While this may be more of the same old same old, Anglican conservatives declared on Sunday that they would defy the church’s historic lines of authority and create a new power bloc within the church led by a council of predominantly African archbishops. The decision was announced at the end of a week long meeting of Anglican conservatives in Jerusalem. The conservatives are upset over what they consider to be a “false gospel” that allows a malleable, liberal interpretation of Scripture. More specifically, a gay bishop and acceptance of homosexuality in general.

This group called The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FOCA) held a conference in Jerusalem called the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). A statement was issued that,while not officially creating a schism, is none the less calling for big changes. They have announced that Anglicanism was not “determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury”, Rowan Williams. They also revealed plans for a new “primates council” comprising senior bishops and archbishops who had attended the Jerusalem summit.The council will serve to to “regulate the “chaos” within the Communion and at the same time “defend the Gospel … from revisionist or liberal theologies’.”

The statement also calls for the creation of a new province, in the United States and Canada that would absorb the churches that have been outraged by the American church’s consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003 and the Canadian church’s blessing of same-sex unions. The new province is hoped to unite believers who left the church over the last few decades over the ordination of women priests and bishops as well as the acceptance of homosexuality.

Schism is obviously a dirty word here, because this sounds like a schism even if they aren’t officially breaking away.  Given the situation around GLBT rights in America, Gay Marriage in California and ultimately the entire country and the general battle over including GLBT in hate crimes legislation versus the churches right to proclaim it’s message which may include negative messages about GLBT people, I think it’s worth taking the time to follow this story.  How this all plays out may impact the election as well as this very large church.

The Washington Post ran an opinion piece taking on Dobson’s critique of Obama’s theology.  While normally theology isn’t an issue that Humanists are going to jump in on it was curious to see the reaction to Dobson’s statement.  I generally agreed with the Post article, however, I found another article that really cut to the core of the matter.

While Landover Baptist isn’t the first place I would normally go for a hard hitting critique of the events of the day, I’m realizing how much the Reverend Fred and Landover really has to say.  The article “Focus on the Pharisee” points out in no uncertain terms the differences between Fundamentalist pronouncements and the words of Jesus. Just reading the table comparing Jesus’ words to an interpretation of the far rights position, is startling. While the comparison is meant for an non-theist group, it would resound for many Christians as well. Some might judge it too harsh in its general mocking of the church but read Jesus’s words and think about the opposing views. Think also about Obama’s statement:

“And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”

While Father Fred is waaaay over the top, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I don’t think you can accuse him of not reading his bible. Maybe if we all we’re more familiar with the bible we’d realize as the Washington Post’s author points out :

“…why the words of Scripture do not provide a ready policy blueprint for modern American society. Indeed, many of us have grappled with how to arrive at a theologically informed and fair-minded reading of the Bible that takes its moral principles seriously without simplistically applying to our time the cultural norms of previous eras.”

I don’t base my morals on the bible, but I’ve got a lot more to talk about with someone like the author of the Post article than with someone trying to impose the cultural norms of the bible onto the current world.  I hope they have an inclination to talk with Humanists as well. Til then, we can read Landover Baptist and smile while getting a pretty good education.

Dinesh D’Souza is nothing if not prolific. Saying that, he is also very shrewd. However, I think he overreached himself in his article, “What Science Cannot Tell Us.” He tries to prove the limits of science with the argument that the really important questions can’t be answered by science.Let’s look at his summary of the argument:

Consider some of the most important questions facing us as human beings: Why are we here? Where ultimately did we come from? Where are we going? Science can provide us with very limited answers. As the philosopher Wittgenstein once put it, one has the feeling that even if all possible scientific knowledge could been obtained, the biggest questions of life would remain largely untouched and unanswered.

He shrewdly quotes Wittgenstein to give authority to his statement, but does the argument really play out?“Where ultimately did we come from?” Scientists are making great strides into the questions of where we came from both as species on planet earth and how the cosmos evolved. I don’t have time to demonstrate these (could anyone) but these articles can give a flavor of these advances.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
Laurence Krauss Takes on the Universe
Talk Origins

D’Souza is very clever in how he downplays science in the article:

I call this the “atheism of the gaps.” The basic idea is that if science hasn’t figured something out, just wait a few years, because the brilliant scientists are working on it. Have faith that they will come up with good answers in the future, just as they have in the past. In other words, we should assume that people who are smart enough to make toasters are also smart enough to figure out whether there is life after death.

He dismisses scientists as folks who make toasters. It would be laughable if it weren’t so affective. Also by creating the phrase “atheism of the gaps” he tries to dismiss the “God of the gaps” by turning the argument on its head. The problem with his argument is that it isn’t “atheism of the gaps” but it’s really science advancing into the gaps. And unlike the “God of the gaps” whose area of influence grows smaller with each scientific advance, science grows more impressive and awe inspiring as it advances into the gaps.

Can we see where we’re coming from?Is it scary to some people? I think the answer in both cases is yes. Why are we here? I suppose the answer that nature of this planet and the way bacterium evolved into eventually up to man is not a real answer to some people, and yet it is fascinating and humbling. We are a part of this planet and related to everything on it. How can one not be awed by such a realization?

The Louisiana House voted to for a bill called the “Louisiana Science Education Act” which is supposed to promote “critical thinking” by students on topics such as evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. Pity the bill doesn’t seem to be designed to actually promote critical thinking but appears to be an attempt to get religion in the form of intelligent design and any other method into the science class room. As American’s United describes it:”the bill would promote teaching creationism in public schools and said some teachers might use supplemental materials produced by fundamentalist Christian organizations.”

I’m all for teachers being able to teach controversial subjects but I don’t think anyone wants religious debates being carried on in the classroom. As Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS), says,

“The legislature shouldn’t be allowing creationists to undermine Louisiana public schools. The House of Representatives just gave the Religious Right a green light to use other people’s children for their own agenda.”

Patsye Peebles, a veteran biology teacher from Baton Rouge and a founding member of the LCFS adds,

“I was a biology teacher for 22 years, and I never needed the legislature to tell me how to present anything. This bill doesn’t solve any of the problems classroom teachers face, and it will make it harder for us to keep the focus on accurate science in science classrooms. Evolution isn’t scientifically controversial, and we don’t need the legislature substituting its judgment for the scientists and science teachers who actually know the subject.”

Similar bills have been introduced in several states over the past year and have been supported by opponents of evolution. I fear this may be the issue republicans use to mobilize voters for the upcoming election. This could be a devasting turn of events for science education in America.

A letter sold on May 15th for the astounding amount of 170,000 pounds ($330,000) in London may help clarify Einstein’s beliefs or lack of beliefs about God. In the 1954 letter to Eric Gutkin, Einstein is fairly blunt about his religious views:

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

“For me the Jewish religion, like all others, is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

An abridged version of the letter is here

Richard Dawkins, one of the losing bidders, said that while he was disappointed with losing the bid, he was pleased to see that people so highly valued this letter. In fact, Rupert Powell, the managing director of Bloomsbury Auctions, said the letter attracted unprecedented interest from around the world. He speculated that the letter had captured peoples imagination because it is such a clear statement of the Einstein’s views.

It is indeed intriguing how highly this letter was valued, it presents no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God, but is only the opinion of one man. A genius in the world of physics both atheist and theist have been trying to make Einstein one of their own for years. But Einstein doesn’t fit either definition very neatly.

His sense of religion and of God owes much more to Spinoza than to any established church. In fact, it probably owes much more to his own scientific investigations than any church. In a separate letter also from 1954 he wrote:

“If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Whether we choose to think of Einstein as a atheist, theist, deist or something else altogether, it is important to remember that we must make decisions about our beliefs for ourselves. It’s nice to feel like smart people think the same way you do, but at one time smart people thought the Earth was the center of the universe. I think Humanist could do a lot worse than approaching religion in the way Einstein appears to have. Making up his own mind and allowing room for spirituality and wonder in the world we live in.

While I generally make it a habit not to read WorldNetDaily, an article that made it into the local meetup list got my curiosity going, so I checked out William J. Federer’s Tyranny of the atheist minority. The basic premise of the article is that since The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life identifies “the people” (as in a government of the people, by the people, for the people, etc) as follows:

This survey “of the people” reported that 80.2 percent of Americans hold Judeo-Christian beliefs (51.3 percent Evangelical/Mainline Protestant Christian; 23.9 percent Catholic; 1.6 percent Orthodox & other Christian; 1.7 percent Mormon; and 1.7 percent Jewish.)

Those not reporting or who said nothing in particular represented 12.9 percent, while 1.2 percent were Unitarian-Universalist-Spiritual-New Age-Native; 0.7 percent Buddhist; 0.6 percent Muslim; 0.4 percent Hindu; 0.3 percent Other World Religions, 2.4 percent agnostic … and only 1.6 percent atheist.

His argument therefore is that since the people are made up of a majority Judeo-Christian people why aren’t all are laws biased in favor of that majority? Federer, of course, believes that the atheists have some how taken over the government and made the laws of the land atheist thereby becoming a tyrannical minority inflicting it’s belief on the majority.

Now given the disparity of beliefs about God and the bible represented in the 80.2 percent of Americans I find it hard to believe that 80.2 percent is a homogeneous group demanding, among other things, forced prayer in school, or that religious displays need to be in courthouses etc and so forth.

If we always let the majority of the people have it’s way, most of our laws would be controlled by the desires of the highest populated states at the expense of the needs of the more sparsely populated states. I suppose since this no longer applies to religion this argument is not relevant, but it is exactly the point.

I wrote a post about California’s requirement for teachers to sign a loyalty oath stating they will “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Sounds reasonable, and in 1952 it was passed into law by California voters. This law discriminates against pacifists, many of whom come from peace churches. So shall we allow a discriminatory law like this to stay on the books just because the majority voted for it? I think this law does much more to interfere with the practice of religion than say saying a teacher or administrator can’t force students to pray in a public school. They’re being forced to pit their livelihood against there religious convictions. A teacher who wants to lead a prayer can go to their church to lead prayers but a teacher in California can’t teach without signing the oath.

It’s wrong. We have to have the checks and balances of our system to keep as many laws like this as possible from remaining on the books. So we need to remember our system works for both the majority and the minority as best as it can. It guarantees the rights of the majority, while protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The California State University system has fired another instructor over a 1952 pledge that was created to root out communists. This issue first came to the media’s attention back in February, when a Quaker math teacher, Marianne Kearney-Brown, was fired because she inserted the word “nonviolently” into the oath swearing to defend the U.S. and California constitutions. She was rehired after her case attracted media attention.

Now, Wendy Gonaver, also a Quaker and a pacifist, who was offered a teaching job at Cal State Fullerton, lost her position because she would not sign a loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” She offered to sign the pledge if she could attach a brief statement expressing her views, a practice allowed by other state institutions. But Cal State Fullerton rejected her statement and insisted that she sign the oath if she wanted the job.

Zari Wigfall, a Jehovah’s Witness who testified at a congressional subcommittee hearing in 1998 on the matter said,

“Citizens are entitled to certain rights, and also minorities, including religious minorities, are given certain guarantees. And I just didn’t think that . . . because of my religious beliefs I would have two jobs taken away from me. It makes no sense that they do this to people. It’s people who take it seriously who don’t get hired.”

As Kearney-Brown pointed out, “The way it’s (the oath) laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work for the university, but not a citizen Quaker.” I think she makes a very good point. In its present form, the only people it seems to be preventing from teaching are truly believing pacifists, many of whom come from peace churches. Basically it’s discriminating against a group of Americans, who are largely religious. Although, many Humanists, Atheists and other freethinkers are also pacifist and would be disturbed by the need to sign oaths such as these. Humanists, along with churches, should be outraged by this type of statement. These oaths are a legacy from a dark period in American history, and should be put to bed once and for all.

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.

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.

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.

A judge in Scott County, Iowa has come up with a new solution to prison overcrowding–send offenders to church instead. According to a story in the March 20 Quad-city Times, Judge Christine Dalton has sentenced Pachino Hill to a church-run counseling program for charges of eluding and driving while barred stemming from a police chase from Rock Island to Davenport in October. Hill must also attend church for eight consecutive Sundays, pay a fine, and be on probation for one year. In fairness, Hill can choose two years in prison if he prefer. The optional prison sentence aside it’s pretty clear this is a violation of church and state. I mean even the idea of sending Hill to a church-run counseling program is pushing the envelope.

Two things come to mind: What happens if Hill acts out at the church and robs or injures a church member? And what happens next time? Who will receive the next would-be convict—Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Or should we check out some religions that we haven’t thought of.

In all seriousness, in America no one should be forced to attend church even as punishment. That isn’t coming out quite how I mean it but I think you get the idea. You can’t force someone to convert to any religion any more than you can demand that they have no religion. The state shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what citizens’ religion should be. And relating it to crime and punishment is even more incendious as it makes freedom dependent upon one’s beliefs. This absolutely should not be tolerated in a just society.

I made a comment in a post “My Supporter Has Wilder Views than Yours” about how Senator John McCain, when asked about the support of John Hagee, replied, “I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. … They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.”

It’s frustrating that this can’t work for Senator Barack Obama. On March 14, he came close to having to disown his pastor of twenty years and has had to let Rev. Jeremiah Wright go from an unpaid and largely ceremonial role on the African American Religious Leadership Committee.

Obama repeated the view, which is his standard response on the campaign trail, that voters should focus on what he himself believes, not the words of his longtime pastor, who retired from Trinity United Church of Christ in February.

Is it lack of political savvy or is Obama just not going to stick up for his friends when it’s not politically expedient?

McCain knows Hagee and may have even courted his endorsement. Hell, Hagee endorsed Bush, although I can’t remember if it was as big a deal then as it is now. But McCain didn’t reject Hagee. Obama is now rejecting a twenty-year relationship. You have to read this blog, Obama’s judgment Wright or Wrong, to get the full force of the impact of this turn. I can’t say it better.

I’m nervous about Obama’s need, real or perceived, to dump people when the going gets tough. I don’t know if it’s the media or the pressure of an ugly election, but religion is definitely not working in Obama’s favor.

On Tuesday a Judge ruled that a lawsuit would go forward against a Santa Ana History teacher who was making disparaging remarks against Christians during his class. James Corbett had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by his former student, Chad Farnam, and his parents. Farnam tape recorded some of Corbett’s lectures, thus bringing us the now infamous line: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” This situation is quite similar (in the reverse) to the Matthew LaClair case where he recorded a teacher proselytizing a type of Christianity to his students.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a reason to say that Chad Farnam was less courageous than Matthew LaClair, and given what we know now, I can’t say that this teacher is much different from the other teacher. More people are jumping behind Corbett because they seem to think he was trying to engage students in intelligent discussions. Just because a conversation seems to start from a secular proposition does not guarantee an enlightened discussion or even a free discussion. Certainly, opening with, “When you put on your Jesus glasses” isn’t likely to encourage everyone to feel like they can join in the conversation or keep to facts rather than opinions.

Back in August of 2006 Germany not only gave a 27-year-old lesbian asylum because she would face persecution if she was sent back to Iran, its ruling set a binding precedent for similar cases. But today in Britain a gay Iranian teenager and a 40-year-old Iranian lesbian are leading the cause for an immediate moratorium on deportations of gays and lesbians seeking asylum because they are afraid they will be persecuted or even executed if they return to Iran. The following is from the Islamic Punishment Act, which carries provisions for homosexual acts:

Art. 110: The prescribed punishment for homosexual relations in case of intercourse is execution and the mode of the execution is at the discretion of the religious judge.

Art. 111: Homosexual intercourse leads to execution provided that both the active and passive party are of age, sane and consenting.

Art. 112: Where a person of age commits homosexual intercourse with an adolescent, the active party shall be executed and the passive party, if he has not been reluctant, shall receive a flogging of up to 74 lashes.

Art. 113: Where an adolescent commits homosexual intercourse with another adolescent, they shall receive a flogging of up to 74 strokes of the whip unless one of them has been reluctant.

Articles 114 to 126 establish how to prove homosexual intercourse.

Articles 127 to 134 relate to lesbian sexual relations. Punishment for sexual intercourse among lesbians is 100 lashes. If the offense is then repeated three times the punishment is execution.

The Home Office has said that, provided Iranians are discreet about their homosexuality, they will not be persecuted. But Omar Kuddus of Gay Asylum UK demanded that Britain follow the example of the Netherlands and Germany in imposing a moratorium on all deportations involving gay and lesbian Iranians. He asked: “How many more young Iranians have to die before the British Government takes action?”

Would you trust the reasoning of a society that places a death penalty on crimes it’s willing to ignore if the perpetrator is discreet? Would you want to bet your child’s life on their ability to be discrete? Would you trust that the religiously zealous around you wouldn’t need to know what you were up to in your private life, especially if they thought you were odd or just disliked you?

We have to get past this just-don’t-flaunt-it-and-you’ll-be-okay reasoning which has often been foisted on women and now GLBT people. Most often it is pushed on them to their detriment. It is obviously out of date and (especially in the situation in Iran) dangerous. We must let people have the property of their own identity before we can truly call our society humanist.

John McCain found himself being confronted by reporters wanting to know about one of his supporters, Reverend John Hagee. A San Antonio pastor with a worldwide broadcast ministry, Hagge has linked Hurricane Katrina to the gay rights movement or at least to the activities of gays in New Orleans. That doesn’t seem that radical for a televangelist but then there is Hagee’s opinion that the Roman Catholic Church is “the great whore of Babylon” and “a cult.”

“This is the apostate church,” Hagee said. “This false religious system is going to be totally devoured by the anti-Christ.”
Senator McCain had what I thought was a reasonable response. “I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy,” he said. “They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.”

I don’t think it will do, but I think it came across better than senator Obama’s handling of the support of Louis Farrakhan in the Feb 26th debate.

Obama: “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

Russert: “Do you reject his support?”

Obama: “Well, Tim, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy.”

Are these two men, Hagee and Farrakhan, just part of the followers that would attach themselves to any presidential candidate or has religion become so important that it is necessary to examine these links and try to guarantee that the candidates do not agree with the views of these men? I mean we don’t seem to examine every business that gives a candidate money, or should we? Should nothing go unchallenged during a campaign? I don’t care for the mixing of religion and politics, but is it more important than which corporations have the candidate in their pocket? Maybe I just have campaign burn out early this year.

PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) is probably one of a handful of programs that George W. Bush can point to and say, “Here is something of true value my administration achieved.” Fifteen billion dollars was distributed over five years in areas like Africa where HIV/AIDS is devastating the population. The United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (also known as PEPFAR 2) is now up for consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Bush has proposed thirty billion for the next five years, but the Democrats’ version asks for fifty billion, integrating “family planning” with HIV/AIDS relief efforts in Africa. Money would be available to abortion providers under this new integration which has conservatives in an uproar. The Democrats also perhaps unwisely removed a “treatment floor” provision, which specified that 55 percent of PEPFAR money must go to the treatment of HIV/AIDS patients. This may be to allow monies to go to other diseases as well as family planning, but it causes concern that money can be spent without any accountability.

The Bush plan was ABC: Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms if necessary. This has been very helpful but hasn’t been as responsive to the needs of women who are now the highest at risk category. The bill could fund programs that lift the status of women—like microloans and access to food—which have been shown to reduce HIV transmission. Where their human rights are protected, women have the ability to protect themselves. The Bush plan has never addressed women’s needs under the guise of protecting families. As a Humanist I believe the Democrats’ plan introduces some needed money to help women who have been greatly victimized by HIV/AIDS and largely ignored.

See Physicians for Human Rights Press Release, The Democrats’ Pepfar goes to Far, and PEPFAR Reauthorization Bill Includes Pledge Requirement for HIV/AIDS Grantees

Today is Darwin Day, and what better way to celebrate than with some primordial soup and maybe a sandwich? (See TedBlog for the validity of adding the sandwich.)

I’ve been enjoying Evolution on PBS with narration by Liam Neeson. It’s a great resource for what evolution is and how it works, for example, to make an eye or a wing. Other good sources are Richard Dawkins’s Climbing Mount Improbable or the video Growing Up in the Universe.

Why not throw a party with either video? Then there’d be no fooling us about transitional fossils. No one would trick us about complex design of eyes or wings. The only thing not covered in the above suggestions is abiogenesis. Fortunately, you can find abiogenesis on the net.

So I suggest a Darwin Day resolution for a bit of entertainment and education. Besides nothing feels better than being able to say “Why yes, actually, half an eye could be quite useful” and being able to explain why. Ah the power of a little science and a little learning.

After reading Dinesh D’Souza’s latest article I’m not sure I’d ever understand what it is he’s trying to prove. In his article Desecrating Darwin’s Cathedral, he quotes an article by David Sloan Wilson, in which Wilson criticizes Richard Dawkins for not using scientific theory and an evolutionary perspective (as strongly as he could) to critique religion. D’Souza admits that Wilson and Dawkins are both atheists, but what gets D’Souza excited is how devastating Wilson’s attack is on Dawkins for not using better biology and science.

From Wilson’s article:

If the trait is not an adaptation, then it can nevertheless persist in the population for a variety of reasons. Perhaps it was adaptive in the past but not the present, such as our eating habits, which make sense in the food-scarce environment of our ancestors but not with a McDonald’s on every corner. Perhaps the trait is a byproduct of another adaptation. For example, moths use celestial light sources to orient their flight (an adaptation), but this causes them to spiral toward earthly light sources such as a street lamp or a flame (a costly byproduct), as Dawkins so beautifully recounts in The God Delusion. Finally, the trait might be selectively neutral and persist in the population by genetic or cultural drift.

So, whether religion is an adaption or is selectively neutral, that doesn’t prove or disprove religion or God. In fact, if it’s an adaptation, it seems likely that it isn’t true, but rather that it is something invented to help us adapt to our environment. Then as if D’Souza wants to prove my point, he goes on to quote Sloan some more:

Wilson gives a telling example: The Jains of India seem to have bizarre religious habits. They won’t kill any creature, even cockroaches. They sometimes fast virtually unto death. They have been known to refuse contact with non-Jains. The Jains would easily satisfy Dawkins’ view of religion as a senseless delusion. And yet Wilson points out that the Jains are basically the Jews of India: they are one of the most successful economic communities in the world. The reason, he suggests, is that religious practices that seem weird and impractical to outsiders actually cultivate deep bonds of trust between Jains. This economic solidarity is crucial for a diaspora trading community that has built economic networks throughout Asia and around the world. What seems like a pointless delusion turns out to be eminently practical. From the evolutionist’s perspective–and in terms of the only currency that counts for a biologist–Jain practices have demonstrated “survival value.”

But does evolutionary survival value imply truthfulness? Is D’Souza the Catholic trying to tell us something? Is Jainism really the one true religion?

And does something that makes us feel good automatically free it from the category of a delusion? I like the idea of Santa Claus, and that I have bags of money, and that the religious right will one day come around one day and be kind to their gay and transgendered friends and family. But no matter how nice that makes me feel, it doesn’t mean that it’s any less of a delusion.

FindLaw.com has an good piece by Marci Hamilton, The Questions That Each Presidential Candidate Should Be Asked Regarding His or Her Views on the Constitutional Line Between Church and State. Instead of posing general questions for the candidates she poses specific candidate based on statements they have made or actions they have taken.

The questions she poses are very direct and go directly to the heart of separation of church and state issues. She poses questions for both Democrats and Republicans. However, she has more questions for Republicans, as well as Hillary Clinton than other candidates. I’m not sure I completely agree with her assessment of Obama and Edwards as having a record that indicate faith will not drive their decision making, but in general, I truly hope that someone will get a chance to ask these questions.

Looks like the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up a new death penalty case. Unlike other cases of a similar nature, the Supreme Court is charge not with determining whether a death sentence is warranted. The guilt of the defendant is absolutely unquestioned. Instead, the justices must decide on constitutionally acceptable standards for when a state elects to carry out an execution by means of lethal injection.

The facts of Baze v. Rees case are not actually important to the law the Supreme Court is examining and yet the horror of the crime (Ralph Baze used an SKS assault rifle to ambush a sheriff and his deputy, shooting the former three times in the back and the latter twice in the back and then once in the head) and our emotional response to it is probably why we have a death penalty at all. Given that most European nations have banned the death penalty, it’s as if the U.S. is alone in its emotional need for retribution for the heinous acts of some of its citizens. And yet, by continuing to question the legality of the death penalty, it shows we still face some guilt over our need for executions.

Our nation must decide if we are for the death penalty or against it. This case show the ambivalence that exists. We don’t want to hurt anyone anymore than we have to, so we moved from hangings, to the electric chair and then to lethal injection. Now we’re trying to make sure that it is painless. A painless death is not what any of these criminals gave their victims, so what are we trying to say? If a painful death is extreme punishment, then we must be against the death penalty.