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 hate starting the week off with a depressing news article, but stories such as these are becoming all too common in a society that should be rooted in reason.

An 11-year-old girl from Weston, Wisconsin, died from diabetes after her parents relied on prayer to save her rather than bringing her to the hospital when her situation worsened.

Turns out the parents don’t actually belong to any organized faith:

“Her mother, Leilani Neumann, told The Associated Press that she never expected her daughter, whom she called Kara, to die. The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God, but they are not crazy, religious people, she said.
…
“We just believe in the Bible, that’s all. …This is our faith.”

Her husband added that, “We believe the word of God and live according to its precepts.”

Leilani Neumann said the family is not worried about a police investigation into her daughter’s death because “our lives are in God’s hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do.”

But the worst news of all? The girl’s diabetes was treatable.

How many more children need to die before we all realize that prayer doesn’t work?

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

I came across the writing of Doug Giles for the first time today, in the form of his article, God and Glocks: Why Churches Should Not be Gun Free Zones. Though I can’t say I agree with much of his assessment throughout the article, I can understand why his frustration would lead him to say,

I think if Jesus were placed in a similar situation as the New Life Church security guard, he would whip out his Glock and double tap the center mass of any wannabe killer who was attempting to put a bullet in one of his defenseless disciples.

I think one of his readers, who goes by “Born to Farm” has the Christian–and I think Humanist–message better. He responds by saying

I just can’t see Christ pulling out his Glock and filling the guy with lead. I could possibly see Christ taking the guy down with a body block while taking a bullet meant for someone else. Kinda like what he did on the cross.

Now I’m not a religious believer, so what would Jesus do isn’t the first thing I think of in my everyday life. But I am a bit curious to know, in Doug Giles’ little world, exactly how and why did Jesus–and the kid who turned into a deranged killer–get the Glocks? What purpose does giving anyone who wants a gun, guns whose sole purpose is killing people? Where are the laws that are supposed to protect the rights of gun owners but not allow this insane sort of tragedy happen?

Slate has a cartoon by Clay Jones showing the NRA view about places you shouldn’t go without a gun. Do we really want a society where everywhere you go, you need a gun? I think as Humanists we have to help draw the line about gun control and not give in to the hate filled message of ‘kill those who would kill you.’ Other countries have found ways to work to end gun violence, why aren’t we?

There’s been much talk in the blogosphere about the upcoming release of The Golden Compass, a new film based on the children’s trilogy His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman–a known atheist. A chain email is rumored to have been passed around to thousands of parents encouraging them to not let their children see the movie’s supposed anti-religious themes. And the Catholic League will be conducting a two-month protest of the movie, claiming the book is “overt in its hatred of Catholicism.”

So what does Pullman have to say about his attempt to indoctrinate little children to the evilness that is atheism? Quite the opposite, actually. When asked if there was an underlying message promoting atheism in his books, Pullman stated:

As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded inquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.

Sure, Pullman has also stated in a 2003 interview with the Sydney Morning Herald that, “My books are about killing God.” While not the most ideal choice of words, there’s nothing wrong with what Pullman is doing. C.S. Lewis did the exact same thing in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe on behalf of Christianity (and you didn’t see atheists collectively protesting that movie when it came out two years ago).

What the Catholic League is attempting to do through its protest is equate atheism with immorality. (I find that funny, in light of the hundreds of Catholic clergy abuse cases going on in the world.) But I’m more offended that the Catholic League implies that atheism is dangerous to children. Pullman’s books, as the author has stated himself, promote intellectual curiosity. Let the kids decide for themselves.

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

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

The article, posted on Times Online, reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. )

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

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

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

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

In an article on the website Townhall.com Mike S. Adams writes about finding out a friend believes he’s living a moral life even though he has quit attending church. Adams writes, “I asked myself the crucial question: ‘How does one know he lives a moral life if he does not ever attend church?’” I’m afraid I don’t understand how one lives a moral life by simply attending church. While charging that writers like Dawkins or Harris don’t know enough about the Christian religion to evaluate it, many Christian writers assume they know what Humanist morals are without really reading anything about Humanism.

How should Humanists educate others about the reality of Humanist moral and ethical systems? Would books on morals sell? Or is there some other way to reach out? Adams suggests that Christians invite 5 friends to go to their church with them, so why don’t Humanists invite friends to Humanist meetings or share Humanist or atheist magazines or other writings with friends?