Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister and founder of Médecins Sans Frontières has brought up the radical (to some) idea, of having the United Nations bring in food and other relief aid, to the Burmese people, even if the generals in the military junta object. Of course, as Nick Cohen points out in the Guardian:

He (Kouchner) was opposed by authoritarian regimes the world over. A Western diplomat at the UN Security Council meeting said objections came from China, Kouchner’s old enemies in Vietnam, Russia and South Africa… All knew without needing to be told that if the Burmese military were held to be illegitimate rulers whose wishes could be overruled because they lacked a democratic mandate, the same criteria could be used against them or their allies, too, and their desperate arguments reflected their fears.

To say that the American Left has become sadly predictable in its foreign policy would be an understatement. It should be no surprise after some hemming-and-hawing, to see the Left end up as uneasy bedfellows with dictatorial governments such as the People Republic of China in this matter. After all, the people of Burma cannot compete the ugly strain of isolationism that is creeping into America’s body politic. Nor can the Burmese suffering ease the trauma that the Left would surly face by being called Western imperialists from various quarters.

Though pocketbooks have opened up around the world to help the Burmese, the next few days will require tough decisions in order to prevent an already tragic event turn into a mind-blowing catastrophe. The people of Burma need our help. So what are we going to do about it?

Manifestos have been popping up on varying modern movements for dozens of years now. Even Humanists created one in 1933. Now, Evangelicals have one, too.

An Evangelical Manifesto, established by a committee led by Samford University (not to be mistaken for Stanford University in California) theology professor Timothy George, was released to the public yesterday. It was created to “take back the term ‘evangelical’ from politics and return it to its theological roots,’” according to USA Today.

So far, there are over 80 signers, including Princeton professor Sam Moffett, and Sojournors magazine founder Jim Wallis. (There is also a mysterious signer known as “Greg,” a “Minister” at a “Baptist church.” For what reason would he choose not to fully identify himself?)

But where are the bigwig Evangelicals—activists like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson, or media pundits like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh?

Well, it looks like a few of them aren’t satisfied enough with it:

The Southern Baptist Convention’s policy chief, Dr. Richard Land, says he wasn’t asked to sign.

Focus on the Family’s Doctor James Dobson says he was asked, but his board of directors advised against it “due to myriad concerns,” including the lack of African-American involvement.

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America worries the manifesto will confuse Christian voters about the issues that are most important: opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

It’s nice to see that Shaw thinks its more important for Christians to focus on negative, hurtful rhetoric than postively assert one’s beliefs and hopes for the future. Perhaps that’s the reason why such a manifesto is needed.

Major General Robert L. Caslen Jr—one of the seven military officers who caused a minor stir (though it should have been a major one) when he improperly appeared in a Christian Embassy promotional video in uniform—is getting a promotion. The change-of-command date is yet to be set, but at some point Caslen will become the commanding general at the Schofield Barracks.

I wonder if he’d be receiving the same promotion had he appeared in a humanist or otherwise atheist video? Actually, I don’t have to wonder—the answer is clearly no. Just look at what the military did to atheist Specialist Jeremy Hall if you have any doubt of that.

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.”

Rocky Twyman, a choir director from Washington, is doing his part to help decrease the cost of gas—with a little help from God.

Last weekend, he stopped at a Chevron gas station in San Francisco—where gas is now over $4—to stage a pray-in, “calling on churchgoers to ask for God’s intervention where he says politicians have failed.”

Oh, but he’s also quick to mention that those participating in prayer should do more walking and carpooling.

Anyone want to venture a guess at which would work better—prayer or actually using less gas?

I’m not posting about this to poke fun at people who rely on prayer to solve problems. However, I make an exception for those who claim prayer to be “successful” when rational suggestions are obviously better. Twyman shouldn’t claim victory and praise God if the price of gas does decrease. Thank the people around you—for using less resources, taking public transportation, and doing their individual part to save the earth.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

In Sunday’s New York Times, Paul Berman writes about “Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die” and offers up his theories as to why it is that extremism survives in Iraq, as well as why it flourishes in the West, too. Berman states that,

Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

A dismaying development. One more sign of the power of the extremist ideologies — one more surprising turn of events, on top of all the other dreadful and gut-wrenching surprises.

This critique by Berman can also be extended, to some degree, to the humanist movement. For example, in the January/February 2008 issue of the Humanist, in a piece about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, authors David Schafer and Michelle Koth conclude, in part, by saying,

Her approach is poorly informed about the past and present of Islam, ineffectual at best, mainly counter-productive, and at worst potentially catastrophic in its consequences. It is here, too, that the influences of her principal intellectual environments since 2003—the VVD Party in the Netherlands and the American Enterprise Institute in the United States—taken as a whole, have clearly discouraged her development as a well-balanced defender of human rights and security.

Schafer and Koth are perhaps correct in stating that,

Hirsi Ali’s prior experience of Islam was confined to her youthful and often painful life in Africa: the tribal variety in Somalia, the strict Wahhabi version in Saudi Arabia, and in Kenya the Islamist political formulations of the Muslim Brothers and even more radical Sayyid Qutb—all followed by her intense contact with mainly African (e.g., Somali and Moroccan) immigrant women who had suffered abuse in the Netherlands. She knew little about the complex history of Islam in other times and other places.

While her views on Islam aren’t based on years of study, her intense, personal understanding of the religion also cannot be dismissed. Though what she dealt with is not the form of Islam practiced by every Muslim, it is also difficult to argue that she is taking her stand purely because of the ideology of the VVD Party, and the American Enterprise Institute.

Indeed, as the West continues to encounter Islam, not only on grand geopolitical scales, but everyday at the corner store or in a school hallway, it is imperative to recognize the vast and heterogeneous nature of Islam. What is perhaps forgotten, then, is that this also extends to the varying types of critiques of Islam. For Schafer and Koth to deride Hirsi Ali’s analysis of Islam simply because her view doesn’t conform to their understanding of the religion leads them down the same narrow path that they’re alleging Hirsi Ali has taken. It’s unfortunate that Schafer and Koth have fallen into the trap that so many others on the Left have fallen into.

A shocking article published in The Nation, written by social critic and 1998 Humanist of the Year Barbara Ehrenreich, takes a scathing look at presidential contender Hillary Clinton and her involvement with an ultra-secretive conservative group known as “The Family.”

Also known as “The Fellowship,” members of The Family are Capitol Hill legislators that gather for Bible study and group prayers. Hillary has been an active participant since winning the Senate in 2006, and evidence shows she was involved in The Family’s activities as early as 1993.

Perhaps this is nothing more than a gathering of dedicated religious leaders for private group worship. But Ehrenreich suggests it goes far beyond that, referring to an upcoming book by Jeff Sharlet, who uncovered the following:

The Family’s most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes–knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs.

At the heart of The Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum. They get to use The Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family’s young women’s group. And, at The Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already powerful.

Humanists often say that religion shouldn’t play a role in politics, but that doesn’t mean it does anyway. So when the time comes, how will Hillary explain her relationship with “The Family” to the millions of church-state separation supporters in America?

It’s always troubling for me to see the emptiness of the rhetoric and the lack of coherent arguments that has emerged from our movement regarding the liberation of Iraq. T.F. Kelley’s recent online column for the Humanist is unfortunately no different in this regard (for a more nuanced view of Iraq at this five-year anniversary, check out a Week in Review article from the New York Times). I am continually astounded that when the topic of conversation turns to Iraq, we, who claim the mantle of critical thinking and humane values, suddenly cannot help but point out the conspiratorial hand of Big Oil, and the supposedly secular utopia that was built by Saddam. Only two of Kelley’s points appear to require any serious rebuttal.

Kelley writes, “I don’t believe it’s a ‘tragedy of the Left’ to be unwilling to apply the idea of justice for all by supporting an illegal war, not one declared by Congress and in contradiction to [the] will of the United Nations.” If Kelley wishes to be told by politicians and bureaucrats what is ethical and what is not, he is free to do so. However, considering the social and legal struggles humanists, atheists and all freethinkers have fought for, we know that the institutions that we as a society have created are not always fully just, and that what is right and wrong is not always the same as what is legal and illegal.

The implied claim by Kelley that liberal hawks did not apply any rigorous or critical thought to the question of Iraq in the lead up to March of 2003 is laughably ridiculous, at best. By simply typing “liberal hawks” into Google, readers will find a plethora of articles by liberal hawks discussing amongst themselves the difficulties in rendering a decision on this matter, as well as articles about the choices – and reasoning behind those choices – that were made. Liberal hawks were not drawn into the right-wing culture of fear created by the White House, but they also refused to stand alongside a Left which is becoming increasingly isolationist in it’s outlook. Our first and foremost concern was, and continues to be, the people of Iraq. Kelley may not wish to acknowledge that, but the weight of evidence easily available on the Internet belies his claims.

At the end of his essay, Kelley speaks of the Iraqi boys in the photo that accompanied the print version of my article. It’s encouraging to see him show some concern for their wellbeing. I wonder, though, if Saddam were still in power, would Kelley still have been concerned about their fate? Or would they simply have been someone else’s problem?

Nica Lalli, author of Nothing: Something to Believe In, writes a fantastic opinion article in USA Today about the questions atheist parents often get when asked about how their children are raised. Do atheists raise their children as atheists? Do they learn about organized religions?

The answers to these questions aren’t always the same for every atheist parent. It would only be natural that a child raised in an atheist household adopt the beliefs of their parents. An atheist parent isn’t going to church on Sundays or praying before meals. But does that mean we are indoctrinating children into atheism?

Lalli points out that children can learn about all religions—in addition to learning about atheism, humanism, and other non-religions. Encourage freedom of choice, and your child can make his or her own decision as he or she gets older. Whether you believe in God or not, a child shouldn’t have to be forced into any belief system. Giving your children the opportunity to explore the vast and diverse beliefs and nonbeliefs out there is the best way to go.

Listen to heart-wrenching testimony from Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans from Winter Soldier, a four-day event that’s currently in day two and will last until Sunday. The description from Iraq Veterans Against the War:

The…event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan—and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans’ health benefits and support.

Find out how to watch or listen here.

This morning Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! broadcasted Vietnam vet’s testimony from the first Winter Soldier, held on January 31, 1971. Names and places have changed, but otherwise the testimony from then and now are eerily similar, particularly with regards to policy, enforced by military higher-ups, of abuse of detainees and innocent civilians.

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.

Yesterday I attended a panel discussion, “Has the Religious Right Lost Its Way? Religious Leaders from the Left and Right Discuss the Future of Faith in Politics,” featuring Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition; Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; and Rev. Jim Wallis, president and executive director of Sojourners. The event was held to discuss the forthcoming book, Personal Faith, Public Policy, co-authored by Perkins and Jackson, in which the pair argues that the Evangelical movement is not, in fact, dead (as so many pundits are quick to report) but merely regrouping and expanding in breadth to include issues such as poverty, the environment, race, and immigration to its primarily pro-life/pro-marriage platform. They also made the point that “Religious Right” is actually becoming a misnomer—one of the Evangelical movement’s main focal points is to transcend categories of Republican or Democrat and to reconfigure themselves as Independents, or as Wallis put it, the “ultimate swing vote.”

I agree that—for better or worse—the power of Evangelicals isn’t extinguished, only perhaps waned. The pendulum will inevitably swing back. And in terms of socio-political movements, the power of faith should never be underestimated or devalued. As long as the wall between church and state remains strong I welcome the moral imperative to change society that can be derived from religion. We should be focused on protecting the environment and alleviating poverty, and if religion is compelling people to do so all the better. It’s only when religious movements try to impose rather than promote their morality by using the government to force it on others—such as in the case of trying to outlaw abortion—that I have a problem.

The most compelling portion of the event was an exchange between Perkins, Wallis, and moderator Michel Martin of NPR’s Tell Me More, during which health care made an entrance. Perkins made the argument that it’s wrong to force pregnant women to test their fetuses for Down syndrome but then not offer them government aid if the test turns out to be positive, leaving them in the heart-wrenching position to choose between abortion or the astronomically high cost of raising a Downs child. (My two cents: bravo for Perkins. It’s hypocritical to claim to want to reduce the abortion rate but then not make the costs of raising a child more affordable. Now when are we going to talk about comprehensive sex education?) Martin challenged that that’s a good argument for universal health care, which is eschewed by the Religious Right. Perkins said he agreed there needs to be more affordable health care but that it shouldn’t come from the government—do we really want to rely on an inept government for our health care needs? He called for more personal responsibility as a solution (so in a more free-market system people might be more likely to rethink eating from McDonald’s three times a week if they knew they’d have to pay later on if they developed heart disease). Wallis jumped in, arguing that health care should be a universal right—if a person is genetically predisposed to cancer it’s not a matter of personal responsibility. Wallis reasoned that government isn’t the answer or the enemy; we need to strike a balance between personal responsibility and the responsibility of society to take care of those in need.

In the March issue of the Atlantic, Walter Russell Mead suggests that evangelicals in the U.S. are becoming more moderate as they mature into the mainstream, shedding their more strident tone as their influence grows in politics and society. One example of this, of course, is the move beyond the longstanding focus on gays and abortion, toward “creation care.” This past weekend, writing in the Washington Post (registration required), E.J. Dionne Jr. proclaims the death of the culture wars, not because one side or the other has finally emerged victorious. Instead, as we head to presidential elections this fall, voters simply have too much on their minds — for example, the liberation of Iraq, the state of the economy, the place America stands in the world—and don’t have the time to be worried about “values,” like they could in the past.

It’s too early to tell if this really is the trend both authors see it to be (just between reading this blog and the Humanist, it seems a case can be made that the religious right is not mellowing out that much). But if we grant the authors their assumptions, what does it mean for the humanist movement? Of course, on a philosophical level, humanism is so much more than just a reaction to religion. But when it comes to day-to-day activism in the public square, not only are we out there pushing our worldview forward, we’re doing all we can to push back against most everything the religious right is spewing out. What would happen if evangelicals continue proselytizing on an individual level, but no longer tried to impose their views on the rest of society through legislation? Or, what if they started promoting viewpoints that our movement could support?

Something the humanist movement has never openly and honestly articulated is the ideal role we envision religion playing in society. Do humanists only seek to reduce the influence of the religious right in the public square, ensuring a secular society where religion holds no particular sway? Or do we intend to continue to push, to try and root out religious thinking in society as a whole, and create a world full of humanists? Is the latter even possible? Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be? Does making common cause with religious believers on shared issues of concern mean an end to the critique of the irrationality of a belief in a god?

This is an issue that we already face as we work with religious liberals on those issues of common concern. But our agreement on various issues are arrived at by very different means, and very different routes. If we truly are facing a trend of a religious right that is more moderate, or of a religious right that is simply less relevant, the question then becomes where does that leave us, and where do we go from there?

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.

Charlotte Allen hosted a Q&A on the Washington Post website today to respond to the reactions to her inflammatory opinion piece asserting women are dumb. Read the transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/04/DI2008030402153.html

I managed to get three of my questions in, although I do feel they were given short shrift by Allen:

Washington: You write that you doubt women’s representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That’s absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest levels of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict.

 

Washington: Do you believe caring for children, men and the weak is something that should be valued less in society? I ask because you seem to imply that they are tasks only fit for the dim, and unworthy of an intelligent mind. What do you think about men who are caregivers?

Charlotte Allen: Quite the opposite: I think that caring for children, men, and the weak are the most important things that can be done. It’s women who have devalued them by mocking stay-at-home mothers, etc.

 

Washington: Were you trying to start a constructive debate with your opinion piece? Do you think that’s happened? I think by concluding that women are “dumb” because of real sex differences that exist just pisses people off, and thus precludes any real debate on this issue—and it’s something I think should be explored openly. Name-calling doesn’t get us anywhere.

Charlotte Allen: I called no names, but to be quite honest, I wasn’t trying to start a debate, constructive or otherwise. I was just expressing my views.

Read a rebuttal to Allen’s piece that was posted on the WP website here.

I have to admit I’m starting to wonder if Allen’s opinion piece doesn’t actually signify something good after all. In Allen’s Q&A session she argued that men are lampooned all the time as idiotic oafs but women are off-limits, unfairly so. I don’t know if I completely agree with that (surely it’s not hard to think of instances in which popular culture makes fun of women), but it’s certainly much more mainstream acceptable to poke fun at those who have power in society (i.e. men). Maybe the fact that a media powerhouse such as the Washington Post would publish a “humor” piece that pokes fun at women means that women have truly risen above their historically weaker status in society–both institutionally and socially. Maybe this is an important turning point, rather than the display of crass cattiness I first thought.

Or, you know, at least in addition to.