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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Carlin’s death raises the question, was he a humanist? He was an atheist who certainly “told it like it is” regarding religion, and he advocated progressive values, civil liberties, and the First Amendment. But Carlin’s regular lamenting of “humanity’s bullshit” and a statement like, “I have absolutely no sympathy for human beings whatsoever. None. And no matter what kind of problem humans are facing, whether it’s natural or man-made, I always hope it gets worse,” doesn’t exactly scream humanism to me.

Or does it? You could say Carlin was a humanist in the way Kurt Vonnegut was a humanist (except that I don’t think Carlin ever called himself one). That is, they worshiped at the altar of absurdity. But wait, absurdity is defined as, “The condition or state in which humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe wherein people’s lives have no purpose or meaning.” Again, not very humanistic! But remember—these guys were artists and entertainers. Exposing the absurd was both Carlin’s and Vonnegut’s bread and butter, their shtick, their—quite literally for Carlin—act. How we respond to it is what matters. George Carlin’s talent rested in his ability to lay open what’s absurd about life and the human species, and in doing so to make us mad. And to make us think.

And so I would propose that illuminating the absurd is an act of rebellion that adds meaning to a seemingly meaningless world. Sisyphus with a smile. (Or is it a wink?) Now, what do you think—is this a humanist’s take?

This is a horrifying news development that I simply had to share and know will garner comments from the humanist community.

John Freshwater, a middle school teacher in Mount Vernon, Ohio, taught creationism in his science class and kept copies of the Bible and other religious material in his classroom. It was inappropriate enough that Mr. Freshwater was breaking the law by not sticking to the basic science curriculum standards of the state, which I’m pretty sure does not include proselytizing.

But he went even further: he apparently used a device to burn the image of the cross on the arms of his students. One family is suing the school district after their child arrived home with a burn mark that lasted for weeks.

I doubt anyone would disagree that Mr. Freshwater should not only be outright fired, but sent straight to jail. His horrific actions are criminal enough to keep him away from children for a long time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Carolina’s Attorney General Henry McMaster thinks the Ten Commandments should be posted in public buildings. And he thinks the Lord’s Prayer should be thrown in as well.

The AP reports:

McMaster says the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer have an established place in teaching American constitutional history and civic virtue. He says they and other documents on display would teach morality, ethics and integrity.

The bill would allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public buildings as part of a group of documents that helped set the foundations for U.S. law.

The Religious Right would have you believe that the Founders refer directly to the Ten Commandments in the formation of the Constitution when the exact opposite is clear. There is not a single reference to a worship of a god or gods, unlike the first Commandment (”I am the Lord Thy God”).

In fact, the idea of keeping religion and government separate from the public sphere was so important that it was listed as the very first amendment (”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”).

But readers of this blog already know all this. It’s bad enough that the Attorney General thinks the Ten Commandments had anything to do with the formation of American law. But the Lord’s Prayer, too? I’d really like to hear his arguments for that.

I am the father of three children. If my state took them from me without evidence that I had abused them, my outrage would be indescribable.

Thus it was no surprise to me to read that a Texas appeals court ruled last week state authorities had no right to seize more than 460 children in a raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints’ (FLDS) Yearning For Zion (YFZ) Ranch in early April.

The appellate court decision is being hailed as a vindication by members of FLDS who claimed that they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Here’s why.

Every child on the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado, Texas was taken from the FLDS based on uncorroborated “tips” from a caller to a family shelter crisis line who claimed to be a pregnant, abused teenage wife at the ranch. The caller has not been found and authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.

But that is not really the starting point. Texas authorities have been investigating the group for the last four years. It seems that the regular Texas Bible thumpers are not particularly tolerant of non-mainstream religions.

In Texas, bigamy is a felony in which a man is legally married to one woman and either marries OR lives with a person other than his spouse “under the appearance of being married.” Thus it would seem that a man with a wife and a “spiritual wife” could be charged with bigamy (but not the women?).

While I believe in the rule of law, in the United States we have seen a number of occasions in which the courts have overturned lifestyle laws involving consenting adults. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages (1967) and Texas’s sodomy (2005). Moreover, the supreme courts of Massachusetts and California have ruled in favor of gay marriages. Is polygamy next?

Now follow this logic. The warrant authorizing the Texas’s raid on YFZ Ranch was based on apparently false allegations of child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, the warrant is probably still valid.

However, having sex with a person under the age of 17 years of age who is your spouse is not a crime in Texas. Therefore, if polygamy were legal in Texas, and the men had married their spiritual wives, then there would be no child sexual abuse with respect to girls 16 years of age or over (14 years of age or older prior to 2005), the minimum age for marrying in Texas.

So I am greatly concerned that the Texas raid was really for the purpose of breaking up FLDS, and that protecting children was the state’s cover. This conclusion is tentative, but given Texas’s bizarre claim that the YFZ Ranch constituted a single household so that wrong doing by a few could be imputed to the entire group and the lead investigator in the case alleging that the FLDS belief system facilitates a lifestyle in which “male children are groomed to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and the girls are raised to be victims of sexual abuse,” I do not foresee changing my view.

Texas has appealed the appellate court’s decision to the Texas Supreme Court. Given that the state failed to prove imminent harm to the children — a critical requirement to justify taking children from their parents — it is likely that the appellate court’s decision will be sustained and most of the children returned to their parents (except possible several underage girls who are pregnant or recently gave birth).

The bottom line is that while I am concerned for the welfare of the FLDS children, it is important not forget the right of parents to raise their children free of governmental interference (absent evidence of actual
abuse) and what appears to be a general lack of due process at the trial level.

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

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

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

An abridged version of the letter is here

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

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

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

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

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

Though I haven’t been following everything that the chattering masses have been saying about NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement of Barack Obama for president, I wanted to toss out my support for their decision. Not because they endorsed Obama per se, but because they were willing to actually endorse a man, in an election cycle that included a woman.

I don’t know about the specific voting records of Obama or Hillary Clinton when it comes to choice issues, and I don’t pretend to know about the internal deliberations that must have gone on inside NARAL Pro-Choice America when coming to this decision (at a party over the weekend, a NARAL staffer summed it up as “blowback” when talking about the endorsement). However, NARAL for whatever reason, looked beyond just endorsing a woman because she’s a woman, and made an endorsement on who they honestly thought was the best choice.

As a guy who is pro-choice, I’ve always felt slightly unwelcome in the pro-choice/feminist movements. I’m not sure if it’s me projecting, or if there is a disconnect, ever so slight. Where does a man fit in, in the framework of women’s empowerment? Is my support appreciated, or seen as condescending? If it is allowable for my voice to stand out in support of choice issues, what about the man who stands against a woman’s right to choose? If his voice negated because he’s a man and against choice, why should mine be allowed simply because I’m saying the right things?

For NARAL Pro-Choice America to take this step, shows, ever so slightly, the direction they’re leaning in the debate about a man’s place in the women’s movement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding morality, Gappa again has an slightly distorted perspective:

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

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