Today, I circulated a press release with information about the Star Hill controversy. This concerns the Village of Holmen, Wisconsin, which decided to sell to the local Lion’s Club a small patch of public land on which a cross and a star are erected. The Lion’s Club will pay $600–despite the fact that the American Humanist Association offered $1,000 and the Freedom From Religion Foundation offered $1,200 for the land. This is because the Lion’s Club will keep the cross and star in the midst of government-owned property while the AHA and FFRF won’t. (Those of you who have followed the San Diego Mt. Soledad case should be pretty familiar with this new tactic.)

As an AHA staff member who deals with public policy, I’ve sent out quite a number of press releases during my tenure here. I’ve rarely ever received editorializing e-mails back from media people. However, today I received two of particular note:

From Daniel S. Brandenburg, Publisher/Editor of the Marion Advertiser

“Three Cheers for the Village of Holmen. I think I’ll use this as an editorial to give these leaders the credit they deserve.”

From Ingrid Schlueter, co-host of VCY America Radio Network

“Ha Ha Ha. This is great. Long live the Lions Club and kudos to the village board of Holmen, Wisconsin. God bless America.”

Clearly, we have a lot of church-state educating yet to do.

It’s a pleasure to join the Rant & Reason bloggers, especially on this National Day of Reason. For a blogger, that’s where it’s all at—REASON. Everybody else just has opinions!

If you’re from the Dark Ages, today is also the National Day of Prayer.

Personally, and as church-state lawyer, I think that the National Day of Prayer (36 U.S.C. § 119), established by Congress in 1952, is unconstitutional. Same with President Bush’s proclamation (and those of other presidents). Clearly, these are acts of government favoring religion over non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I’m not a conspiracist, but I have to say that there must be a conspiracy going on because the judges on our courts don’t seem to give a hoot about their oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Whether there is a conspiracy, or just a lot of bad people in public office, I leave that to the readers of Rant & Reason to judge.

But why should I care? After all, I gave up praying a long, long time ago because my prayers for family harmony went unanswered. So did my other prayers. And I’ve been an atheist for over 40 years with no regrets or doubts. In answer to my question, I care because our federal, state and local governments are supposed to serve all of us, not merely the most common religious group. We nontheists should not be made to feel like outsiders.

This brings me back to the National Day of Reason. Reason is one of the pillars of Humanism. Let us enjoy the day by letting reason be our guide throughout today and the years to come. There’s even a website about the National Day of Reason to help out.

And please check an announcement today by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition for Reason (supported by the AHA) of a new billboard greeting outbound Interstate 95 drivers north of Philadelphia with an image of blue sky and the message “Don’t believe in God? . . . You are not alone.”

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.

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.

Yesterday, Mike Huckabee admitted that he wants to change the U.S. Constitution to make it comply with his biblical god beliefs. For years now, politicians whose motives were clearly theocratic, have hidden behind supposedly secular rationales for their attempts to change the U.S. Constitution. Just look at the “secular” arguments for traditional (i.e. Biblical) marriage to be imposed on all civil marriages:

· Studies show children fare better with male/female parents (reliable studies actually show that the gender of parents makes no difference in their children’s well-being)

· Civil marriage rights are given solely for the purpose of biological procreation (in reality, couples who can’t or won’t procreate get civil marriage benefits anyway; and adopting parents are also permitted to marry, but only if they are a female and a male – unless they are in Massachusetts)

· Appropriate gender roles require that a marriage include a bread-winning male and a nurturing submissive female (don’t even get me started on this one!)

Now we know, thanks to Huckabee, that the real reason was, the Bible told them so … and even if you don’t share their belief, you must live under laws comporting with their belief.

Here at the Secular Coalition for America, we couldn’t help wondering what other laws would need to change to comport with Huckabee’s biblical god-beliefs:

· Would birth control be prohibited? This would require a change to the Constitution since the U.S. Supreme Court decided such laws were unconstitutional.

· What about spilling one’s seed? Would masturbation be prohibited … and if it were, who would be tasked with enforcing the law? (Given his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia would welcome such a law.)

· Would blasphemy require a death sentence? And if so, what words would be considered blasphemous? Would only Huckabee’s specific god be included in the prohibition against taking the lord’s name in vain, or would Yaweh, Allah, Thor, and the Great Plate of Spaghetti in the Sky (all hail his noodly appendage!) be included?

Suffice to say, Governor Huckabee gives us much to ponder.

The American Humanist Association, as a 501c3 educational tax-exempt organization, cannot legally endorse any one candidate for public office. But that doesn’t mean I can’t strongly oppose one.

I feel compelled to draw attention to Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s recent comments made to an audience in Michigan and reported on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,” Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

Shockingly, Huckabee’s comments even seemed to make Joe Scarborough uncomfortable:

Scarborough finally suggested that while he believes “Evangelicals should be able to talk politics … some might find that statement very troubling, that we’re going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible. And that’s all I’m going to say.”

Scarborough would later say the famous quote made by Jesus himself: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Luckily, with only 27 amendments that have been successfully ratified since 1788, I’ve got a strong feeling that Huckabee’s attempts to change anything in the Constitution—especially if it affects the church-state wall—won’t happen without a fight.

I didn’t believe this at first because it’s just weird. H. Res. 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. When I read the following, it’s just seems like someone’s either worried about being on Santa’s Naughty list or is just trolling for votes. And, if you can believe it, it passed. 372 to 9, with 10 voting Present and 40 not voting. You owe it to yourself to read the whole thing, but below are some quick highlights. The Resolution…

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

As I left the Fox Studio in DC after taping last Friday’s O’Reilly Factor (see here), I felt pretty good about the appearance, but as always, I thought of a couple of additional things I should have said. Then I thought, “Hey, I can continue my answer on the Humanist blog.” During a four minute segment, it’s important to streamline answers and get the message across quickly. Four minutes is also not sufficient to send lots of different messages or to go in-depth on anything complex. Better venues for more in-depth information include half hour radio appearances and podcasts.

So here’s the main piece that really could have used one more line: When Bill O’Reilly asked me if it would have been alright had Mitt Romney, instead of claiming that Americans believe our liberty is a gift from God, had said “most Americans” believe that. I answered that it would have made the statement more accurate. What I should have added was, “…but it would have been just as irrelevant. He didn’t single out any other majority. A candidate doesn’t need to say, ‘most Americans are white.’ A candidate for president ought to agree to represent all Americans, including minorities.” OK, there may not have been enough time to get all of that in, and quite frankly I’m surprised that O’Reilly let me get in as many comments as I did.

Of my four appearances on his show, this was my favorite. And Fox’s hair and makeup people even perked me up after a very bad hair day. And at the end of the day, isn’t that the most important thing?

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?

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.]

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.

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).

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. )

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on meditation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the installation of foot baths for Muslims at a Michigan university show preferential treatment of religion, or protect the rights of students’ to practice religion?

The Islamic practice of washing one’s feet before praying has caused problems for the bathrooms at the University of Michigan in Dearborn, with water spillage creating unsafe floors and sinks being pulled out of the wall. The school is paying $25,000 to install foot baths on the basis of increasing safety and improving plumbing.

But Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is right in highlighting the preferential treatment of Muslims in this issue. What’s to stop Catholics from demanding the installation of holy water fonts by every classroom door? If I was a member of the Church of Cognizance, which advocates the use of marijuana as a sacrament, would the school pay to build a special smoking room for my religious ritual?

The university should certainly allow for the building of foot baths, so that Muslim students’ right to practice their religion is not violated. But the Muslim community, or other private donors, should pay for it.

Bill O’Reilly’s producers were setting up the car pickup and hair and makeup for me (yes, I get the star treatment when I appear on Fox), when they stopped to ask me why I disagreed with O’Reilly about a chastity ring with biblical verse being religious in nature.

You see, a girl in London was not allowed a religious exemption from their uniform policy of “no jewelry” in school. The English court held that the chastity ring was not a religious symbol. The ring was part of the Silver Ring Thing program, which your tax dollars have previously supported to the tune of over a million dollars. Yes, our Congress paid for this religious proselytizing in U.S. public schools, until they agreed to stop such funding after a challenge from the ACLU. Like many other abstinence-until-marriage sex ed programs, this one was theologically based.

When I explained that I agreed with the ACLU and not the London court, I was told they would need to bump me in favor of a guest who would argue that the ring was not religious. But I wonder if it gives Bill O’Reilly pause to note that on this specific part of the issue, he is on the side of the ACLU and the Secular Coalition for America.