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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

On Monday, the Alliance Defense Fund will be holding its opposing Day of Truth to “counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.” Students are encouraged to wear t-shirts or hand out cards with the group’s message.

Both events come at the heels of a recent court ruling that allows an Illinois high school student to wear a t-shirt that reads, “Be Happy, Not Gay.” The Alliance Defense Fund represented the student and stated:

“Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “Public school officials cannot censor a message expressing one viewpoint on homosexual behavior and then at the same time allow messages that express another viewpoint. The court’s ruling is a victory for all students seeking to protect their First Amendment rights on a school campus.”

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case, recognizing the student’s fundamental First Amendment right to free speech, but emphasized that other students have the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

While I staunchly believe that students have every right to express their beliefs, I’m saddened that such negative speech takes place in schools. When will students learn to be tolerant of differences among us?

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.

Local resident Buzz Kelly wrote in yesterday’s Tampa Tribune about an upcoming November ballot proposal by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission that would change the state constitution so your tax dollars can be given to religious-based programs. Coded ‘CP0020,’ it would be the first state that essentially eliminates the wall between religion and government.

Sure, maybe financially supporting Christian organizations is a good thing, especially if they’re doing something helpful, like feeding the poor. But such a broad change would allow money to be used by religious groups—and we do mean any religious group—for whatever they want:

Although sponsored by Christian crazies, the plan would turn our constitution into a church-state shambles the extent of which they certainly haven’t imagined. Maybe the idea of your tax dollars going to support Christian programs or school vouchers is OK with you, but what if they go to an Islamic madrassas? Or a Hindu school? Or a Buddhist ashram? How about a Shinto shrine? And since Satanism is a religion, is it OK if your tax dollars support that?

I doubt many Christians out there would support federal funding for Satanists. It’s the same reason why Humanists don’t support federal funding for any religion. Let’s continue to work toward keeping religion and government separate. It’s worked just fine for us for the past 231 years.

“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.

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.

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