Yesterday on the DC Metro (Washington’s subway) I listened as a rather loud man carried on about the problems in this world. Fairly typical fare for the ride home. Then he saw a man wearing yarmulke skullcap who was just sitting there apparently doing work. The noisy man asked the man in the skullcap if he’d ever been in some middle eastern city and the seated man answered no, but that he’d been near there and he looked up expecting to chat about that area of the world a bit. But the noisy man suddenly yelled, “This man is an Israelite! He is an enemy. And I am a Muslim! So call your police! Do you think I am afraid?” I think that’s what he said. I heard the threat and I heard him say he wasn’t afraid of the police. I was in shock.

Fortunately the doors opened and the noisy man’s friends pushed him off the car. It was also my stop. And as I walked by the man in the skullcap I tried to apologize for what had happened, but the strangest thing happened. My mouth was moving but no words were coming out. I met his eyes and he smiled very weakly and sighed and nodded at me and then I was out the door.

Somehow this scenerio—a Muslim verbally attacking a Jew and then an atheist trying to say I’m sorry—just felt so surreal. Maybe it mirrored the kind of thing that is played out on a larger scale every day although we could have changed the players around and thrown in a Christian for good measure. Maybe it was seeing that kind of anger over religion up close that took me aback.

I fear for us if getting home isn’t safe, if the anger of religion is seeping into our day to day lives. This isn’t what I expect or believe is correct. I want Humanists to work with religious groups but I don’t want to see more of that behavior.

I’m also certainly not characterizing all Muslims; it was pretty clear this guy had some behavior issues. But I have been preached at on buses by men carrying bibles who made children cry. Another time I and several others felt the need to apologize to a Jewish man when a zealot sat next to him and preached loudly for an hour-long ride because he loved the chosen people and felt honored to reach out to God’s chosen lost ones.

I’ve always believed that freedom of speech covered all this aggravation and I just tried to filter it out. But I’m not so sure anymore. When does it cross the line? Is singling out a Jewish person to preach the good news to any less onerous than threating him? The former may be viewed as being loving, but doesn’t the “lovee” get any say in the matter? If you’re driving someone half insane by trying to get them to be like you or by castigating them in public haven’t we gone past the First Amendment? As Humanists, do we have to go all the way with free speech?

Doonesbury appears to have, at least temporarily, finished with the story arc of young Dana Perino, the White House press secretary struggling to find the voice of Bush. In the last frame, speaking about not caring what Al Gore wears to the awards ceremonies for the Nobel prize because this president isn’t into “the awards scene,” she appears to have found something of the essence of Bush.

Well, what plays for the comics also plays in real life. At an October 24th press briefing, Perino was asked to respond to her statement that there are health benefits to climate change.

MS. PERINO: Sure. In some cases, there are—look, this is an issue where I’m sure lots of people would love to ridicule me when I say this, but it is true that many people die from cold-related deaths every winter. And there are studies that say that climate change in certain areas of the world would help those individuals. There are also concerns that it would increase tropical diseases and that’s—again, I’m not an expert in that, I’m going to let Julie Gerberding testify in regards to that, but there are many studies about this that you can look into.

Not since Reagan explained that trees cause more pollution than automobiles have we had so impressive a use of the power of spin. It merely remains to be seen if the public rolls over for this one or if we stand up and say “Oh, puh-lease” or something perhaps more politically challenging.

OK, in trying to determine why I haven’t found the time to write on a weekly basis, it came to my attention that I am traveling out-of-town about 25 times a year. (When I’m in town, I’m preparing lobby materials or engaging in lobbying activities.) So I thought I’d write today about some of the wonderful experiences I enjoy by spending a couple of weekends a month visiting groups outside the beltway.

When individuals offer home hospitality, it saves the Secular Coalition for America the cost of a motel, but it also affords me the opportunity to get to know some of the individuals who participate in freethought groups throughout the United States. I’ve enjoyed being hosted by artists, writers, architects, parents, and pet-owners. I have spent time in homes which had the wonderful bonus of original art on so many walls, that the visit felt like being treated to an evening at a museum. I can say from experience, artistic talent is definitely not lacking in nontheists. Nor is there a want for great writers, crafts-people, or loving families among us.

I also get a “real-life” feel for a number of different cities around the United States. This is more intriguing to me than just being a tourist, and affords me the opportunity to add to my “list of cities I might want to retire to in eleven years.” Yes, I savor the couple of weekends a month I spend at home in DC. But there is much to be said for meeting the wonderful nontheists who are living and thriving throughout the United States.

I recently read Frank Rich’s October 14 Op-ed, “The ‘Good Germans’ Among Us” in the New York Times and Gordon Marino’s October 22 Huffington Post blog in response. Both made very powerful points about torture and our response to torture in America.

Rich’s point is that we in America have reached the point that if we aren’t vocally and perhaps actively against torture we are implicitly sanctioning it. From Rich’s Op Ed piece:

We [as Americans] are too slow to notice, let alone protest, the calamities that have followed the original sin. The longer we stand idly by…the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo.

It’s a thought that Humanists might want to consider. The longer we wait to demand change the more complicit we become in this administration’s crimes. Further, as Marino points out, we must be aware of our reasons for being against acts of not just torture, but war crimes of all sorts. It is easy to argue pragmatically about the unreliability of torture, but that leaves our humanity behind. Or do we accept that there are certain times that the needs of the many justify the torture of a few? I don’t believe that we as Humanists can justify it that way. As Morino says in his blog:

Those of us who would swear off the kinds of practices that we have been subcontracting to other nations have to separate the moral from the practical arguments. We have to maintain that there are some practices, like slavery, that are unconditionally wrong and never under any circumstances permissible. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the premise for this position and clearly instructs us that there are limits to what one human being can do to another without losing his or her humanity.

You should have seen the U.S. senator’s eyes widen when I told him that there was a national atheist conference with 550 participants and a waiting list of 600 in DC last month (Atheist Alliance International). I’m often asked on lobby visits, “How many people do you represent?” During my first two years as director of the Secular Coalition for America, there has been an incredible increase in numbers of nontheists throughout the United States who affiliate with organized groups.

The American Humanist Association and other SCA member organizations have seen tremendous growth in just the past couple of years. 2008’s international conference in Washington, DC, June 6-8, should be tremendous. The SCA’s second lobby day, dubbed Secular Activists Voices to Educate Day (SAVED), to be held on June 9, 2008, should be just as effective as our first (held in conjunction with the AAI conference) but larger. The first SAVED event brought a small, but highly motivated and influential group of citizen lobbyists into Congress. We are still using the contacts made through those visits in our lobbying.

So, when it comes to clout in Congress, and in society … yes, size does matter. And the active and “out” status of affiliated nontheists does matter.

I started reading this at Think Progress. On October 15, 2007, President Bush appointed Susan Orr to oversee federal family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) saying she was “highly qualified.” Before serving with HHS Orr has made some rather telling remarks.

In a 2001 article in The Washington Post, Orr applauded a Bush proposal to stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr, then an official with the Family Research Council. Orr also wrote an article for Family Research Council Called “Real Women Stay Married”. In it she claimed that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.” She has declared herself against taxpayers supporting birth control and in a 2000 Weekly Standard article Orr spoke out against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice. It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”

Remember, Orr’s HHS role is not just symbolic. She will oversee a $283 million program, a $30 million program that encourages abstinence among teenagers, and HHS’s Office of Population Affairs, which funds birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling, and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

According to the Carpetbagger ReportOrr will have “extensive power to shape the kinds of information disseminated to millions of women, and will be able to develop new guidelines for clinics, set priorities, and determine how scarce dollars get spent.” The last thing we need is a family planning office headed by someone opposed to family planning. It doesn’t even make sense. Giving someone a job based on their political views is wrong, but seeking their religious views is just as wrong and is clearly doing damage to our country. This type of cronyism needs to end. No more litmus tests other than the right job skills for the job.

Thanks to Ned from the local atheist meet up I saw an article that asserts Atheism’s moral philosophy not consistent with Baylor’s mission, or so says Dr. Roger Olson, a professor of theology in George W. Truett Theological Seminary.

Here is his message in a nut shell:

Christians should be the last people to persecute anyone—including atheists. But that doesn’t mean Christians have to accommodate atheism as they tolerate and love atheists.

So far, at least, atheists haven’t demonstrated their concern for others in any organized way.

Except when the AHA and other atheist organizations collected donations from atheists to support disaster relief after the Tsunami struck and after Hurrican Katrina. Nor do we organize to email or write our congressional representatives against laws we disagree with especially laws that take civil liberties away from us and our fellow citizens. There is Camp Quest for secular kids and we also have Humanist Celebrants who provide Humanist, nonreligious, and interreligious weddings, memorials, baby naming, and other life-cycle ceremonies. I think atheists have done as good a job as any group at working to protect their fellow citizens in an organized way.

I only hope we continue to move in the same spirit of cooperation that we have been moving lately because then the nation will be even more aware of the moral and dignified character of their atheist neighbors. Perhaps at that point we can hope to overcome some of the fear that Dr. Olsen so obviously feels towards us and that many others seem to share. I look forward to a day that we don’t need to drag our good works out to prove our morality but I can testify with the best of them if that is what we need to do.

Europe has issued a resolution against an “evil American phenomenon”. It’s not pornography or violence in our Hollywood movies. Nor does it have to do with abortion or stem cells. On October 4, 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution titled “The dangers of creationism in education.” The resolution includes twenty points but I think point 11 and 15 are the most important and elegant expressions of the reason why Humanists and others join in the fight to keep evolution taught in our schools:

11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

15.The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

Do Muslim doctors have the right to refuse treatment to an alcoholic or an individual with an STD?

Well, some Muslim medical students in Britain, due to their religious beliefs, are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases. Some are even going so far as to refuse treatment to a member of the opposite sex.

The article, posted on Times Online, reports:

The [General Medical Council] said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate.” Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice.”

When did we give doctors the ability to pick-and-choose their patients? If a doctor treats an alcoholic, is he condoning alcoholism? Of course not.

If Muslim doctors refuse to provide the same services to both men and women—and treat ALL diseases—then they should not become doctors. It disgusts me when doctors and pharmacists anywhere in the world deny men and women basic access to medical care due to their religious beliefs. We see it everywhere in the United States when pharmacists refuse to fill a woman’s birth control prescription. What will stop Muslim doctors from refusing patients who do not share a belief in Allah? When will it end?

Susan Jacoby reported in the Washington Post’s “Secular Corner” that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles is evicting three aging nuns. Tod Tamberg explained the decision to the LA times as follows:

The pain is being spread around. We’re losing our headquarters here, and none of the employees got a pay raise this year. This is just part of making it right with the victims, and we all have to share in the process even though none of us—the nuns, myself—harmed anybody. All of us as a church have to pay for the sins of a few people.

but Jacoby isn’t buying Tambergs arguments:

Ah, but the bishops and cardinal who worked at the archdiocesan headquarters on fashionable Wilshire Boulevard richly deserve to suffer pain, because they are the ones who covered up sexual abuse by priests for decades. Somehow, I doubt that these ecclesiastical poohbahs are being asked to leave their homes. One of the nuns being kicked out of her home is 69-year-old Sister Angela Escalera, a diabetic who uses a walker and has devoted her life to serving the poor.

A Washington Post story confirms that the bishop’s residence, worth about 2 million, is not up for sale while the sisters residence, estimated at maybe $98,000, is being sold.

Jacoby also brings up the issue of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which allows for a tax-free sale of the buildings. (See also “Did Congress Make Religion Immune to Prison Regs?”)

Jacoby’s point is well taken here. We are subsidizing the payoff of the clergy abuse scandal with tax breaks to the church. In this case the church is using the subsidy to throw nuns out of their homes. Now, yes the nuns can find other homes, but really is this what we want to subsidize? Is it moral? If this is representative of the values that the religious right says we atheists can’t have without God, well then thank goodness we don’t.

At a campaign appearance in Dover, New Hampshire on Saturday, Mitt Romney was confronted head on with the issue of medical marijuana. Clayton Holton, whose muscular dystrophy keeps him in a wheelchair, explained to Mitt that pot is the only medicine that seems to help him, and his doctors say he is “living proof [that] medical marijuana works.”

“My question for you,” Holton continued, “is will you arrest me or my doctors if I get medical marijuana?”

Romney’s reaction, as seen in this video, is contemptible. He says, shortly, “I am not infavor of medical marijuana being legal in this country,” and abruptly walks away. Another member of the audience asks Romney if he’s going to answer Holton’s question, and Romney replies, “I think I have.”

I can’t imagine what it must have been like to be Holton in that situation—to have a leader of your country say, effectively, that they’d let you die or go to prison before they’d let you smoke pot, and then walk away, smiling and shaking hands.

My infuriation with the anti-medical pot camp lies in their dogmatic denial of hard science that refutes their position. If people’s lives are at stake, the least you should do is enter into a reasoned debate where all the facts are openly considered. Then again, this might be too much to expect from our government, where the pre-Iraq war debate amounted to a quibble over whether Iraqi’s would welcome us with open arms or whether they’d bring us fruit baskets as well.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken critic of Islam who moved to the United States to escape death threats, returned to the Netherlands on Monday because the Dutch government said it would no longer pay for her security needs while she lived in the United States.

Hirsi Ali’s return raises the question of how the Netherlands or any country can protect its citizens from extremists while securing the rights of free speech and critical debate. Some politicians have called for an urgent session of Parliament. Many in the United States want to know why our government hasn’t stepped in to guarantee her protection in some way.

Dutch novelist Leon de Winter, a supporter of Hirsi Ali, offered the following commentary, reprinted in the New York Times and Courrier International:

Dutch society has no choice in this case. Canceling Ayaan’s protection would be the equivalent of a death sentence. Because she is so well known in the Netherlands and practically lives the life of a prisoner, not even able to go out on the street, the most humane solution is to continue to provide her with protection in America.

Society should cover the cost of this protection, for freedom of expression, one of the pillars of our culture, is being questioned. … The cost of this protection is nothing compared to its goal, which is to guarantee the continuity of our values.

So how do we as citizens of free countries reach out to protect those who have the courage to speak out? Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports that, according to her lawyer, Britta Böhler, Hirsi Alli is willing to pay for her own protection but that it will take some time to find the necessary resources. What is the cost of courage for the individual and for the nations? Both in monetary and in less substantial but still important terms. Can we let someone who is brave enough to speak out stand by themselves or shouldn’t we stand with them?

In the last few weeks, the Burmese people and monks have been protesting against their dictatorial military government in an attempt to bring freedom and democracy to their nation. This has been an ongoing struggle for 40+ years, and the Burmese people need our global solidarity to increase pressure on their government and the Asian governments that support the brutal regime.

The military junta has created a gulag atmosphere in the major cities to counter the peaceful demonstrations, rounding up people in the dead of night, beating people randomly, and detaining and torturing Buddhist monks. At least 200 monks have been killed, with over 2,500 arrested. We know that countless citizens have also been killed, with upwards of 3,000 arrested. They have stopped most external communication, cutting internet and phone lines in and out of Burma, in an attempt to keep their brutality out of the world press. But the world is watching what they’re doing to their defenseless citizens, and we will not be silent!

The time for action is NOW to show the Burmese people that we support them in their struggle for freedom and justice!

Saturday, October 6th, is the Global Day of Action on Burma. Many locals from all over the country have arranged vigils, marches, and speakers. The idea is that in every major and minor city in the world, events will start at noon local time to show a wave of international support for the Burmese people. Everyone, nationwide, is encouraged to wear red to show solidarity with the saffron-robed monks risking their lives for democracy and human rights.

The AHA is supporting a major rally and march in Washington, D.C. this Saturday. We expect over 1,000 people to attend! I am an organizer for this event and a number of the staff members from the AHA will be in attendance.

You can see if local events have been scheduled in your area by clicking here. You can also register your own local event, if you chose to plan one, by clicking here. Make sure to contact local media if you decide to plan an event, which will raise the profile of the Burma issue in your town.

If you need more information on current events in Burma, visit the US Campaign for Burma, Mizzima News or the Irrawaddy News Magazine.

John McCain, the Episcopalian who goes to a Baptist church, when asked by Beliefnet “Have the candidates’ personal faith become too big an issue in the presidential race?” Offered up an answer that put him on par with Bush for putting his foot in it.

Questions about that are very legitimate. . . . And it’s also appropriate for me at certain points in the conversation to say, look, that’s sort of a private matter between me and my Creator.

To this point he was a publicist’s dream but he couldn’t stop:

But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, “Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?”

He was given a chance to backdown with the next question, but like an energizer bunny…

Beliefnet: It doesn’t seem like a Muslim candidate would do very well, according to that standard.
McCain: I admire the Islam. There’s a lot of good principles in it. I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what’s basically an honorable religion. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles . . . personally, I prefer someone who I know has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn’t mean that I’m sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don’t say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would—I just feel that that’s an important part of our qualifications to lead.

Beliefnet’s God-o-Meter has McCain at a solid eight since this interview. Clinton and Obama are tied at seven. Is this what campaigns have become, merely a litmus test of whose got that old time religion?

The Supreme Court dodged two church-state cases that the religious right believed would be the beginning of the nation’s rightward march. Evidently even a court stack so heavily in their favor isn’t quite ready to simply follow the religious right’s marching orders.

One was a case from New York on whether church-affiliated employers who object to birth control on religious grounds must still provide contraceptive coverage to their female employees as part of their medical insurance coverage, as required by laws in New York and some two dozen other states. The other case challenged the refusal of a public library in California to make a community meeting room available for worship services.

Both cases potentially test lines that the Supreme Court has drawn to separate accommodations of religion that governments are required to make from those that aren’t required or, perhaps, are even forbidden.

The legal issues involved in the New York case are religious freedom versus the states’ right to impose rules and regulations on employers. The precedent for this type of case has been set by a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which barred most religion-based exemptions from laws that are neutral, generally applicable and that don’t single out religion for special burdens. This particular law includes an exemption for “religious employers,” precisely defined as a nonprofit organization that seeks to inculcate “religious values;” that “primarily employs” people of its religious faith; and that “serves primarily” those who share that faith. The challenge is based on expanding what organizations qualify for the exemption.

To decide the California case, the Supreme Court would rely on the series of decisions in which the court has placed religious expression on the same footing as other forms of speech, ruling that it must be permitted in public forums that are generally open to other speakers. The court hasn’t directly confronted a case seeking a public forum for pure religious worship. This question lies at the intersection where the two religion clauses of the First Amendment meet: the protection for the “free exercise” of religion and the prohibition against the official “establishment” of religion. It is a hard call for Humanists. Is worship free speech? Should it be supported in public buildings? I lean toward yes to the first and no to the second. How do other Humanists see this question?