. Given the military’s propensity toward proselytizing (see the latest Humanist magazine, or the LA Times, “Not So Fast, Christian Soldiers”), this appears to be just the latest violation of church and state therein. Cooper needs to be letting veterans know they are his number-one priority, not that he’ll amble off to pray since the job will still be there. We as Humanists need to support groups like Veterans for Common Sense and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation that bring issues like this to light. We also need to be sure this isn’t skewed as an argument about Cooper’s right to pray, because it isn’t about that at all. He has every right to pray, just not when he is supposed to be working on the taxpayers’ dime to get veterans their benefits.

A recent Henry Payne cartoon depicts a news editor shouting to his troops “I want that family-values hypocrite senator’s head on a platter…unless he’s a democrat in which case stay out of his private life!” I bet Bill Clinton and Gary Hart wish that were true.

Outing Republicans as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users has become modern sport for hypocrisy hounds and general muckrakers. It’s almost replaced outing celebrities as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users. Unfortunately, it very definitely has pushed aside some other real news and seriously altered the public discourse.

I mean, why are so few people asking, Why are undercover cops hanging out in restrooms instead of looking for terrorists? Did word come down that we are done looking for terrorists and I missed it? How about solving real crimes like burglaries and murders? And while everyone is busy being disgusted and disappointed with Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), why don’t we issue the same level of vitriol at the war in Iraq, or Alberto Gonzales’s failure to seemingly endorse rather than expose the criminal behavior emanating from the White House. Are we not disgusted by that?

Humanists would do well to focus their energy on trying to change the discourse of media spin and restore some reason to the general debate. Is the issue that Senator Craig is a possibly a homosexual or that when he was caught breaking the law, he tried to hide it from his constituency and even his family? Are police officers in public restrooms engaging in a form of entrapment or is it a necessary and legal means of protecting the community? These are the real questions of the Larry Craig scandal and the ones that should be getting the most air time.

As titillating as it is for progressives to watch Republicans implode, is there a way to find something there that brings people into reasonable and rational discussion about Humanist issues such as justice, quality of life, and bringing our abilities to the greater good of humanity? If there is, how do we influence the discussion? If not, how do we move the discussion in new directions?

On August 29, 2007 Buzz Flash awarded its Wings of Justice Award to Mary Pipher. Mary Pipher is best known for her book, Reviving Ophelia which was a New York Times bestseller for 150 weeks. She received the Buzz Flash award for returning the prestigious Presidential Citation award from the America Psychological Association in protest over the group’s policy on military and CIA interrogations.

At its annual convention in August the APA’s policymaking council voted 85% to 15% to reject a measure to ban its members from participating in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and other US detention centers. Instead, a resolution was approved that prohibited psychologists from direct or indirect participation in 19 “unethical” interrogation techniques and called upon the U.S. government to ban their use.

The vote upset Pipher, who has worked with victims of torture and has seen the lifelong harm it can inflict. Pipher also criticized loopholes in the resolution on such techniques as sensory and sleep deprivation, which cause people to fall apart very quickly.

I think Pipher’s actions are in the best spirit of Humanist action even if she isn’t a Humanist. Here is someone taking a stand, even against the community she works in, because the actions of that community are not right. Here is a champion. And if you read her letter or listen to her interview on Democracy Now you will see she is both brave and compassionate even in struggle with an advisary.