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.”

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

A recent media advisory from Tikkun noted the submission of House Resolution 1078, sponsored by Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN), Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) and Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MI). It basically calls for a Global Marshall Plan, which has been outlined by the Network of Spiritual Progressives. This plan offers Americans the opportunity to give 1 to 2 percent of the nation’s GDP and apply it toward poverty, both domestically and globally, for the next twenty years. With participation from other technologically developed countries, as well as a proper use of funds (which is always a challenge in these days) this plan could eliminate–not reduce, eliminate–poverty. As Rabbi Lerner, one of the founders of Tikkun, noted,

“We approach this initiative with a spirit of humility not only because of the legacy of colonialism, but because we can learn much from societies whose economic poverty does not signify a poverty of wisdom. Generosity of spirit as well as financial generosity are an integral part of our Global Marshall Plan, which we affirm not only because it is a central component in any plan to achieve ‘homeland security,’ but also because it reflects our commitment to recognize every human being on this planet as equally valuable and deserving of care. HR 1078 expresses the need for a similar humility in delivering support for the world’s poor.”

It’s an interesting challenge. Can we in today’s political and social climate really effect the kind of change necessary to put the focus of our money on programs that we truly know will do good? The recent success of the PEPFAR program seems to indicate we could, but the Global Marshall Plan is on a much larger scale. I can’t see spending $12 billion on the war in Iraq (which may be the only way we can stabilize the country) and then turning around and denying the chance for what could free so many more people from the tyranny of poverty and hunger.

If we believe we can–and I always will believe–then we must also join with the religious left on this. Humanists need to seize this opportunity to rebuild America’s place in the world, especially when it comes to our status, our friendships and our leadership. And, most importantly, our nation’s moral bearing. This Global Marshal Plan could be the basis of a great Humanist foreign policy, even if credit for it’s inception goes to the religious left.

Stephen Colbert hasn’t called me! Ever since he started his 35,000 part series way back in early 2008, “Better Know a Lobbyist,” he has featured the gay lobby and the marijuana lobby, but there is a deadly silence in terms of the nontheist lobby. What’s up with that?

It’s time for the Secular Coalition Nation to rise up and ask Mr. Colbert why he hasn’t introduced the Colbert Nation to the nontheist lobby. I’ve appeared on Papa Bear’s (Bill O’Reilly’s) show four times now, but have yet to have the pleasure of taking on his better half and mirror image, Stephen Colbert himself.

So, all you friends (and foes) of Colbert, lets start a campaign to get the Colbert Report to cover this important lobby representing humanists, atheists, and other Americans who don’t hold a belief in deities. If we let our voices be heard by Comedy Central, we can convince Colbert to have the Secular Coalition for America on his “Better Know a Lobbyist” segment.

Here’s the place to write: http://www.colbertnation.com/cn/contact.php

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For myself, I’m keeping the New Years resolutions to a minimum –- organize my files better, finish a book this year, and exercise more regularly. But since tonight will be the Iowa caucuses, I have some suggested resolutions for the presidential candidates. How about these, candidates:

• Resolve to promote civil law based on civil reasons; not based on theology. This means that if you want to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, believe away; but don’t pretend that this “lesson” is appropriate for a public school science class. It also means that your theology regarding whether stem cells have a soul and which adults should be permitted to civilly marry will affect your own life only – not mine.
• Resolve to talk about issues, values, and qualifications -– instead of your beliefs. Proclaiming your love for Jesus doesn’t tell me anything about the reasons why I vote for someone. Plus, far too many voters then conclude that a Christian theology is necessary to share their values. This is not true.
• Resolve to include minority beliefs in your representations. Don’t tell us that all Americans believe in a god, or that only Americans who do matter to you.
• Resolve to stop running for pastor-in-chief. You are running for president -– not a theological leader. We are not a theocracy … yet.

Well, candidates … any takers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was a spontaneous gesture, “a moment of levity” during the national anthem at the awards banquet when the American Bridge champions held up the cup and one of the players also held up a quickly scribbled sign on the back of a menu that read “We did not vote for Bush.”

By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.” The United States Bridge Federation is angry and worried about losing sponsors and upsetting people. The players we’re stunned by the fierceness of the reaction.

“What we were trying to say, not to Americans but to our friends from other countries, was that we understand that they are questioning and critical of what our country is doing these days, and we want you to know that we, too, are critical,” Ms. Greenberg said, stressing that she was speaking for herself and not her six teammates.

The league wants apologies, bans from play for a year and 200 hours of community service. These are professional players so this is basically cutting their income off for a year. I’m comparing this in my mind to football and baseball players’ punishments that have recently made the news for using drugs and dogfighting. I think we’ve got our priorities wrong.

You should have seen the U.S. senator’s eyes widen when I told him that there was a national atheist conference with 550 participants and a waiting list of 600 in DC last month (Atheist Alliance International). I’m often asked on lobby visits, “How many people do you represent?” During my first two years as director of the Secular Coalition for America, there has been an incredible increase in numbers of nontheists throughout the United States who affiliate with organized groups.

The American Humanist Association and other SCA member organizations have seen tremendous growth in just the past couple of years. 2008’s international conference in Washington, DC, June 6-8, should be tremendous. The SCA’s second lobby day, dubbed Secular Activists Voices to Educate Day (SAVED), to be held on June 9, 2008, should be just as effective as our first (held in conjunction with the AAI conference) but larger. The first SAVED event brought a small, but highly motivated and influential group of citizen lobbyists into Congress. We are still using the contacts made through those visits in our lobbying.

So, when it comes to clout in Congress, and in society … yes, size does matter. And the active and “out” status of affiliated nontheists does matter.

I started reading this at Think Progress. On October 15, 2007, President Bush appointed Susan Orr to oversee federal family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) saying she was “highly qualified.” Before serving with HHS Orr has made some rather telling remarks.

In a 2001 article in The Washington Post, Orr applauded a Bush proposal to stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr, then an official with the Family Research Council. Orr also wrote an article for Family Research Council Called “Real Women Stay Married”. In it she claimed that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.” She has declared herself against taxpayers supporting birth control and in a 2000 Weekly Standard article Orr spoke out against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice. It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”

Remember, Orr’s HHS role is not just symbolic. She will oversee a $283 million program, a $30 million program that encourages abstinence among teenagers, and HHS’s Office of Population Affairs, which funds birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling, and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

According to the Carpetbagger ReportOrr will have “extensive power to shape the kinds of information disseminated to millions of women, and will be able to develop new guidelines for clinics, set priorities, and determine how scarce dollars get spent.” The last thing we need is a family planning office headed by someone opposed to family planning. It doesn’t even make sense. Giving someone a job based on their political views is wrong, but seeking their religious views is just as wrong and is clearly doing damage to our country. This type of cronyism needs to end. No more litmus tests other than the right job skills for the job.

At a campaign appearance in Dover, New Hampshire on Saturday, Mitt Romney was confronted head on with the issue of medical marijuana. Clayton Holton, whose muscular dystrophy keeps him in a wheelchair, explained to Mitt that pot is the only medicine that seems to help him, and his doctors say he is “living proof [that] medical marijuana works.”

“My question for you,” Holton continued, “is will you arrest me or my doctors if I get medical marijuana?”

Romney’s reaction, as seen in this video, is contemptible. He says, shortly, “I am not infavor of medical marijuana being legal in this country,” and abruptly walks away. Another member of the audience asks Romney if he’s going to answer Holton’s question, and Romney replies, “I think I have.”

I can’t imagine what it must have been like to be Holton in that situation—to have a leader of your country say, effectively, that they’d let you die or go to prison before they’d let you smoke pot, and then walk away, smiling and shaking hands.

My infuriation with the anti-medical pot camp lies in their dogmatic denial of hard science that refutes their position. If people’s lives are at stake, the least you should do is enter into a reasoned debate where all the facts are openly considered. Then again, this might be too much to expect from our government, where the pre-Iraq war debate amounted to a quibble over whether Iraqi’s would welcome us with open arms or whether they’d bring us fruit baskets as well.

John McCain, the Episcopalian who goes to a Baptist church, when asked by Beliefnet “Have the candidates’ personal faith become too big an issue in the presidential race?” Offered up an answer that put him on par with Bush for putting his foot in it.

Questions about that are very legitimate. . . . And it’s also appropriate for me at certain points in the conversation to say, look, that’s sort of a private matter between me and my Creator.

To this point he was a publicist’s dream but he couldn’t stop:

But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, “Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?”

He was given a chance to backdown with the next question, but like an energizer bunny…

Beliefnet: It doesn’t seem like a Muslim candidate would do very well, according to that standard.
McCain: I admire the Islam. There’s a lot of good principles in it. I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what’s basically an honorable religion. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles . . . personally, I prefer someone who I know has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn’t mean that I’m sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don’t say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would—I just feel that that’s an important part of our qualifications to lead.

Beliefnet’s God-o-Meter has McCain at a solid eight since this interview. Clinton and Obama are tied at seven. Is this what campaigns have become, merely a litmus test of whose got that old time religion?

Senator John McCain’s recent declaration, “I’m not Episcopalian, I’m Baptist,” would seem to be not only well scripted but carefully calculated. After all, a presidential candidate who throws out the fact that his religious affiliation is not what almost everyone in the country believed it to be is inviting scrutiny and its bedfellow, publicity.

The Associated Press (AP) asked McCain on Saturday how his Episcopal faith plays a role in his campaign and life. McCain grew up Episcopalian and attended an Episcopal high school in Alexandria, VA.

“It plays a role in my life. By the way, I’m not Episcopalian. I’m Baptist,” McCain said. “Do I advertise my faith? Do I talk about it all the time? No.”  But he does apparently use it to gain political momentum and publicity.

This is one of the reasons I think that religious faith should not be a question we are allowed to ask a political candidate. A cynic (as I obviously am) would say he’s using his faith for votes. We’re obviously using faith as a litmus test in this case; Episcopalian is acceptable with a ph of 5 but Baptist is better with a ph of 7.

According to the Associated Baptist Press the AP story was picked up by scores of newspapers and on several national television news programs. McCain even got air time on CNN to explain that he had been raised an Episcopalian but had attended North Phoenix Baptist Church “for many years.” And then he got to bring it all home: “And the most important thing is that I am a Christian, and I don’t have anything else to say about the issue.”

He doesn’t have to. He’s already indicated he’d give the religious right every thing they want—overturning Roe v. Wade, restrictions on gay marriage, alternatives to evolutionary theory in the curriculum, vigilance on Islamic radicalism, school vouchers, and so much more. The only thing he isn’t right on for the conservative is stem cell research. As Jacques Berlinerblau says, “McCain delivers like no other first-tier Republican. Even if he were Wiccan, Evangelicals would have to put aside their revulsion for skyclad pagans and consider his candidacy very seriously.”

We can’t ask a job candidate their religion before hiring them, so why can we talk so freely about a political candidates religion? This is an unfair practice and yet we as the American Public revel in it. How as Humanists can we condone this practice? Or better yet, how can we best lead the public away from this practice? 

The latest events in the gay marriage controversy occurred on September 18th when Maryland’s Court of Appeals upheld a 34-year-old state law defining marriage as the union of husband and wife, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry. The judges in a 4-3 decision acknowledged that LGBT people have been targets of discrimination, but held that the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state’s interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children. However the judges gave advocates another tactic to pursue. Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. writing for the majority said this:

Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex.

I didn’t know the state had an interest in promoting procreation. (Maybe we should have a Day of Conception like they do in Russia.) Nor do I see how gay marriage infringes on the state’s interest in protecting children. So how do Humanists view this issue?

Another story relating to the gay marriage issue appeared in the New York Times: “Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue.” The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization in New Jersey is losing it’s tax exemption for a Boardwalk Pavilion it owns after the group rejected the requests of two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies at the Pavilion. Lisa Jackson, the state commissioner on environmental protection, said this:

When people hear the words “open space,” we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people. And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.

Read the rest of this entry &raquo