State of Protest

What tolerance is and what it should be are two vastly different things in the world today. Tolerance is currently perceived as giving someone a free pass to act unethically if that person’s religion in any way supports that activity. Britain, for example, has made itself a prime target for this misinterpretation. By establishing such an obsequious policy, it has set a precedent that will make it more difficult to reverse the trend. For example, Sharia law has been becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to British criminal law,¹ and Britain’s top judge has recently been slammed for remarking that Sharia law in the UK is unavoidable.² Women in Britain have increasingly been wearing the traditional Muslim niqab, creating a disturbance to some (which shouldn’t really be a problem in itself) and a hindrance to others. For instance, an attorney who was wearing a niqab was told by a judge that she could not represent her client because the judge could not hear her through the veil.³ Even prominent atheist author Richard Dawkins asserts that teachers in British schools are afraid not to teach religious points of view, lest they be seen as racist.⁴

British citizens have raised a ruckus over the idea that the Muslim women who wear veils are segregating themselves and causing strife, while the Muslim women defend their right to wear the garments on the basis of faith and solidarity. Some argue that Britain has been too tolerant. Others argue it has not done enough to establish tolerance and multiculturalism. The problem is not whether Britain has been tolerant enough. The problem is that Britain and others have mangled the idea of what the concepts of tolerance and multiculturalism ought to mean, and in doing so, have sacrificed freedoms in the name of a god in whom they do not believe, and have established a dangerous precedent that threatens to mingle Islamic law with British law, creating an acceptance of cultural and religious customs that demean women and hold religious ideals higher than anything else.

If a third of British Muslims believe it is justified to kill in the name of religion, in order to defend that religion,⁵ what does that say about the Muslim respect for secular law?

Tolerance is not blind acceptance of all the characteristics of others. Tolerance is, or should be, accepting the cultural characteristics that do not create a material harm or potential harm to others. I don’t include “being offended” as a harm. If you’re an attorney, and you cannot do your job because your religious-based garb is getting in your way, it’s perfectly justifiable for a judge to tell you that you cannot continue in that state. If a raging drunk attorney tried to practice law, and had an honest and fervent belief that Dionysus was his personal god, would it be tolerable for a judge to allow him to continue?

Tolerance should be based on observable evidence of this potential to cause harm. In the blind acceptance of the acts and desires of the religious, there is a tacit acceptance that the unsupported claims of the religious are true and that anything that their deities “approve” of should be considered “good.”

However, on the flip side, we should not reject others for their choice of outerwear if it doesn’t have an actual, tangible, negative effect. Certainly, people will speculate and gossip about how the wearing of the burqa is an affront to our western way of life. But that’s pretty much how, fifty years ago, the dissenters in America saw Elvis, and in Britain saw The Beatles. Now those rockers are icons. Instead of just accepting what can be accepted, and rejecting what should be rejected (e.g., any form of law that is established based on a belief that a higher power created and imposed such law, or any inhumane treatment of women or others based on that law or culture), Britain is accepting everything, lest it appear intolerant, and establishing a state of paranoia and a culture of fear.

One might argue that it is the nature of our society to mingle religious and secular law, so why specifically target Islam as an undesirable influence? Although it is arguable that some Abrahamic religious ideals have been infused into western law by zealous religious lawmakers, that does not justify further deviation from secular government in the name of tolerance. We are slowly uprooting those “blue” laws, and the benefits of doing so reach across multiple beliefs as well as non-belief (because those laws tend to favor one narrow-minded point of view). We cannot blindly accept all religious opinions, lest we create impossible situations when two claims of “divine rightness” clash. Which “belief” will prevail? Tossing more religious-based law into the pot is counter-intuitive. We should, instead, worry about filtering out religion from our existing laws.

[Article written by Procrustes and Velkyn]

1. Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes, Telegraph.co.uk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/ Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html [↩]
2. Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’, BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm [↩]
3. Muslims’ Veils Test Limits of Britain’s Tolerance, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/world/europe/22veil.html [↩]
4. Atheist Richard Dawkins blames Muslims for ‘importing creationism’ into classrooms, Fiona Macrae, Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041089/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-blames-Muslims-importing-creationism-classrooms.html [↩]
5. One third of British Muslim Students: Killing in the name of Islam is acceptable, Religion News Blog. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21867/one-third-of -british-muslim-students-killing-in-the-name-of-islam-is-acceptable [↩]

Look up rational activism in the encyclopedia, and you should find Sean Tevis. If not, slip his bio in there.

Last week (on or about July 16), Sean created a web page with some stick-figure action figures resembling Frank Miller’s “300.” These stick figures were yelling something about how the Internet could change the face of political history. Well, it did, and it’s still going strong.

Arlen Siegfreid is a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Although Representative Siegfreid seems a shoe-in for the next election, Sean, a non-politician “Information Architect,” wants to run against him.

With a common sense platform, mostly designed to oppose Siegfreid, Sean readied himself to play the political race game, until he stumbled upon a hurdle that would seem insurmountable for most would-be activists: he needed name recognition cash. According to Sean’s entertaining stick-figured explanation of the situation, 93.4% of the time it’s the candidate with the most advertising money who wins an election. It’s mid-July, and Sean asks, “How much do I need?” The verdict: $26,000. By July 28.

Game over, man! Game over!

No, not for Sean! See, Sean is an educated man. Sean knew that it would require 52 donors, donating $500 each, to meet his goal. However, having spent some time learning basic math in school, Sean figured that he could reduce the amount of individual donations required by increasing the number of donors. Brilliant! Reminds me of the idea I had as a child to send a letter to every resident of the U.S., asking for them to send me a dollar each. I’d have been a millionaire for sure! Except that I wasn’t so great at math, and I didn’t account for the fact that it would actually cost me money to send those letters, and I would have to offset any earnings made by the cost of those letters, and I wasn’t guaranteed to get any money. Even if half of the U.S. sent me a dollar, I’d still end up with a negative return. But, as Sean says, This is the Internet!

Instead of trying to find a handful of very generous donors, Sean would seek out great gobs of very slightly generous donors, via the Internet, which is practically free.

His goal was to acquire 3000 donors, donating $8.34 each.

He drew his stick-figure story, and posted his request website page, with a little button link to donate via PayPal. He even listed the basic campaign finance rules and a list of perks for higher than requested donations (campaign t-shirts, coffee mugs, and Kansas flags, among them).

And then he waited. (I’m sure the waiting involved a bit of “alerting the press”)

BoingBoing (one of my favorite must-visit-daily websites), and a few others got the word. I got the word from BB, and spread it to the Atheist Think Tank forum. I monitored Sean’s website, watching the donors increase slowly. I was getting worried. When I first started watching, he had only acquired a hundred or so. But, probably because of all the latency created by the flood of visitors to his website, I was likely not seeing what was really happening. My forum friends informed me that they had either donated or that the website was sluggish. We started passing out Sean’s direct email so that we could donate via PayPal without going through his website. We sat and watched and cheered and rallied. And, apparently, so did a hell of a lot of others.

And today, July 21, the number of donors is 5,298.

That’s five-thousand, two hundred and ninety-eight donors.

Screw 3000, make 6000!

Apparently no state representative in Kansas history has ever had more than 644 donors.

WIN!¹

But you know what has gotten me really excited about all this? It’s not Sean Tevis specifically, although I think he’s established himself as a hero. It’s that this has given us an example of how we can use our resources to make progressive change, to rally against the incumbents who want to tell us that the way to live our lives must conform to their twisted ideologies. It shows us that there are people out there who give a shit, and although they might not all individually be able to stand up and fight, they sure can click a button and send a real representative a few bucks to help do something about this strangulation we’re enduring. And that representative can do what needs to be done without worrying about not being related to an oil tycoon. If you want to phrase that in popular terminology (that, in its spiritual sense, doesn’t necessarily correspond to my rational belief system, but is a close enough word), it gives us rationals some hope.

Sean Tevis needed 3000 of us to help him kick some ass.

What we need is 3000 Sean Tevises.

First, go visit Sean Tevis by clicking these words, and see what he’s done, and maybe donate a little.

Second, do something about something. I can’t tell you exactly what to do. All I know is that if we even had ten, twenty more people like Sean Tevis, we could start reversing this trend of government-sponsored, taxpayer funded perniciousness. Donate to a Sean Tevis, run your own campaign, start a local paper or a blog, get active.

1. or “PWN!” if that suits you [↩]

According to Jerry Bergman, at Answers in Genesis, we should be teaching Creationism in public schools.

Here’s his reasoning:

Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90 % of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90 % of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15 % of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20 % of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling élite.

I agree!

I think we should be teaching alternate theories of existence in public schools. And here is how I propose we set up the curriculum:

Monday

1st Period: The Earth was nothing but water and darkness, ruled over by Mbombo, the white giant. One day, he felt a terrible pain in his stomach, and vomited the sun, the moon, and the stars. The sun shone fiercely and water steamed up in clouds. Gradually, the dry hills appeared. Mbombo vomited again, this time the trees came out of his stomach, and animals, and people, and many other things: the first woman, the leopard, the eagle, the anvil, monkey Fumu, the first man, the firmament, medicine, and lighting. Nchienge, the woman of the waters, lived in the East. She had a son, Woto, and a daughter, Labama. Woto was the first king of the Bakuba.¹

2nd Period: The Creator split a tree into three pieces. He gave a piece to each tribe, one being a spear, the other a hoe, and the third a bow, and these recipients became the three tribes of people, the beginning of humanity.

3rd Period: Mangala was an entity made up of four divisions, and two sets of dual gendered twins. Being tired of keeping it all inside, Mangala compiled all the matter into a seed, which was the world. And the seed exploded, disappointing Mangala, who destroyed it. Then Mangala tried again with two sets of twin seeds, which, after having been planted in an egg-like womb, along with other sets of seeds, emerged as fish, representing fertility. One of the male twins tried to escape from the egg. This trickster, Pemba, stole a piece of the womb’s placenta and threw it down, creating the earth. He then tried to refertilize the remainder of the womb. Mangala castrated and killed Farro, Pemba’s brother, to save creation, and then Mangala raised Farro from the dead. Mangala then took the remainder of the placenta and transformed it into the sun, leaving Pemba for the darkness and night. Mangala transformed Ferro into a human, and was taught the language of creation. Farro’s newly created twins came and joined him on the earth, and they all propagated humanity.

4th Period: Lunch

5th Period: Damballah created all the waters of the earth. In the form of a serpent, the movement of his 7,000 coils formed hills and valleys on earth and brought forth stars and planets in the cosmos. He forged metals from heat and sent forth lightning bolts to form the sacred rocks and stones. When he shed his skin in the sun, releasing all the waters over the land, the sun shone in the water and created the rainbow. Damballah loved the rainbow’s beauty and made her his wife, Aida-Wedo. The revelations of the loa (deity) descended upon the first faithful in Ifé, a legendary city located in Nigeria. Therefore, everything in life and all spiritual strength comes from Ifé. In death, the higher soul will return to Ginen (the world of the dead, said to be under the water below the earth) to reside with the loa and the ancestral spirits.

6th Period: In the beginning, there was only water and chaos. The supreme being sent Obatala or Orishanla down from the sky to create some land out of the chaos. He descended on a long chain (umbilical cord) and brought with him a rooster, some iron, and a palm kernel. First, he put the metal on the earth and the rooster on top of that. The rooster scratched the metal and spread it out to create land. Then he planted the palm seed and from it grew the earth’s vegetation. Olurun named earth “Ife” and the first city “Ile-Ife.” Orshilana created humans out of the earth and got Olurun to blow life into them.

Tuesday

1st Period: Physical reality (space, matter and/or energy) is eternal, and therefore does not have an absolute origin. The Creator is an architect and organizer of pre-mortal matter and energy, who constructed the present universe out of the raw material (demiurge). There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

2nd Period: Xenu was the dictator of the “Galactic Confederacy” who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Their essences remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.

3rd Period: Auditing practice.

4th Period: Lunch

5th Period: Everything begins in a state of chaos where nothing exists but two gods named Tiamat and Apsu, who give birth to the first generation of gods, which one is Ea. Apsu cannot sleep because of these god children so he plans to kill them. Ea finds out and kills Apsu and Tiamat plans to avenge her husband. Ea has a son named Marduk. Tiamat assembles a huge army to avenge her husband and names Qingu the commander. Marduk is named as commander of the younger gods as long as he kills Tiamat; which he does through an arrow to the throat. Marduk splits her body in half and uses the back half to make the sky (which holds back the cosmic ocean) and the front half to make the earth (which holds the subterranean ocean). Marduk takes out Tiamat’s eyes and allows some of the subterranean ocean to flow out into two streams that become the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Finally, Marduk and Ea (and other gods) decide to create human beings to bear the burden of the gods, so that they can rest and not have to do all the hard work. Marduk creates people by killing Qingu and mixing Qingu’s blood with clay.

6th Period: The Ground of Being is the First Cause.

Wednesday

et cetera.

I think this would be an excellent way to introduce much needed mythological and spiritual awakenings in students, letting them know that plenty of other people around the world actually believe this stuff, AND, since they do believe this stuff, that makes this stuff VALID as alternate theories to evolution, and that no “theory” is better than any other belief in creation. I mean, it only makes sense that we give everyone a fair shot, right? I’m all for that. I’ll have to get my kid an afterschool tutor so he can learn to do some basic math, but it’s worth it for all the myriad wonders of creationism he will learn! Now that’s tolerance!

So, now that that point has been conceded and taken care of, I propose we move to the next item on the agenda, regarding tolerance, fairness, and whatnot: required programs for every religious institution.

All religious institutions shall, with their own funding, thoroughly and objectively instruct their staff, members, and guests, with government oversight, in the following areas:

-Heredity
-Variation
-Mutation
-Sex and recombination
-Population genetics
-Mechanisms
-Natural selection
-Genetic drift
-Gene flow
-Outcomes
-Adaptation
-Co-evolution
-Co-operation
-Speciation
-Extinction
-Evolutionary history of life
-Abiogenesis
-Common descent
-Evolution of life

-The scientific method
-Basic and intermediate mathematics
-Logic
-Philosophy
-Classic literature
-Civil rights
-Constitutional law
-World history
-Domestic history

Religious institutions will be required to hire experts in these fields who are unaffiliated with any religion (lest there be an unfair bias in favor of one “theory” or religion over another), and will be subject to strict scrutiny with regard to the curriculum and teaching standards. Standardized exams will be given, and religious institutions will have adjustments in funding and tax exemption based on the scores.

It would be my honor to assist in implementing this fair and balanced program. I hope it gets kicked off right away!

What a great day for tolerance!

1. This, and the following excerpts, quoted and paraphrased from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth [↩]

The 23rd World Youth Day celebrations are currently being hosted in Sydney, Australia from the 15th to the 20th of July. The official World Youth Day (WYD) 2008 site describes it as “the largest youth event in the world… attended by the Pope and hundreds of thousands of young people from all over the globe… to celebrate and learn about their faith on a more regular basis”.¹ It is the religious equivalent of a week-long music festival, complete with services, entertainment acts, a welcome from the Prime Minister, and Pope Benedict XVI’s first official public appearance in Australia ever to an anticipated crowd of 500,000.²

The estimate of the taxpayer cost for this event is currently at AU$160 million with AU$86 million coming from the NSW state government, well beyond the proportion of funds contributed by past host cities. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is putting forward only AU$115 million, with AU$75 million expected to be recouped from attendance fees.³ The number of people converging on the CBD is expected to go well beyond that experienced in the 2000 Olympics.⁴ Road closures and disruptions are expected to exceed the inconveniences caused during the 2007 APEC summit,⁵ and the lead-up to the event was beset by anxieties over the ability of Sydney’s underfunded infrastructure to cope with the load of so much human traffic.^{6 7}

While this all might suggest that Australia is quite fond of organised religion, particularly Roman Catholicism, the statistical data evinces a different scenario. Though Catholicism is the largest denomination in Sydney, it is still only a minority of less than 30%.⁸ This year, an international study revealed many striking features of religion in Australia, including the significantly high rate of nominalism in Catholics. 31% of Australians said they lacked a belief in any god, making Australia the fourth least religious nation out of 21 in the study. General interest in religion and religious issues also recorded significantly low. Unsurprisingly, youth were found to be the least religious of all. ⁹

In such an unsuitable environment for an event promoting religion to the masses, the clandestine introduction of special police powers for World Youth Day has proved to be widely unpopular. Using a cleverly arranged legal loop-hole that bypassed parliamentary scrutiny, the deputy Premier gazetted new regulations on June 25, that allowed for a AU$5,500 fine to anyone who “causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants in a World Youth Day event”.¹⁰ The word “annoyance” was vague enough to endanger people’s right to demonstrate and campaign during the event. Members of Broken Rites, a support group for church sex abuse victims, reported being approached by police to have their banners and placards pre-approved for their intended demonstration. The NoToPope coalition expressed concern that they would not be allowed to hand out condoms and protest papal doctrines on sexuality. The consequence of this law that was most widely publicised was that merely wearing a shirt with an anti-catholic or anti-WYD slogan could result in fine or arrest.¹¹ In response to this, the NoToPope coalition staged a “fashion show” in front of State Parliament, displaying a range of potentially offensive shirts.¹²

The government attempted to justify these laws as nothing out of the ordinary, comparing them to the sort of controls used at sporting events, but as Stephen Blanks of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties has pointed out, normally such laws would apply to all sports spectators, not just those supporting the visiting team. It seems that the state government is eager to avoid a repeat of last year’s embarrassment during APEC, where a comedy team made it through two police checkpoints in a fake motorcade, carrying one of their members dressed as Osama bin Laden. They were let off on all charges due to the role that police complacency played in the incident.¹³

Finally, on Tuesday this week, a court ruling deemed the term “annoyance” to be invalid, due to its propensity to outlaw almost behaviour as trivial as tying a shoelace. However, it did not remove the term “inconvenience” from the law, which the Premier claimed was good enough to embue police with the power to suppress undesirable behaviour. ¹⁴

With growing mass dissent and a lack of religious zealotry, it is puzzling to many why Sydney was made to bear this burden at all. Premier Iemma’s main incentive to the public is a promised boost of AU$200 million to the local economy.¹⁵ Retailers don’t seem convinced, however, including the CEO of Myer who predicts losses around $20 million dollars due to their business.¹⁶ NSW Trainers Association says that the AU$41 million compensation deal that had to be struck in order to re-locate 700 horses from Randwick Racecourse will not cover all costs, nor will it justify the risk of a new outbreak of equine influenza which saw last year’s Spring Carnival cancelled.¹⁷ There have been reports that the sex industry can expect a surge in business thanks to non-catholic visitors accompanying World Youth Day, but even that prospect seems to be unsupported speculation.¹⁸

Another proposed justification is as a sort of reciprocation for the contribution the Catholic Church makes to the community through hospitals and schools. State-funded hospitals contracted to the Catholic church often do not refer rape victims to rape counseling (because such services offer emergency contraception to victims), will not perform procedures such as vasectomies and abortions, and will often refuse to host IVF facilities. ¹⁹ Like these hospitals, Catholic schools also receive significant amounts of public money- the government gives Catholic school students 73% as much funding as public schools²⁰ - and really only provide education opportunities to children whose parents are willing to subject them to doctrines of the Catholic church from as young as 5 years old. Considering how few people in NSW subscribe strongly to the particulars of Catholic morality and superstition, it is more plausible to say that these services are being co-opted by the Catholic church for its own agenda, than to say the church has invested its own funding into meeting the interests of the broader community.

However, there is a positive side to all this controversy. Threats of strike action during WYD08 forced the government to settle a long running pay dispute with the transport union.²¹ The gazetting of anti-free speech “annoyance” laws has revived the debate over whether Australia needs a Bill of Rights, and the succesful challenge of these laws has been a blow for the government’s attempts to subvert democratic processes. The inconveniences and injustices of World Youth Day have united businesses, unions and the general public in a way that is rarely seen in politically moderate Australia. As much as the church expects to boost its numbers from this event, many activist groups can expect an increase in support flowing on from the publicity they’ve received. Most of all, many previously complacent citizens have been forced to recognise the importance of vigilance over the powers entrusted to political leaders.

It is clear that rational activists and civil libertarians will not let this mass mobilisation of youth in the name of superstitious dogma go unanswered.

Editorial note: Bishop Anthony Fisher, a World Youth Day coordinator, has lately been criticized for his remarks regarding Catholic victims of sex abuse. “Happily, I think most of Australia was enjoying [and] delighting in the beauty and goodness of these young people and the hope for us doing these sorts of things better in the future, as we saw last night, rather than dwelling crankily - as a few people are doing - on old wounds.”²²

1. ”WYD08″. World Youth Day 2008. Accessed 8th June, 2008 http://www.wyd2008.org [↩]
2. Kuczynski, Marcus. “500,000 set to converge on Sydney Harbour to see Pope”. June 17, 2008. The Courier Mail: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24030868-953,00.html [↩]
3. Powell, Sian. “World Youth Day to cost taxpayers $160m”. April 22, 2008. The Australian: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23578255-5013404,00.html [↩]
4. ”WYD08″. World Youth Day 2008. Accessed 8th June, 2008 http://www.wyd2008.org [↩]
5. ”Road Closures for World Youth Day 2008″, Roads and Traffic Authority NSW. Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/newsevents/2008_03_wyd.html [↩]
6. Hildebrand, Joe. “World Youth Day staff crisis to force free travel”. 3rd June 2008. The Daily Telegraph: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23960027-5013605,00.html [↩]
7. ”Traffic Warnings ahead of Youth Day”. June 14, 2008. AAP: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24015484-5016937,00.html [↩]
8. ”2006 Census QuickStats: Sydney {Urban Centre/Locality}”, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ [↩]
9. ”High level of religious identity paired with low level of belief”, Bertelsmann foundation. Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/ [↩]
10. ”World Youth Day Amendment Regulation 2008 - Clause 7″, NSW Bar Association, Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.nswbar.asn.au/circulars/july/wyd_reg2.pdf [↩]
11. Joel Gibson, Jano Gibson and Linda Morris, “Protests need our blessing, say police”. 2nd June 2008 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/protests-need-our-blessing-say-police/2008/07/01/1214678038215.html [↩]
12. ”‘Annoying’ proteters hold spoof fashion show”. Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. 9th June 2008 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/09/2298949.htm [↩]
13. Daniel Emerson and Arjun Ramachandran, “Chaser’s APEC stunt charges dropped”. 28th April 2008 http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv–radio/chasers-apec-stunt-charges-dropped/2008/04/28/1209234710155.html [↩]
14. “RACHEL EVANS and AMBER PIKE v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES”. Australasian Legal Information Institute. 17th June 2008, http://www.austlii.edu.au/ [↩]
15. ”WYD ‘will have its benefits’”. SBS World News Australia. 24th June 2008 http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/wyd_39will_have_its_benefits39_550098 [↩]
16. ”Myer boss says World Youth Day will be ‘catastrophic’ for sales”. smartcompany.com.au 7th July 2008 http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/20080707-Myer-boss-says-World-Youth-Day-will-be-catastrophic-for-sales.html [↩]
17. Morris, Linda. “Taxpayers’ $95m bill for World Youth Day”. Sydney Morning Herald. 16th November 2007 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/taxpayers-95m-bill-for-world-youth-day/2007/11/15/1194766868787.html [↩]
18. Plambeck, Sean. “World Youth Day ‘will be a boost for sex industry’. news.com.au 3rd June 2008 http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23804107-5016937,00.html [↩]
19. Franklin, Matthew. “Doctors want Catholic beliefs out of state hospitals”. The Australian. 12th January 2007 http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21045678-421,00.html [↩]
20. ”Catholic systemic school funding”. Catholic Education Office Sydney. Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.ceosyd.catholic.edu.au/cms/Jahia/pid/3330 [↩]
21. ”World Youth Day strike called off”. TVNZ News. 9th July 2008 http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1896758 [↩]
22. ”Catholic Bishop says abuse victims are ‘dwelling on old wounds’”. July 18, 2008. http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/07/16/Stop_dwelling_on_the_old_wounds_Bishop_Fisher_tells_sex_abuse_victims [↩]

There seems to be a free pass for all politicians when it comes to matters not directly related to their rhetoric. While this has applied to all politicians, and therefore this could easily be about John McCain or Hillary Clinton, I would like to point it out about Mr. Barack Obama.¹ Mr. Obama has been given a free pass concerning his Church and his various friendships with people of extreme viewpoints. I believe that this should not be the case. Even though they are not directly related to his specific rhetoric, they do become an issue by the very nature of what you consider worth being around ends up affecting you.

I don’t believe that Mr. Obama thinks America is the evil that his Pastor (now former pastor) says it is, but at the same time, if you hear negative things about America for 20 years, how can it not affect your viewpoint? I don’t believe Mr. Obama shares the ideology of his more extreme friends (comrades?), but how many times can you hear their viewpoint, without at least letting some of it inside? Whether it is right or wrong may be a different issue, but the bottom line is the lack of judgment in these issues either shows a fairly obvious deficiency in the basic ability to discern “problematic things” or that he in some way is implicitly “endorsing” those views on some levels.

I think we all agree that Mr. Obama was playing the Politician role when he claimed he never heard his pastor say unkind things about America. We are expected to believe him when he says, “I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew. He always preached the social gospel and was sometimes controversial in the same way that many people who‘d speak out on social issues are controversial.”²

Given that he did sit through these sermons, and I personally believe he must have over the course of a twenty year period, then he should absolutely be held accountable for that. How much “accountability,” or what should be done? In my opinion these things are not overly huge, and all other things being equal they are minor with respect to the “bigger fish to fry type issues” in and of themselves. The problem however is that it seems that we are used to giving people free passes when it comes to faith and that simply should not be.

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” –Sam Harris

Sam Harris describes how we give a free pass as long as the religion is close to home. Presidents (and people running for any office) should be held accountable for their beliefs. They should be asked something along the lines of “If you were praying to your God, and felt that his answer was to bomb (Insert any place here), would you do it? Why or why not?” This shows the idiocy of the situation. Because if they are truly getting the word form God, then who can fault them for blowing up a country based on what God says? And if they say they won’t, then it shows just how much their belief in God means.

Either Mr. Obama was in a church for 20 years and chose to ignore the appointed by God minister, or he believes what that minister says and ultimately will let it affect his decision. To be quite frank, I am not sure which of these is worse. If Mr. Obama does not believe his own God should be listened to (That he chose to spend his valuable time with in accordance to “God’s Word”), then how can we know what Mr. Obama will do to something less sacred, like for example the Constitution? And if he does accept the sermons as being sent from God via this minister, then to close with a slightly inappropriate phrase, God help us all.

Disclaimer: I am an active duty military member, but anything I write is simply my opinion and in no way is expected to be coming from the military. I am acting as a citizen in anything I write. Also to be clear, No matter who is elected president, I will gladly serve them with pride, as I have served both President Clinton and President Bush. I may or may not agree with any or all of their respective politics, but I will follow the orders they give. This specific article is to be absolutely clear, not designed to be an attack on Mr. Obama. If I were voting for him, this issue would give me pause, but would ultimately be minor. If I were not voting for him, this would not be why, as I have stated that all of the candidates in various ways are given free passes on most areas of Personal responsibility when it comes to “faith” specifically.

Post script: I would like everyone to think on the Bomb question.

“If you were praying to your God, and felt that his answer was to bomb (Insert any place here), would you do it? Why or why not?”

Let’s assume the place was Iran during a war with them, where they have aggressively attacked American soil. But keeping in mind, what made you decide yes, according to this scenario was “God”, not the prevailing logic behind it. Most people would not bat an eye if you admitted this.

However if for some reason, You decided as a result of prayer with “God” to bomb Washington D.C. for no reason other than God told you to in prayer, I think we can all agree that this would be unacceptable.

There is only one conclusion. Your God is not what makes things “right or “wrong”. It is the prevailing wisdom behind your decision. Point of fact, Your God is simply an excuse to shift personal responsibility from you to somewhere that can not be attacked. Accept responsibility for your actions. Demand that others accept responsibility for theirs. This will make the entire world better, one paradigm shift at a time.

1. This is not to imply he is or is not the best candidate. I am using him as the example, but keep in mind with different example this could apply to every candidate in the last 20 years at a minimum. [↩]
2. Found on the folling link taken NBC Keith Olbermann show. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23675485/ [↩]

TSA and the Feds, fighting your freedom every step of the way!

If you haven’t been paying any attention:

10 airports install body scanners — Devices can peer under passengers’ clothes

and

Shock bracelet for airlines?

One of Barack Obama’s Factcheck web pages is devoted to disclaiming any and all rumors that Obama is Muslim.¹ Obviously it’s critical for a presidential candidate to dispel the kinds of accusations that would negatively impact a campaign. Obama, however, doesn’t stop with quashing rumor — he devotes a tremendous amount of time and effort swinging the religious pendulum hard in the opposite direction. That direction is Christianity, presumably because while being accused of worshipping a single creator god (from one particular origin) is heinous, bragging about worshipping a single creator god (from a different, but related origin) is not only perfectly acceptable, but also a key component required to obtain the U.S. presidency.

Examine the fear-tinged rejections of Islam, on Obama’s web page, compared to the praises of Obama’s fealty to Jesus Christ: (all quotes from the footnoted website; emphasis mine)

Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian

OBAMA IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A MUSLIM

Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs Issued A Statement Explaining That “Senator Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, Was Not Raised As A Muslim, And Is A Committed Christian.” “Obama’s campaign aides have emphasized his strong Christian beliefs and downplayed any Islamic connection. The Illinois senator was raised ‘in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother,’ his chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement in January after false reports began circulating that Obama had attended a radical madrasa, or Koranic school, as a child. ‘To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago,’ Gibbs’ Jan. 24 statement said.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/16/07]

Obama “Beckoning” Felt At Trinity United Church Of Christ, “Submitted Myself To His Will, And Dedicated Myself To Discovering His Truth And Carrying Out His Works.” Obama said, “So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called “The Audacity of Hope.” And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.” [Speech, 6/23/07]

Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim. Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ.

HE NEVER ATTENDED A RADICAL MUSLIM SCHOOL

CNN Reporter: I’ve Been to Madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Obama’s Indonesian Elementary School Is Nothing Like That. On January 22, CNN Reporter John Vause reported, “I came here to Barack Obama’s elementary school in Jakarta, looking for what some are calling an Islamic Madrassa, like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.. I’ve been to those Madrassas in Pakistan and Wolf, this school is nothing like that.” [CNN, Situation Room, 1/22/07]

What if he had attended a radical Catholic school? I know a number of Catholics who would argue that their Catholic school and upbringing was radical. Would that exempt him from the presidential race, or would it enhance his chances at winning?

OBAMA IS A PRACTICING CHRISTIAN

Obama Has Been A Member Of Trinity United Church Of Christ For Twenty Years. Monroe Anderson stands up for Reverend Wright’s ministry, “For the past two decades, Barack Obama has been a faithful member of the congregation at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.” [Chicago Sun-Times, Monroe Anderson, 3/25/07]

Obama Was Baptized And Attends Church Once a Week When He is Able. In the Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote, “I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.” In 2004, he “attend[ed] the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week — or at least as many weeks as he is able. His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant.” When asked about his decision to be baptized, Obama said “Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me,” he said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. “I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth.” [Audacity of Hope, p.208, Chicago Sun Times, 4/5/04; AP 6/28/06]

Obama Reads The Bible, Finds Time to Pray On Campaign Trail. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, “Obama says he reads the Bible, though not as regularly as he’d like, now that he’s on the campaign trail. But he does find time to pray. ‘It’s not formal, me getting on my knees,’ he says. ‘I think I have an ongoing conversation with God… I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why I am doing it.’” [Chicago Sun Times, 4/5/04]

Obama Held His Personal Bible When He Was Sworn-In As A U.S. Senator. “…Even before the makeshift office was up and running in the basement of a Senate building, even before he raised his hand Tuesday to take the oath of office as the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was already a political rock star and a celebrated new face in Congress. He arrived Tuesday, his first official day in the Capitol…. In the circles he runs in now, celebrity status is checked at the cloakroom door…When it was finally time to take the oath, he held his personal Bible, as family from as far away as Kenya watched from the visitors’ gallery above. His daughters, Malia, 6, and Sasha, 3, in velvet dresses and patent leather shoes, bounced in their chairs when he looked up and waved.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/5/05]

Questions, Mr. Obama: What does the Bible actually say? Why do you read it? Why did you hold a bible when you were sworn in? (I thought our government was secular). Why are you using that fact as a positive indicator of your ability to run this country? What does the Bible say about slavery, Mr. Obama? Are you going to have a copy of the “Ten Commandments” placed on display in the White House? Could you make an executive decision that you think goes against “God’s will”? What is God’s will with regard to non-believers? That’s in the Bible, right? Why read the Bible, profess worship for the alleged dictator of that work, and then not actually follow the clear commands within it? Do you, Mr. Obama, know what the punishments for violating the Ten Commandments are? Would you enforce them while holding the presidential office? If not, why devote so much time and energy to show the citizenry of the U.S. that you are a faithful Christian, follower of Jesus, and worshiper of the Christian God, to whom you have “submitted” your “will”?

Ah, here are some answers:

TRINITY TENETS ARE “TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM SCRIPTURE” AND EMPHASIZE “COMMITMENT” TO GOD, COMMUNITY, FAMILY, WORK, SELF-DISCIPLINE AND SELF-RESPECT

Obama Says Black Values System Must Be Understood as a Whole. “Obama said it was important to understand the document as a whole rather than highlight individual tenets. ‘Commitment to God, black community, commitment to the black family, the black work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect,’ he said. ‘Those are values that the conservative movement in particular has suggested are necessary for black advancement…So I would be puzzled that they would object or quibble with the bulk of a document that basically espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and self-help.’” [Chicago Tribune, 2/6/07]

Obama Says Argument Against “Middleclassness” Taken Directly From Scripture. “In his published memoirs, Obama said even he was stopped by Trinity’s tenet to disavow “middleclassness” when he first read it two decades ago in a church pamphlet. The brochure implored upwardly mobile church members not to distance themselves from less fortunate Trinity worshipers. ‘As I read it, at least, it was a very simple argument taken directly from Scripture: ‘To whom much is given much is required,” Obama said. [Chicago Tribune, 2/6/07]

Wait, those aren’t answers. Has anyone asked Senator Obama the kinds of questions I posed? Or even come close? Why does the nation think it’s unimportant to ask such questions? Is it fear of reprisal? Is it that everyone who could possibly ask such questions is prevented from doing so? Where are questions like that in formal debates? Doesn’t the Muslim American community have an interest in asking these questions? What about the Buddhists, the Hindus, the deists, the other Christian sects, the undecided? There’s quite a large chunk of this nation that does not represent a Christian population. Why do we consistently throw softball questions at candidates? Why do we, by default, accept the status quo that “Christian” means “good”? Obama says he’s for change. I believe it, but regarding religion and the way Christianity is put on a pedestal in the United States, I believe he’s for perpetuation.

1. http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php [↩]

I’d like to add a bit of perspective to the commentary I read the other day by Roger Severino, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The article is divided into quote boxes, my comments follow.

Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches ¹

Apr 7, 2008 3:00 AM (1 day ago) by Roger Severino, The Examiner

WASHINGTON - After years of litigation and debate, the California and Connecticut supreme courts are about to decide the question of marriage. If, as some suspect, the courts redefine the institution to include same-sex couples, they will have entered a minefield of unintended consequences — especially with regard to religious liberty.

The experience of legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and of civil unions elsewhere, cannot be ignored. It shows that, even with the best of intentions, legalizing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the religious freedom citizens have enjoyed since the founding.

This hyperbole has become all too well known in arguments that appeal to tradition. This was the same argument used in the iconic Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, where in the earlier trial, the trial judge stated:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”²

Apparently allowing races to mix in marriage would “seriously undermine the religious freedom citizens have enjoyed since the founding.”

Severino, continued:

Although the First Amendment protects dissenting houses of worship from being forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies against their will, that is not the end of the story — it is barely even the beginning.

Mr. Severino apparently ignores the fact that although there is an optional ceremonial and religious aspect to marriage, with regard to the state, it is a legal issue akin to a contract in the eyes of the state, covered by its laws, and that can be processed fully by a non-religious government entity such as a justice of the peace or someone else authorized to conduct a marriage. In other words, religious institutions are not required to perform marital ceremonies — these religious rituals are optional, based on the desires of the members of the respective churches.

Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.

Is what’s being asked for a simple change in definition of marriage, or is it a change in application of marriage? I think it’s the latter. The same way a black and white couple could live together as if married, prior to Loving v. Virginia, two men or two women could live together as if married. Loving allowed states to recognize the black and white couple as a union under law, afforded the same rights and privileges as other couples. Apply marriage more broadly and reject more tradition, and it would include same-gendered couples. As F.C. Decoste states, “Of course, if this be so — if the only arguments against same-sex marriage are sectarian — then opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti-miscegenation laws: each is a fundamental assault on equality, and neither has any rhyme or reason beyond sectarian commitments which would foist one’s own diseased, personal morality on the whole of the polity.”³

Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

Here we embark on an interesting and, I’m sure, controversial issue — should religious institutions even have tax exemptions, or is that a violation of the First Amendment? And why should religious institutions be treated any differently than any other charitable organization that refuses to comply with government rules, and that ends up losing access to government programs? Is the adherence to religious tradition and homophobia important enough to religious institutions that the lesser of two evils is to reject government assistance?

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

And a doctor who refuses to perform a life-saving blood transfusion because it conflicts with his religious beliefs should be praised? If a person hired by a government entity has a personal problem performing an administrative task according to the rules and regulations of the government, then the person should not be an employee of the government.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.

No, the belief did not become a firing offense. The manifestation of that belief by refusing to comply with a government mandate while being employed by that government became a firing offense.

It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.

As has always been the case anyway. If a Church of Satan has a marriage ceremony, the government doesn’t have to recognize it if it doesn’t comply with state law. So, the rationale has always been imposed. Even a church recognized as an entity that can perform legal marriages doesn’t get a free pass if the person actually performing the marriage is not authorized to do so. Why should there be a special exemption for religion for anything violative of the law?

This is not the only example of what is to come. Massachusetts, like many other states, strictly regulates private adoption agencies through licensing. Historically, this has not posed any difficulties for religious institutions, but Massachusetts now demands that all licensed adoption agencies be willing to place children with legally married same-sex couples.

However, Catholic Charities, the largest private social service provider in the state, could not in good conscience place its orphan children into homosexual households. After a bitter struggle, Boston Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because it refused to embrace the state’s new definition of marriage. The result was doubly tragic because both orphan children and religious liberty took the hit for this misguided attempt at equality.

It seems more like the orphan children took a hit because of Catholic homophobia and irrational adherence to tradition in not even considering the viability of a same-sex set of parents. Is it so important that the couple be man and woman that the next best option for Catholic Charities is to perpetuate the orphanhood of the children? Should the civil rights of couples be ignored for the sake of the homophobic?

Two more real-world examples illustrate the danger. In New Jersey, the city of Ocean Grove recently yanked a Methodist institution’s real estate tax exemption because it refused to perform civil unions in its outdoor wedding pavilion.

In Iowa, the Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.

Based on the ruling, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose $102,000 in government support for the YMCA’s community programs. Equal provision of benefits to all couples was not enough — only the YMCA’s explicit adoption of the state’s new definition of family fulfilled the government’s requirements.

Again, governments are effectively giving taxpayer money to religious institutions in the form of exemptions because those institutions follow government regulation. When the institutions refuse to follow government regulation, the government stops the exemptions. Are the coffers so empty that churches cannot go private and run things the way they wish? Isn’t the Catholic church one of the most wealthy entities in the entire world? So wealthy that it could feasibly ignore the lack of tax exemption, and facilitate the finding of homes for orphans, or buy out the YMCA and privatize it?

This list barely mentions the avalanche of employment discrimination lawsuits religious institutions will face, if, for example, employees at religious institutions publicly enter same-sex unions in violation of the institution’s teachings and employment policies.

Likewise, religious colleges and universities would run afoul of housing discrimination laws if they were to offer housing benefits for husband-and-wife couples but decline to do so for married same-sex partners.

Yet again, government money (which is taxpayer money) for adhering to the law. Not adhering to the law results in no government money or enforcement of the law. If churches don’t like it, they can go private.

Are we better off as a community if religious charities are forced to close their doors because the state redefines what is and is not a marriage? Are we better off if, for example, the Salvation Army is forced to close because of employment lawsuits, or if Catholic adoption agencies are forced to shutter their offices? What would such a result say about tolerating diversity and respect for religious liberty?

Lawmakers and judges need to consider all the consequences, intended and unintended, before embarking on this path.

There are plenty of non-religious charities that would be happy to take on the tasks of former religious charities that are destroyed due to their own arrogance. Respecting religious liberty is not equivalent to allowing religious institutions to do whatever they want with taxpayer money without being accountable to the taxpayers or the government. As a society, we can respect or refuse to respect religions as beliefs, but that has nothing to do with accepting the behavior of religious institutions. However, the government, the entity that takes and redistributes our tax money, is held to a higher standard. Remember, Congress shall make no law respecting….

-Procrustes

1. http://www.examiner.com/a-1324540~Roger_Severino__Legalizing_gay_marriage_will_spark_lawsuits_against_churches.html [↩]
2. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) [↩]
3. The HalpernTransformation:
   Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Society, and the Limits of Liberal Law, F.C. Decoste, http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/decoste.pdf [↩]

Every year, the U.S. experiences as many as 850,000 teen pregnancies. Those under the age of 25 contract an average of about 9.1 million STDs. 70% of females and 62% of males lose their virginity by the age of 18.¹ In a study commissioned by Congress, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. concluded that abstinence-only programs have no effect on the age students first have sex and no effect on their number of sexual partners.²

Clearly, education is the key. When northern Virginia began requiring “family life education” as part of their public school curriculum in 1987, teen pregnancies dropped by fifty percent, and teen abortions went down sixty percent.³ Students receive instruction in “family living and community relationships, abstinence education, the value of postponing sexual activity, the benefits of adoption as a positive choice in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, human sexuality, human reproduction, dating violence, the characteristics of abusive relationships, steps to take to avoid sexual assault, and the availability of counseling and legal resources, and, in the event of such sexual assault, the importance of immediate medical attention and advice, as well as the requirements of the law and the etiology, prevention and effects of sexually transmitted diseases. “ Yet, an important aspect of sexual education has been missing from this curriculum, i.e. information on birth control.

Last Wednesday, February 6^th, the Virginia Senate rejected a bill, SB 155, which would have added to the curriculum the requirement for education on the various methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Senate’s education and health committee cleared the bill with a 9-6 vote, but on the floor the bill narrowly missed passage with a vote of 17-22. It seems common sense that our children should be given proper information on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and a recent survey showed that 82% of parents in the U.S. support programs that would discuss these methods,⁴ so why was this bill rejected?

Republican lawmakers accused the FDA-approved list of contraception of being too broad and unreliable. “Quite frankly, this list is rather staggering in terms of its scope, and in terms of its relative effectiveness or ineffectiveness,” Sen. Mark D. Obenshain said, referring to a spermicide on the FDA list that is not supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The spermicide he was referring to does have a comparatively high failure rate,⁵ but that is exactly the reason we need to educate students on these methods. Does the Senator really believe that the potential failure rates would not be discussed alongside the benefits? That, of course, would be one of the most important aspects for students to learn about. The patron of the bill, Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Richmond, responded, “How better should our children be introduced to this laundry list? Should they go into the store, whether it’s the CVS or some other place, and guess at the efficacy of these products or guess how to use these products or guess as to whether these products are appropriate or not, or should they learn it in a classroom setting?”⁶

Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, one of two Democratic Senators who joined with Republicans to kill the bill, said he worried about Catholic students in public schools. “This was one of those efforts where the intent was right, but it could get in the way of families’ beliefs,” Houck said. This is a poor argument, as parents have always had the right to remove their children from the program if they feel it is inappropriate or conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The “Some Families” Foundation, while rallying for opposition to the bill, wrote in an action alert, “The bill…would replace current abstinence-based Family Life Education programs with a controversial contraception-only curriculum.”⁷ This is a blatant untruth! All the current teachings of the benefits of postponing sexual activity would remain in place. The education on contraception would merely be an addition to the existing criteria. In an action alert email, they stated, “This bill is the highest priority legislative initiative for Planned Parenthood. That pro-abortion group had close to 500 people here yesterday to argue for its passage. Some of their activists were still in high school. Are we going to let them go into our schools to recruit the next generation of pro-choicers without putting up a fight? These are our children, nieces and nephews, grandchildren and great grandchildren. No! We cannot let them win this critical battle. The education of our children is too important to trust to ineffective and dangerous contraception-based programs.” Ineffective and dangerous? Study after study confirms the inefficacy of abstinence-only education. Teenagers are going to have sex. To think that telling them “No” is going to somehow stop them from behaving contrary to their nature as human, sexual beings, is both naïve and the real danger to our students.

Based on the blaring inconsistencies in the opposition’s arguments and their willful ignorance of the hard evidence against them, could there be another, underlying reason for their vicious attack on this bill? In October 2007, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine submitted plans to close a budget shortfall. One of the ways in which he accomplished his goal was to eliminate a $275,000 matching grant for a federal program which provided funds for fourteen nonprofit groups that taught abstinence only, making Virginia the fourteenth state to refuse to support abstinence-only education. Kaine’s communications director, Delacey Skinner, stated, “The governor supports abstinence-based education, but the governor wants to see us funding programs that are evidenced-based.” Kaine cited recent studies which have found that in order to truly protect teenagers against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, sex education programs must include information about contraceptives as well as abstinence.⁸ Social conservatives reacted very angrily to the Governor’s decision and accused him and Planned Parenthood of hiding the decision until after the November election. Their accusations were unjustified, as Kaine’s budget amendments had been public for six weeks prior. Considering the close timing between these two incidents, it seems highly likely that Republican’s residual anger over the Governor’s decision had a considerable impact on their decision to reject SB 155.

Statistics aside, studies aside, evidence aside, the bottom line is that we have a responsibility to provide accurate, useful information to our students at a time when they need it most. When students are well-informed, they can make well-informed decisions. Withholding that information is tantamount to lying to our children and can only cause confusion and detrimental consequences. Please take the time to write to our politicians and express your support for comprehensive sexual education for our students. We owe it to their futures.

1. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fssexcur.htm [↩]
2. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf [↩]
3. (Sen. Barker, D-Fairfax) http://hamptonroads.com/2008/02/measure … nia-senate [↩]
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603764/ [↩]
5. http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html [↩]
6. http://www.examiner.com/a-1206268~Contraceptive_education_bill_killed.html [↩]
7. http://www.vbdems.org/?p=2177 [↩]
8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01716.html [↩]

The father of a co-worker on a different floor died the other day, and another co-worker got a card and started a collection for flowers for the funeral. No big deal. Passed the card around. I was one of the later persons to receive the card to jot down something. We do this all the time for birthdays, and it’s fairly easy to come up with something to say for a birthday. “Happy Birthday!” “Best Wishes!” “Hope you get laid!” You know, something like that. Cheery or morose, doesn’t matter for a birthday card. “Hey, at least you still have your hair! Most of it, anyway!”

Well, for a “Your father died. I didn’t know him. I barely know you. I’m sorry he’s dead, but only in that faintly ‘we’re all humans here and share some sort of emotional bond’ sort of way” card, it’s not so easy. I was the 16th or 17th signer on the card. I glanced casually at the other notes, just to get an idea of what others were saying. And what I saw kinda shocked me, although perhaps it shouldn’t have.

Out of 16 notes, 12 used the word “prayer” or “prayers” and 1 used “God.” Yes, I know that for most people, “you’re in my prayers” really only means that “you’re in my thoughts.” Which, of course, makes the use of both redundant but perhaps more encouraging? “You’re in my thoughts and prayers.” What’s that really mean? I’m thinking of you, and, oh, by the way, I’m thinking of you. It’s worse when it even remotely means actual prayer. What, seriously, is prayer going to accomplish in that situation? What, exactly, are these people praying for? “I pray your daddy comes back from the grave so you can say your final farewells.” “I pray that you die soon so that you can see your dad in heaven.” “I pray that you understand that God really loves you and your dad, and death is just His way of showing it. Really.”

Many State of Protest readers are former Christians. Here are some questions for you. When you told someone that they were in your prayers, what did you really mean? And then what did you do? Did you ever actually pray for someone after you said you would? Did you clasp your hands together and close your eyes and start praying with that person in mind? And, if you did, what did you say? For what did you pray?

And why does it so utterly disturb me that so many of my co-workers are praying for someone who just lost a father?

If, say, a member of my immediate family were to die, would I take the assertions of prayer by others as insults or just innocent ways of expressing their attempt at shared mourning? In other words, is someone who knows that I’m atheist intentionally infringing upon my beliefs by stating that they will pray for me, for my family member?

It reminds me of a classic dead-end conversation:

Theist: “It was nice talking to you. God bless!”

Atheist: “I don’t believe in God.”

Theist: “But He believes in you, and He wants you to know that He loves you!”

Why do we dislike salespeople who knock on our doors on Saturday morning, or who pester us in stores while we’re trying to look at something? Because they won’t take “no” for an answer. They’re rude, imposing, and have absolutely no care about your feelings, your thoughts, your beliefs. Same reason we don’t like evangelicals. Now, these 13 or so co-workers who felt the need to indicate (out of piety or self-righteousness) that they were praying for the card’s recipient probably wouldn’t consider themselves evangelical. However, aren’t they?

Are prayers useful? Apparently some prominent people would like to continue to encourage that belief. Some frighteningly prominent people.

In 2000:

At the White House, President Clinton said he was “saddened by the terrible loss of life” in Georgia, and asked Americans to pray for the victims.¹

The vice president [Gore] told tornado victims they could count on the prayers and resources of the nation.²

In 2003:

I express my sincerest condolences to the victims of the tornadoes that ripped through Arkansas and Kansas and Missouri, Tennessee, Nebraska and South Dakota. Our prayers and I hope your prayers are with those who — the loved ones who lost life or those who lost their home. The federal government, the local state and local authorities need to know the federal government will be moving as quickly as we possibly can to provide help where help is needed, and where help is justified. Nature is awfully tough at times. And the best thing to do right now is to pray for those who have suffered.³

In 2007:

I bring the prayers and concerns of the people of this country to this town.⁴

Today:

US President G