Atheist Revolution

Time to End Government-Funded Religious Discrimination

2009-10-17T15:20:00.000-05:00

President Obama's record of keeping his campaign promises has been less than stellar so far. One of the promises we aren't yet hearing much about involves ending government funding for social service organizations that engage in religious discrimination. Fortunately, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is reminding us. From a recent AU action alert:

Today, every dollar that is funneled to social services via the federal government is subject to the exact same set of rules and regulations put in place by the Bush Administration. That means that an otherwise qualified individual can STILL be turned away from working for a government-funded program based on his or her religion - and the President has done nothing about it yet.

I understand that this may be fairly low on Obama's list of priorities but it also seems like one that would be fairly easy to fix. According to AU, the Obama administration has not even bothered to address a 2007 DOJ memo authorizing discrimination by religious groups even when such discrimination is prohibited by prior law.

It is time to remind President Obama of his promises and to signal that we expect him to follow through. Government-funded discrimination cannot be tolerated. Tell President Obama that you oppose government-funded religious discrimination.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

U.S. Founders Recognized Importance of Church-State Separation

2009-10-16T06:17:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Alabama may not be a place you would associate with enlightened attitudes, but I'd like to draw your attention to a courageous article by Aaron Graf of the University of Alabama Birmingham Kaleidoscope titled "Founding Fathers wanted church, state separate." Not only is it a great reminder that reality-based communities can blossom in some of the most unlikely places, but it is an excellent example of the sort of article that should be appearing in papers throughout the U.S.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Could Lodi be the Next Church-State Battleground?

2009-10-08T06:53:00.000-05:00

Image by happyshooter via Flickr

The LA Times recently ran an interesting story in which Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) reportedly said that her group is planning to sue over public prayer at government meetings in California. Lodi was described as one of several communities in the state where an FFRF lawsuit might take place. Naturally, the group will want to select the specific case on which they have the best chance of winning.

I am glad to see that the FFRF is planning to take action to end the unconstitutional practice of sectarian prayer at public meetings. I hope they succeed, and I hope they plan to carry out similar action here in the South. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the FFRF is an organization all of us in the U.S. should be supporting.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

In Praise of Religious People Doing the Right Thing

2009-09-11T06:49:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I criticize religion (and Christian extremism in particular) quite a bit here. Frankly, I believe that doing so is a moral obligation given that religious belief is both irrational and dangerous. However, I also try to credit those religious groups who do have the courage to speak out against religious extremism and the many abuses committed in the name of religion. They are unfortunately rare, but that makes it all the more important to hold them up as models to remind us that some religious people agree with us on many issues.

I'd like to commend the Interfaith Alliance for their willingness to call out Louisiana Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal for spending taxpayer money to visit Protestant churches throughout his state. This is a church-state issue, and the Alliance is calling on Jindal to reimburse Louisiana taxpayers the $45,000 he has spent so far.

We atheists would do well to remember that there are religious groups who seek to maintain clear separation between church and state just as we do. I applaud the Interfaith Alliance for their work in this case.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Kentucky to Waste Tax Money on Supernatural Defense

2009-09-07T13:03:00.001-05:00

You may recall hearing back in December that the state of Kentucky passed a law in 2006 requiring the Emergency Operations Center of their Department of Homeland Security to post a plaque stating,

The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.

You may also recall the the bill was sponsored by state representative Tom Riner, also a Southern Baptist pastor. Rep. Riner became upset in December because the annual report issued by this agency did not credit his god. The god reference in the original law was struck down last month as unconstitutional, and Kentucky has announced their intention to appeal.

If you are living in Kentucky and the idea of your state spending tax dollars to appeal this court decision bothers you, please let your state representatives hear from you.

H/T to Universal Heretic

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Prayer Has No Place in Government Meetings

2009-08-21T06:48:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Opening the meetings of various governmental bodies with prayer is inappropriate, exclusionary, and blatantly unconstitutional. It represents an abuse of power and a transparent attempt to advance a religious agenda, even if it is only some generic god belief that is being advanced. No person present at such a meeting is prohibited from silently praying (as the Christian bible would seem to endorse), and so there are no viable reasons to formalize prayer by making it part of either the official agenda or a required custom. Atheists across the U.S. should be prepared to challenge this practice, not to stamp out religion but to separate it from the halls of power.

As Austin Cline writes,

There is ultimately only one reason for such prayers: to have the government endorse, support, promote, and/or encourage the religious beliefs of one group of citizens over and above the beliefs of all other citizens. Apparently, some religious believers — and they always turn out to be Christians, don't they? — are unable or unwilling to keep their religion a matter of personal faith. Instead, they need for their religion to be sponsored in some way by the government.

Just how widespread is the practice of including prayer at official government meetings? From what I have been able to gather, it seems to be far more common than most of us probably realize. We see it at the federal level in the U.S. Congress itself, at state legislatures across America, and in many local government meetings.

I do not buy the claim that these prayers are somehow symbolic and void of any religious significance. If that was the case, those who insist upon them, would not fight so hard to maintain the practice.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer

2009-08-08T05:36:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

It is Saturday, and you know what that means. Time for another installment in the Idiot of the Week series. I have been complaining lately that it is getting harder and harder to select a weekly idiot. With the rise of the "birthers," Republican thuggery at Democratic town hall meetings, anti-atheist bigotry in Iowa, and the continued presence of Rep. Michele Bachmann, it is once again a difficult choice.

Although I feel that the most obvious choice would have to be Orly Taitz, I don't want to go "birther" again. It just isn't fair to all the other deserving idiots.

In the end, I decided to go with someone you probably haven't heard of, U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer. According to Dispatches From the Culture Wars, Judge Shaffer has rejected a request for anonymity filed by the plaintiffs in a claim that the Cherry Creek School District (Denver, CO) was violating the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs in this case sought to withhold their identities for fear that their children would be harassed at school. The school district did not oppose their motion, and Judge Shaffer noted that federal law does allow for this sort of anonymity. Then he denied the request.

Ed Brayton (Dispatches From the Culture Wars) characterizes the judge's reasoning as "rather weak," and he's absolutely correct to do so. Read what the judge said for yourself:

In this case, the individually named Plaintiffs argue that they should be permitted to proceed anonymously because of the role that religion plays in this case and the public's views toward atheists. Plaintiffs cite a 2006 public opinion poll which found that "atheists are seen by many as a threat to the American way of life and are the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." Plaintiffs request anonymity out of their concern "about the possibility for intimidation, harassment, and physical harm should their identities become public." As support for their position, Plaintiffs cite three anecdotal accounts of religious discrimination and harassment recounted by Professor Frank S. Ravitch in his book, School Prayer and Discrimination: The Civil Rights of Religious Minorities and Dissenters (Northeastern University Press 1999).

While the court appreciates the highly personal aspects of religious dissent and could not condone any form of harassment that might be prompted by religious or any other considerations, the unsubstantiated potential for an adverse public reaction does not establish a compelling reason to depart from the requirements of Rule 10(a). Notably, Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that reflects disapproval of the instant lawsuit within the relevant community or suggests they would be the target of actual threats, harassment or retaliation.

Judge Shaffer appears to be saying that since the plaintiffs' children had not yet been harassed, he was not willing to extend any protection to them. Ed Brayton notes that harassment is extremely common in these sorts of cases and provides some sad examples. I can't help wondering whether Judge Shaffer simply managed to convince himself that "real Christians" would never do such a thing.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Why Atheists Object to Engraving "In God We Trust" on the Capitol Visitor Center

2009-07-23T15:38:00.000-05:00

Image by Orbital Joe via Flickr

As you know, both houses of Congress have approved a bill requiring "In God We Trust" to be engraved in the Capitol Visitor Center. You may also know that the Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed suit to stop the addition on the grounds that it reflects an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Not surprisingly, I applaud their efforts. This is a great opportunity for advocates of church-state separation and accurate U.S. history to educate those now being misled by Christian extremists and revisionists.

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, the sponsor of the bill to require the engraving, has claimed that the FFRF's suit is an effort to silence those who want to talk about their religion. This is not at all what is going on, but it does reveal why it is important for us to explain the real issues.

Rep. King also claims that the FFRF is trying to strip the U.S. of our religious heritage.

I think in the end it makes it more clear what they are trying to do and that strengthens my case and the case of people who want to have an accurate depiction of history.

Again, that is not what is happening here. The FFRF and those of us who support their efforts are opposed to the engraving for the following reasons:

Placing "In God We Trust" on a government building amounts to blatantly unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government (i.e., a violation of the Establishment Clause).
The U.S. government is tasked with representing the people - not just those who believe in gods - but all the people.
"In God We Trust" is not an accurate statement. Many Americans do indeed trust in god(s); many others do not believe in any god(s).
"In God We Trust" is inherently exclusionary. It defines the in-group as those who believe in a particular god and excludes everyone else.
The fact that "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the U.S. in 1956 no more implies that it is part of our national heritage than the fact that many of our "founding fathers" owned slaves implies that slavery is part of our national heritage.

Rep. King says that he welcomes public debate about religion. Fair enough. Let's give it to him.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Look Who's Defending Separation of Church and State Now

2009-07-23T05:26:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

If there is one thing far right Christian groups are not exactly known for, it is their defense of church-state separation. And yet, the state of Connecticut appears to have found a way to make them do so.

After the Connecticut state government included links to gay-friendly churches on their Department of Children and Families web site, the Family Institute of Connecticut complained, prompting the state to remove the links. The state recognized that linking to churches on a government website raised questions of church-state separation, and they were right to remove the links.

As for the Family Institute of Connecticut, it appears that they are primarily concerned with anyone suggesting that some churches were more tolerant than the anti-gay ones they prefer. What a perfect way to help Christian groups finally understand that separation of church and state benefits everyone.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Throwing Out Separation of Church and State 410 to 8

2009-07-19T10:45:00.000-05:00

Image by kevindooley via Flickr

According to the Associated Press as posted by the First Amendment Center, the national motto of the United States, "In God We Trust," will be engraved in the Capitol Visitor Center following a 410-8 vote in the House to approve H.Con. Res. 131. The 410 likely represent a mixture of Constitutional ignorance, blind acceptance of Christian extremist propaganda about American history, desire to push one's religious beliefs on others, willingness to violate one's oath to uphold the Constitution to pander to ignorant voters, and simple apathy. One thing is clear: the 410 are sorely mistaken.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

EXCLUSIVE: Indiana Library Patron Who Challenged Nativity Scene Successful

2009-06-03T05:24:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

I don't get to do many "feel-good stories" here, but this is one. I just received an update from Tyson, the atheist patron of Elwood Public Library in Indiana who complained about a nativity scene in the library last December. You may recall that the library's director initially decided to ignore the complaint and behaved in an unprofessional manner. Nobody was prepared for what happened next.

A library employee, presumably the director, contacted the local paper and revealed Tyson's identity, at which point he started receiving threats from Christians in his community. He complained to the library's board of directors. A library employee then published his library record on a public blog! The Associated Press then picked up a version of the story from which Tyson's version of events was curiously omitted. And that is where we left off...until I received this update from Tyson.

Here is what Tyson had to say:

As you know, I received some excellent advice on how to handle the nativity situation from many of your readers. Based on this advice, I decided to contact several organizations, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ACLU of Indiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Anti-Discrimination Support Network. Each one of these organizations responded to my request for assistance, and as a result of the pressure they put on the library, I’m happy to inform you that the library has written a display policy which states: “Exhibits or displays cannot promote any one commercial, political, or doctrinal viewpoint. Displays of a religious nature will not be accepted.”

The full policy can be viewed as a .pdf file at http://www.elwood.lib.in.us/PDF-Policies/Library%20Display%20Policy%2009.pdf

As great as that is, Tyson informs us that it gets even better:

Furthermore, after receiving assistance from these organizations, the library board decided to suspend the library employee who revealed my library record for one month. This is the same employee who posted an exaggerated post of my complaint about the nativity scene to elwoodindiana.org, and even though I think she deserved to be terminated from her job at the library, I am pleased to know that she was disciplined for the pain and suffering she caused me and my family.

Very nice! It is so tempting to simply ignore these situations, even when a flagrant violation of the law is right in front of us. Tyson had the courage to stand up for separation of church and state. Not only did he complain, but he persisted in making sure that those who trashed him for doing so were held accountable.

Unfortunately, I do not think this library employee would have received any type of punishment had it not been for the pressure put on the library and its board by the organizations mentioned above. Additionally, I do not think the library would have drafted a display policy prohibiting displays of a religious nature if it had not been for the assistance of these organizations.

You better believe I will be renewing my memberships in these organizations for the foreseeable future!

In addition to his success with the library, Tyson shared the following with us:

Early this year I decided to surround myself with other atheists by joining the CFI Indiana – Hamilton County Atheists and Freethinkers Meetup. Since I have not known very many atheists in my life, it has been great to converse with other nonbelievers for a change. They are a great group of people; however, the majority of people I come in contact with daily think atheists are immoral people who cannot be trusted because they do not believe in god. As a matter of fact, the Indiana atheist bus campaign, “You Can Be Good Without God”, was rejected in Bloomington, Indiana because it was deemed too controversial. It is amazing that there are people who truly believe that a person cannot be good without god. After discussing this issue with the Hamilton County Atheists, we decided to form an American Cancer Society Relay for Life team. Even though we are accustomed to doing charitable things individually, we thought it would be good to come together as nonbelievers to raise money for the American Cancer Society. Hopefully, people will see that we can be good without god. If you think your readers would be interested in contributing to our cause, please refer them to our team page at http://main.acsevents.org/goto/cfiindiana.

I have a huge smile on my face right now! It is so nice to get good news of this kind and see how much can be accomplished through courage and perseverance. Tyson, you are an inspiration! Thank you so much for sharing this with us.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Blogger Outed by Police to Church Sues

2009-06-02T06:01:00.000-05:00

Image by Call To Adventure via Flickr

Last month I posted about a disturbing story out of Jacksonville, FL, in which an anonymous blogger was outed by a police detective after he dared to criticize Pastor Mac Brunson of the First Baptist Church. The detective in question was a member of the pastor's security detail and revealed the blogger's identity to Brunson and his congregation even though no criminal charges were ever filed. I am happy to report the the blogger is now suing the sheriff's department and prosecutor's office. Sometimes this sort of legal action is necessary to prevent future abuses.

I wonder how many other churches have law enforcement officers working for them?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Is Disparaging Atheism a Constitutional Violation?

2009-06-01T05:33:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

I trust that you remember the case of Chad Farnan, a Christian student at Capistrano Valley High School in California, who accused his AP history teacher of making disparaging remarks about Christianity in class. At the time news of Farnan's complaint first surfaced in 2008, I noted that it was difficult to see hostility to Christianity in the teacher's alleged comments. I also suggested that the case seemed to be more about Christian privilege in our nation's schools than anything else. As I am sure you have heard by now, the case has traversed the legal system, and a decision has been rendered. In this post, I'll not simply rehash the decision but instead consider one of the possible implications for atheism.

As you know, the judge in this case ruled that teacher James Corbett's description of creationism as "superstitious nonsense" violated the U.S. Constitution in that it counted as "derogatory, disparaging and belittling regarding religion and Christianity in particular." As I understand it, this was a church-state issue because Corbett made this statement during class at a public high school. As a government employee, he is not permitted to disparage religion any more than he would be permitted to promote it.

This is a groundbreaking case with which all atheists should familiarize themselves. As recently noted in the Guardian:

Farnan's lawyer, Jennifer Monk, who works for a not-for-profit Christian law firm, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, told the Guardian yesterday that Farnan's victory was the first of its kind, proving that the establishment clause applied equally to the disapproval of religion as it did to the promotion of religion.

Yes, I have a feeling I know what you are thinking at this point. You and I know full well that government employees promote religion in general and Christianity in particular as part of their officials duties all the time without any legal consequences. Sad but true. However, this is not what I want to address in this post.

Instead, I'd like to maintain the focus on the student-teacher interaction in our public schools. I'd like us to consider the situation in which a teacher made disparaging remarks about atheists or atheism during class. Furthermore, I'd like us to assume that a student was upset by this and decided to file a complaint. If such a scenario strikes you as far fetched, I encourage you to remember that some students are in fact willing to stand up in opposition to the promotion of religion in their schools.

If we imagine a complaint about a public school teacher making disparaging remarks about atheists or atheism making its way to court, I wonder if this would in fact be recognized as a Constitutional issue. Does the fact that atheism is not a religion change the outcome of such a case? Do we lose protection under the law because atheism is not a religion?

H/T to Austin Cline

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

U.S. Military Burns Christian Bibles

2009-05-20T04:58:00.000-05:00

CNN is reporting that U.S. military personnel burned Christian bibles which were confiscated at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan roughly a year ago. The bibles, sent to the base by a church in the U.S., were printed in the two most common Afghan languages and were confiscated due to concerns that they would be used for proselytizing.

Conveniently, the decision to burn the bibles emerged soon after Al Jazeera suggested that U.S. troops were being encouraged to spread Christianity in the Muslim nation. This allegation was denied by a U.S. military spokesman.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Pentagon Will No Longer Include Bible Quotes In Daily Briefings

2009-05-19T20:15:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

You have almost certainly heard about how the Pentagon prepared reports for Bush with Christian bible quotes on their covers. For an excellent description of what was done and why you should care about it, I urge you to read this post from Daylight Atheism.

This is the same Pentagon accused of coercing military trainees to attend church and distributing Christian bibles. I also note that this is the same Pentagon that now wants us to believe that they are not deliberately proselytizing in Afghanistan.

It appears that someone in a fairly high position made the decision that separation of church and state has no place in the U.S. military. We have been warned repeatedly of a serious problem with Christian extremism in our armed forces. It is starting to appear that those warnings barely scraped the surface of the problem.

The good news is that there will be no more bible quotes on presidential briefings. I hope that those committed to resolving the other problems continue their important work.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Answer to Army Suicides: Christianity

2009-05-12T14:50:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

According to The Public Record, the U.S. Army has decided to promote Christianity as a deterrent to suicide among soldiers. No, this is not one rogue official speaking off the record, but right from a recent edition of the Army Suicide Prevention Manual. Evidently, separation of church and state no longer applies to the U.S. military.

Not surprisingly, the Pentagon has been quiet about this. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) referred to the manual and an accompanying PowerPoint presentation as “not only an unconstitutional promotion of Christianity for the soldiers who are mandated to attend it, but for the behavioral health providers and non-Christian chaplains who must present it.”

As someone who regularly trains future mental health professionals to assess and treat persons at risk for suicide, I find this notion of pushing Christianity on vulnerable soldiers utterly disgusting.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Get Ready for the Year of the Bible

2009-05-12T10:28:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Instead of doing actual work for the benefit of all Americans, Republicans in Congress are pandering to Christian extremists with H. Con. Res. 121, a measure to designate 2010 as the "Year of the Bible". I'll assume that they are referring to one of the many translations of the Christian bible and are simply too caught up in Christian privilege to say so. In any case, 14 Republicans are pushing the unconstitutional resolution.

I agree wholeheartedly with The Progressive Puppy on this one:

Fourteen Republican lawmakers with apparently too much time on their hands and no solutions to offer the country are pushing a resolution that will not address the nation's problems or advance prosperity or even untangle their previous governing mistakes. Indeed, the only voters who will be impressed by this shallow piece of congressional theatre are the religious fundies who once hallelujahed George W. Bush into office.

Regardless of whatever setbacks Christian extremists have recently suffered, it is clear that they still have political allies willing to fight for their deluded agenda.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What is Wrong With the National Day of Prayer?

2009-05-04T05:36:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

As we get closer to the National Day of Prayer, many atheists are going to hear the same question: "What is wrong with the National Day of Prayer?" The exact phrasing will vary, but the essence of the question will be along the lines of this: "I understand that you don't pray, but why do you have a problem with other people doing so? I mean, what is so bad about having a National Day of Prayer anyway?" Of course, the obvious response says something about separation of church and state. After all, the National Day of Prayer was designated by an act of Congress and certainly seems to be a case of favoring religion over no religion. However, this is only part of the reason for opposing this event. I encourage you to review the others at Americans United for Separation of Church and State's page, "What's Wrong With the National Day of Prayer?"

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tennessee Considering Bills to Authorize Church-Specific License Plates

2009-05-03T08:30:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

The Tennessee General Assembly is currently considering bills that would permit the state to issue specialty vehicle license plates for a specific church, the Church of God in Christ. The bills were sponsored by two Memphis legislators. If passed, this would mark the first time a license plate has been allowed for a specific religious denomination.

If you have an opinion on whether states should offer specialty plates for churches and why or why not, consider e-mailing a brief (3-4 sentence) response to Hot Button at hotbutton@commercialappeal.com by May 6. They also request that responses include identifying information (e.g., name, home address and daytime/evening telephone numbers) so they can contact the authors of comments they want to publish.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Jacksonville First Baptist Has Police Out Anonymous Blogger

2009-04-20T06:46:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Many atheist bloggers write under various pseudonyms, despite frequent criticism that doing so somehow makes us less helpful to the atheist movement. I have previously shared my reasons for doing this, and I suspect they are not all that different from others' reasons for doing the same. Of course, I also recognize that nothing we do online is really anonymous. If I thought that being publicly outed and linked to this blog would completely destroy my life, I would not write it at all. Let this story about a blogger being outed by a church be a lesson to us all - anonymity is illusory.

What makes this story disturbing to me is not so much that the blogger was outed but how and why he was outed. It seems that a previously anonymous blogger brought himself unwanted attention by daring to criticize Pastor Mac Brunson of the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, FL. This prompted an investigation by a police detective who just so happened to be a member of the pastor's security detail. Outraged yet?

This raises at least a few questions for me:

Since when is criticizing someone grounds for a police investigation?
Does this mean that member of Jacksonville's police department (state) was also providing some sort of regular security service to a local pastor (church)?
Assuming that such an investigation was somehow deemed necessary (and lawful), what right did Detective Robert Hinson have to disclose the blogger's identity to the church?

According to The Florida Times-Union, Det. Hinson obtained a subpoena forcing Google to provide the blogger's identity. The complaint alleged that the blog in question, fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com, had "possible criminal overtones." Despite finding that the blogger had broken no laws, his identity was revealed to the church. They responded by banning him and his wife from the church.

My favorite parts of this odd tale are as follows:

Undersheriff Frank Mackesy said Hinson’s role posed no conflict of interest because his duties include handling possible threats against the city’s large religious institutions.

and

It was also proper for Hinson to provide First Baptist’s leadership with Rich’s identity despite finding no criminal evidence, Mackesy said, so it could take whatever internal action it felt necessary for its own safety.

I suppose the lesson here is that we should expect consequences from criticizing those who peddle superstition to the masses. So much for freedom of speech, eh?

H/T to Exchristian.net

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Faith-Based Initiatives and War Crimes: Obama is Failing Miserably

2009-04-05T09:49:00.000-05:00

Image by danny.hammontree via Flickr

This was a difficult post to write. I somewhat reluctantly supported Obama in the final stretch because it was clear to me that McCain simply was not a viable choice. In the end, I voted for Obama because I saw it as my best option for keeping McCain out of office. I still believe this was the right decision, but I join many other atheists and political progressives in having growing doubts about Obama. I desperately want him to succeed but am greatly troubled by what I have seen so far. In this post, I'd like to address my two main concerns I have with Obama. I suppose the good news is that it is not too late for him to do the right thing. Unfortunately, he has shown no indication of wanting to do so yet.

Elevated Role of Religion and Religious Discrimination

The initial concern many atheists had about Obama was based on his plans to expand Bush's faith-based initiatives. Although it turned out that some of the early warnings were exaggerated, two new concerns have since emerged.

First, Obama's version of the faith-based initiative gives taxpayer money to religious groups which engage in discriminatory hiring practices (e.g., refusing to hire qualified applicants because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof). I am not saying that religious groups should not be allowed to restrict their membership to persons of similar religious beliefs, but I am saying that those groups which do so should not be eligible to receive tax dollars. Fortunately, I am not alone. Most Americans oppose this sort of church-state violation, and many prominent newspapers have bashed Obama for this practice, including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times. Funding such organizations violates one of Obama's campaign promises, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State suggests that we let Obama know that we are unhappy with this.

The second concern is not limited to faith-based initiatives but concerns the broader elevation of religion in Obama's administration, evidenced by the administration's practice of beginning nearly every presidential event with a prayer. According to U.S. News & World Report,

Though invocations have long been commonplace at presidential inaugurations and certain events like graduations or religious services at which presidents are guests, the practice of commissioning and vetting prayers for presidential rallies is unprecedented in modern history, according to religion and politics experts.

This is an unacceptable blurring of church and state. Not even Bush tried this, and we would have given him hell had he done so. It is similarly difficult to believe that religious people would welcome the precedent of Obama vetting prayers. Prayer had no place at a presidential inauguration, and it has no place at subsequent presidential events.

Refusal to Enforce the Rule of Law

While Obama's desire to become the "prayer president" and his willingness to break campaign promises to fund organizations which engage in discriminatory hiring practices bother me greatly, these concerns pale in comparison to his refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate top Bush administration officials for war crimes. I believe that this may well be the central decision by which his administration will be judged by future generations.

I have written about this previously and will undoubtedly continue to do so until Obama does the right thing and directs his Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor. In this post, I would like to make two points I have not previously made on the subject.

First, I'd like you to remember the international goodwill that Bush had immediately following 9/11. He had strong international support and managed to squander it catastrophically by embracing "cowboy diplomacy" and invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Obama now finds himself in a similar situation with regard to America's standing in the world. The international community is looking to him to see if he will do the right thing. They are looking to him to see how serious he is about change. And so far, he has signaled that his administration will do nothing to hold their predecessors accountable for war crimes. This sends a clear message.

Second, I believe that Obama's refusal to hold those who authorized torture in our name accountable for their crimes leaves him with absolutely zero moral authority. This is an extremely dangerous position for an American president, as was recently illustrated by events in North Korea. Following what appears to be a missile launch in North Korea this weekend, President Obama sharply condemned North Korea's actions. During a speech in Prague, Obama said,

Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response.

Rules must be binding and violations punished, huh? I agree completely, Mr. President, but how can you reconcile that principled stance with your own refusal to hold anyone accountable for committing war crimes? You can't.

Until Obama's administration produces a special prosecutor and begins a thorough war crimes investigation, he has zero moral authority from which to issue such pronouncements. This leaves him, and those of us he claims to represent, in a dangerous situation. If his reluctance to prosecute war crimes is merely a political calculation, it is a terrible one.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Arizona Rejects School Vouchers

2009-03-31T05:29:00.000-05:00

Image by pmorgan via Flickr

I know that there are many opinions on the subject of school vouchers and that some see them as a perfectly acceptable way of improving the educational experience of their children. I tend to see vouchers, frequently pushed by Christian extremists in the U.S., as a systematic strategy for destroying public education, largely perceived as a secular threat. I have no problem whatsoever with families opting for private schools. I do however have a problem with my government funding religious and other private schools.

I was happy to see the Arizona Supreme Court strike down two school voucher programs in that state in Cain v. Horne. According to Rev. Barry W. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,

This important decision reflects our best traditions. It upholds the right of taxpayers to support only the religious institutions of their choice. Public funds should be spent at public schools.

According to AU's press release, residents of Arizona are fortunate in that they are one of 37 states with fairly strong provisions in their state constitution prohibiting them from funding religious schools. It seems that vouchers may face an uphill battle in such states, and that is a good thing.

I know that some people object to funding public education on the grounds that they do not have children and do not like the idea of paying for other people's children to go to school. I invite such people to visit Mississippi for awhile to experience the results of substandard education firsthand. Education not only is a powerful tool for improving the economy and improving our ability to compete globally; it reduces a variety of social ills associated with widespread idiocy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Strengthening the Separation of Church and State

2009-02-05T05:30:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaIt is time once again to revisit the platform on which I have been working gradually. In addition to (1) ending anti-atheist bigotry and (2) promoting reason and critical thinking, I am now ready to add the third plank: strengthening the separation of church and state. Although I suspect most readers of this blog will agree that this is an important goal, I also expect that some of you may disagree sharply with at least one aspect of what I will say below.

An American Tradition

Students of history know that the U.S. was founded as a secular democracy and that the importance of church-state separation was recognized by our founders. That is not to say that the decision to eschew a national religion was without controversy. And yet, is was no accident that the U.S. Constitution omitted any mention of gods.

That we have no national religion should be a source of pride. This is one of the central factors which distinguishes the U.S. from other Western democracies. The separation of church and state remains an important part of our national heritage.

Keeping Religion Out of Government

Separation of church and state means that the government is not allowed to establish a state religion. Moreover, it has typically been interpreted as prohibiting the government from elevating the status of one religion over others (or even religion itself over no religion).

When atheists receive public attention, it is most often for our efforts to have religious symbols removed from government property. Religious believers often view this as trivial meddling with tradition, but it is about protecting the Constitution and defending our American heritage.

The nativity scene in the public library or the Ten Commandments in the courthouse are problematic not because we want to abolish religion but because these are government buildings which are not supposed to show preference to any one religion. Either all sets of beliefs are represented or none are.

Keeping Government Out of Religion

What atheists do not spend nearly enough time talking about is the importance of keeping government out of religion as well. If we are serious about preserving the separation of church and state, we must educate religious believers about the perils of merging the two with regard to the harm sustained by religion.

It is for this reason that I think many of my colleagues in the atheist blogosphere are mistaken to call for churches to be taxed. I understand that this would cause many churches to go out of business, and I agree that this would be a positive outcome. However, taxing churches would remove any prohibition on their politicking. As long as we refuse to organize to counter such a movement, we better tread carefully here.

What Can We Do?

I suspect we could come up with a hundred ideas for preserving the separation of church and state fairly easily. Here are just a few:

Join a national organization dedicated to promoting church-state separation, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation or Americans United for Separation of Church and State. For some of the bigger cases, attorneys and lobbyists are necessary. These groups need our support.
Get involved at the local level. When you encounter violations of church-state separation in your community, act. Ask questions, complain, write a letter to the editor, contact your elected officials, alert your fellow bloggers, etc. Our inaction often serves as implicit agreement that the violation is not important.
Educate yourself and others about church-state issues.
Connect with other church-state activists in your community.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Eroding Christian Privilege in New Jersey

2009-02-02T06:52:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaJust when I was feeling discouraged, Austin Cline is there with some good news out of New Jersey to cheer me up. It seems that the town council of Newton, NJ, is going to abandon their 60-year practice of opening meetings with an explicitly Christian prayer all because an atheist complained. The atheist's complaint apparently promoted the council's attorney to investigate the matter. Sure enough, the sectarian prayer was in violation of the law. Rather than risk losing a lawsuit, the council wisely decided to drop the prayer.

As Austin points out, the good news in this case is tainted with the realization that the Newton town council knew full well that they were in violation of the law and would have been content to continue to ignore it had this brave atheist not complained. This is Christian privilege plain and simple.

Let this case be a reminder to all: when you see something that clearly violates separation of church and state, do something about it. Failing to do so only allows Christian privilege to persist. As Austin tells us:

Naturally all of this upsets many Christians because they don't like not being able to dominate society. It is, however, a situation they are going to have to get used to because non-Christians in America will not be willing to return to a second-class status. Christianity must cease to be a privileged class of beliefs, institutions, traditions, and people just as "male" and "white" must cease to be privileged classes in America. It will take a long time for this process to be complete, but it must happen.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

No Room for Atheists at Obama's Inauguration

2009-01-19T07:28:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaI do not think that Obama's transition team was prepared for the outrage sparked by their selection of Rick Warren, the bigoted Christian, to deliver the invocation at Obama's swearing-in ceremony. It now appears that they have decided to do some damage control by adding openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson to the list of speakers. Will this appease members of the LGBT community who were upset over by the fact that Obama chose an anti-gay bigot to symbolically open his administration? I doubt it, but I suppose it may still be viewed as a positive gesture. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, we atheists are once again ignored. However, after seeing Bishop Robinson interviewed on The Rachel Maddow Show last week (video here), I wonder if we are looking at something worse than simply being ignored.

At the outset, I want to make a few things clear. First, I think that Obama's decision to add Robinson was a step in the right direction. The LGBT community was upset, and rightly so, over Warren. By adding Robinson, Obama is communicating that he has heard their outrage and is willing to at least make a token gesture. Is it as good as removing Warren? No, but it is at least something. Second, Bishop Robinson came across as a reasonably nice guy during his interview on Maddow. I suspect that many of us would agree with him on a number of important social issues, and aside from giving no thought to what the inauguration says to American atheists, he did not seem like a particularly bad guy. Third, I am not going to use this post to rant about the inappropriateness of having any sort of magical invocations at ceremonies like this. I agree with Newdow and his co-plaintiffs that this is inappropriate and illegal in a nation where separation of church and state are valued, but I will leave that for other posts.

In watching Bishop Robinson's interview on The Rachel Maddow Show, it was clear that he had given no thought whatsoever to how American atheists are feeling about Obama's inauguration. He prefaced many of his statements with "As a religious person...," making me suspect that he must have some awareness that non-religious persons exist. However, he made reference to how inclusive Obama's inauguration was and how all points of view were represented.

The subtext was clear - this administration, and indeed this nation, are inclusive of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Beyond that, not so much. If Robinson is Obama's gesture to the LGBT community, we atheists are again neglected.

Robinson claimed that Obama is "including all voices in this inauguration." Really? I do not see any non-religious voices. Instead, I see Christian voices. Are these the only voices that matter to Obama? I hope not, but I am not sure what else we are to conclude.

Robinson said that "gay and lesbian people should feel very welcomed by this administration." I suspect many in the GLBT community would disagree, but at least he has made a gesture. Could we say the same for atheists?

When Robinson made reference to "big tent" politics, I hoped that he would be truly inclusive. He came close but chose to begin his response with, "As a religious person, no one had a bigger tent than Jesus..." As much as I like the idea of the political "big tent," I think there has to be room under the tent for everyone, including atheists.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution