The Secular Coalition for America is really excited to be part of this year’s American Humanist Association (AHA) 67th annual national conference this June. One of the great opportunities that will be offered at the AHA conference is a coordinated lobbying day on June 9^th. Attendees have the chance to visit their elected officials in the House and Senate and speak to them and their staff about the humanist and secular issues that matter to them most.

At the conference, a workshop will be offered on Saturday, June 7^th, that teaches everyone “the basics” of lobbying. This workshop would be useful for anyone who is looking to build a relationship with their federal or state representatives because it teaches you the ins and outs of making appointments, holding a meeting, and getting your voice heard on issues important to you and your community.

Knowing the ins and outs of lobbying elected officials is a critical tool for an effective democratic society. When legislation that jeopardizes humanist values or the secular character of government arises, you need to be prepared to take a stand. The Secular Coalition for America will train you on what to do, and then give you the opportunity to test out your new skills by lobbying your federal officials and their staff on Monday morning.

If you’ve never visited a congressional office before and seen exactly where your elected officials work, it’s a great time to do so! And being on the grounds of the Capitol on a beautiful summer day is an enjoyable experience regardless of your political affiliation.

As the lobbying arm of the AHA and our other member groups, the Secular Coalition for America is relying on you to sign up and show your elected officials that the issues we are fighting for are important to their constituents. The best way to convey this critical message is by meeting face-to-face in their offices.

Your participation in this lobby day demonstrates that the nontheist community is a constituency that can no longer be ignored!

I encourage you to join the many attendees who have already signed up and participate in our lobby day on June 9^th. You can sign up here: http://secular.org/lobby_day_2008.html#form

I read an interesting article on Townhall.com by Zachary Gappa this weekend titled “‘Secular’ Discrimination Against Religion.” It made me realize just how easy it is for people to see one story and come away with very different versions of what happened.

The actual article is about a lawsuit against Google. The Christian Institute sought to purchase an advertisement from Google, “so that whenever the word ‘abortion’ was typed into the popular search engine, its link would appear on the side of the screen.” Google refused this request, stating, “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of web sites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content.’” The general web chatter is that Google doesn’t allow “anti” paid ads placed under headings. So an anti-President Bush site won’t show up in paid ads under a search for the president, although it can show up under the regular search. This has been misinterpreted as “modern embracing of secularism” or discrimination against religion, when in reality, it is just a policy to protect the Google image as being fair and above board with the placement of paid ads.

Looking at Gappa’s article brings up further differences in interpretation. The very first point Gappa makes is as follows:

Many people today are concerned about the “separation of church and state.” More often than not, this means keeping religion out of the public sphere. They say the public sphere ought to be “secular,” free from talk of religion lest someone be offended. Religious freedom is interpreted as the freedom not to hear another person’s religious convictions.

His view, though it may be widely shared by some, isn’t exactly the correct way to understand the issue. A separation between church and state isn’t meant to prevent offending people. The public sphere should be free of religious language only so that public sphere isn’t dependent on religion (or one specific religion) to operate. Just as you shouldn’t ask a prospective employee their religious beliefs, when it comes to political candidates, they should be free from having to answer that question, and the voters should be free from having to hear the politician from proselytizing as a part of their campaign. To do otherwise (as the last election has shown) becomes very close to a litmus test. For a candidate to be forced to “verify” their religious convictions to prove their worthiness to hold office almost is almost an infringement on their rights to practice and believe whatever religion they choose.

Regarding morality, Gappa again has an slightly distorted perspective:

Most in today’s culture believe that a person’s religious beliefs do not have a broad impact on their view of life. In reality, a person’s beliefs about right and wrong, justice, and how they live their day-to-day lives are dictated by their religious beliefs. For the Christian, these standards are rooted in a belief in the God of the Bible. For a Muslim, they are rooted in the Koran. And for an atheist, they are rooted in the belief that there is no God.

Most atheists, humanists, et al that I know don’t root their beliefs in the idea that there is no God, but moreso along the lines of rational observation and experience. God is simply not part of the equation. The idea that we derive our morals from a lack of God makes me think people still believe that we have no morals, which is insulting. It’s still difficult for me to understand why people still can’t see that humanists and all freethinkers as moral people. There are so many (perceived or real) differences to overcome before we can find common ground. But I remain hopeful that, over time, it can be found.

Today is the National Day of Silence, which calls to attention the bullying and harassment in schools directed at gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders by encouraging students to remain silent all day (unless called upon to speak in class). The event, with over 6,000 middle and high school students planning to participate, is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and is dedicated to Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot and killed in class last February by a classmate due to his sexual orientation.

On Monday, the Alliance Defense Fund will be holding its opposing Day of Truth to “counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.” Students are encouraged to wear t-shirts or hand out cards with the group’s message.

Both events come at the heels of a recent court ruling that allows an Illinois high school student to wear a t-shirt that reads, “Be Happy, Not Gay.” The Alliance Defense Fund represented the student and stated:

“Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “Public school officials cannot censor a message expressing one viewpoint on homosexual behavior and then at the same time allow messages that express another viewpoint. The court’s ruling is a victory for all students seeking to protect their First Amendment rights on a school campus.”

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case, recognizing the student’s fundamental First Amendment right to free speech, but emphasized that other students have the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

While I staunchly believe that students have every right to express their beliefs, I’m saddened that such negative speech takes place in schools. When will students learn to be tolerant of differences among us?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia adheres to a hardline Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam, and yet he has announced plans to launch a dialogue between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The king states the purpose “to agree on something that would maintain humanity against those who tamper [with] religions, ethics and family systems.” King Abdullah continued, “I want to call for conferences between the religions to protect humanity from folly” and that major faiths shared a desire to combat “the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world.” Now I know an interfaith movement is built on a positive interaction between religions the common ground they share, but “combating” just doesn’t seem like the best anchor for a broad coalition of peace.

Look for instance at Imam Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, NJ. From the americanarabforum:

Before the arrival of the Imam, the Christian-Jewish-Muslim dialogue was virtually nonexistent. Now it is a thriving project which encompasses clergy members across the spectrum. Imam Qatanani has been a leading figure in the “First Annual American Clergy Leadership Conference” in 2004, the Inauguration of the Bishop of the Episcopalian Diocese in Newark, and numerous interfaith Christian-Muslim-Jewish dialogues. He has hosted numerous open-houses at ICPC where prominent Christian and Jewish clergy attended.

The Imam was also involved in inviting leading political and law enforcement authorities such as US Congressmen, US Senators, County Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, FBI Officials, Judges, Prosecutors, etc., to open up communication channels between the Muslim community and law enforcement authorities. In fact, he was the first to open the NJ Senate with a recitation of the Holy Quran. He has received many personal recommendation letters from leading politicians and law enforcement officials including Congressmen Bill Pascrell.

(As a side note the U.S. government may deport Imam Qatanani, not for anything he’s done in the States, but Israel does claim that he has ties to Hamas.)

Iman Qatanani’s work shows that it is possible to have an interfaith outreach that has a positive basis. His outreach may be on a smaller scale but he has done much to open up his community without using a common hatred of atheist, Jews or whoever to bring people together.

I think Humanist can learn from both these lessons. Humanists already reach out to both atheist and liberal religious groups. However, I believe we can do more–and do it louder. We also need to reach out to political and law enforcement authorities and any other groups that we have things in common with. We should reach as Imam Qatanani does, by offering friendship and commonality, and not by offering only a shared dislike of a certain religious or political platform, which at times is where I think we make our bonds. These types of bonds are weak and will fall apart easily. We must make sure we build bridges on a shared, positive vision, or our coalitions will be meaningless and fail us when we need them most.

Hopefully this type of bridge-building will also make others aware of who Humanist, atheists, deists, freethinkers, et al., really are, and what we’re all about. So when any individual or organization wants to cast a slur on any one of us, it won’t just be the outrage of the community of freethinkers, but the outrage of all people who have had the opportunity to work alongside us. At our own peril, we will continue to be the scapegoat of the religious if we don’t let them, and the rest of the world, know who we really are.

Watch out, Floridians.

Local resident Buzz Kelly wrote in yesterday’s Tampa Tribune about an upcoming November ballot proposal by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission that would change the state constitution so your tax dollars can be given to religious-based programs. Coded ‘CP0020,’ it would be the first state that essentially eliminates the wall between religion and government.

Sure, maybe financially supporting Christian organizations is a good thing, especially if they’re doing something helpful, like feeding the poor. But such a broad change would allow money to be used by religious groups—and we do mean any religious group—for whatever they want:

Although sponsored by Christian crazies, the plan would turn our constitution into a church-state shambles the extent of which they certainly haven’t imagined. Maybe the idea of your tax dollars going to support Christian programs or school vouchers is OK with you, but what if they go to an Islamic madrassas? Or a Hindu school? Or a Buddhist ashram? How about a Shinto shrine? And since Satanism is a religion, is it OK if your tax dollars support that?

I doubt many Christians out there would support federal funding for Satanists. It’s the same reason why Humanists don’t support federal funding for any religion. Let’s continue to work toward keeping religion and government separate. It’s worked just fine for us for the past 231 years.

A recent media advisory from Tikkun noted the submission of House Resolution 1078, sponsored by Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) and Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MI). It basically calls for a Global Marshall Plan, which has been outlined by the Network of Spiritual Progressives. This plan offers Americans the opportunity to give 1 to 2 percent of the nation’s GDP and apply it toward poverty, both domestically and globally, for the next twenty years. With participation from other technologically developed countries, as well as a proper use of funds (which is always a challenge in these days) this plan could eliminate–not reduce, eliminate–poverty. As Rabbi Lerner, one of the founders of Tikkun, noted,

“We approach this initiative with a spirit of humility not only because of the legacy of colonialism, but because we can learn much from societies whose economic poverty does not signify a poverty of wisdom. Generosity of spirit as well as financial generosity are an integral part of our Global Marshall Plan, which we affirm not only because it is a central component in any plan to achieve ‘homeland security,’ but also because it reflects our commitment to recognize every human being on this planet as equally valuable and deserving of care. HR 1078 expresses the need for a similar humility in delivering support for the world’s poor.”

It’s an interesting challenge. Can we in today’s political and social climate really effect the kind of change necessary to put the focus of our money on programs that we truly know will do good? The recent success of the PEPFAR program seems to indicate we could, but the Global Marshall Plan is on a much larger scale. I can’t see spending $12 billion on the war in Iraq (which may be the only way we can stabilize the country) and then turning around and denying the chance for what could free so many more people from the tyranny of poverty and hunger.

If we believe we can–and I always will believe–then we must also join with the religious left on this. Humanists need to seize this opportunity to rebuild America’s place in the world, especially when it comes to our status, our friendships and our leadership. And, most importantly, our nation’s moral bearing. This Global Marshal Plan could be the basis of a great Humanist foreign policy, even if credit for it’s inception goes to the religious left.

I had the pleasure of attending a 2008 Perspectives Series at McLean Community Center last night that featured Marjane Satrapi, who is the artist behind the amazing Persepolis comic books. For those of you who aren’t familiar, the books are autobiographical, recounting Satrapi’s struggles growing up in Iran during the revolution. They’re striking for their humor–even in the face of such devastation–and Satrapi’s ability to find the universal in the very extraordinary circumstances of her life.

Satrapi was delightful–very intelligent, funny, and opinionated. One of the most compelling moments of the evening was when she discussed religion, saying she never gave religion much thought at all before the revolution, growing up in a secular household. She said she came to understand that religion at the personal level can be very wonderful and fulfilling, but fundamentalism wreaks horrors. And this is true regardless of whether the religion in question is Islam, Christianity, or even Buddhism. As she said in an interview with Powells:

The real war is not between the West and the East. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people. There is much more in common between George Bush and the fanatics in my country than between me and the fanatics of my country. There is much more common ground between me and normal people here in America who don’t want that. As an Iranian, I feel much closer to an American who thinks like me than to the bearded guy of my country.

In another fantastic moment, she also told us that she was not very concerned that fundamentalists in Iran might wish her harm. In fact she said the most scared she had been since the books gained popularity was during a lecture in Texas. She said one man in particular looked very angry, and she was convinced she was going to be shot by a cowboy and become an inadvertent martyr of Islam. But in the end said cowboy actually had her sign three of her books. Never judge a book by its cover, I suppose.

Stephen Colbert hasn’t called me! Ever since he started his 35,000 part series way back in early 2008, “Better Know a Lobbyist,” he has featured the gay lobby and the marijuana lobby, but there is a deadly silence in terms of the nontheist lobby. What’s up with that?

It’s time for the Secular Coalition Nation to rise up and ask Mr. Colbert why he hasn’t introduced the Colbert Nation to the nontheist lobby. I’ve appeared on Papa Bear’s (Bill O’Reilly’s) show four times now, but have yet to have the pleasure of taking on his better half and mirror image, Stephen Colbert himself.

So, all you friends (and foes) of Colbert, lets start a campaign to get the Colbert Report to cover this important lobby representing humanists, atheists, and other Americans who don’t hold a belief in deities. If we let our voices be heard by Comedy Central, we can convince Colbert to have the Secular Coalition for America on his “Better Know a Lobbyist” segment.

Here’s the place to write: http://www.colbertnation.com/cn/contact.php