Although there is a degree of dissent among nonbelievers regarding the creation of humanist organizations modeled after religious organizations, it’s nice to know that such communities exist at all, that secularism is touted by these communities as being a positive thing, and that there is a choice in the matter. Unlike the mainstream religious who assert that to be a “good” believer, one must regularly attend church, if you don’t go to one of Epstein’s so-called “congregations,” it doesn’t mean you’re being a bad nonbeliever.

The article, written by Jay Lindsay (AP), was unbiased, well-written, and informative. Although it focused primarily on Epstein, an ordained rabbi (via the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism), former Reform Jew with a master’s degree in Judaic studies from the University of Michigan and a master’s of theological studies from Harvard Divinity School, the article reinforced the idea that people don’t need God or religion to get together and do good things. It was surprising and satisfying to see this article in a paper that regularly features pro-religious articles and advertisements. I am curious as to how people will react to the article, and whether secular organizations will gain more favor in mainstream media.

—

Note that the Express version of the article is abridged, and can be found at the Express Night Out website. Download the PDF version of the paper. The article is on page 31.

The full article can be read at Newsvine, with the original title “God-less ‘congregations’ planned for humanists.”

Via AP, and thanks to Mutha for cite.

Book review by L.Grey, with permission.

In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, ‘And the sun stood still … and hasted not to go down about a whole day’ (Joshua x. 13) and ‘He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time’ (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.

Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Mind 59 (1950), 443.

Monkey Girl by Edward Humes ISBN: 9780060885489, ISBN10: 0060885483 Ecco (imprint of Harper Collins) Hardcover 400 pages, $25.95

What does it mean when proponents of Intelligent Design say “teach the controversy”?

You may think you know what the controversy is about, but you’ll never get a more thorough and up-to-date analysis of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial than Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl. The 2005 trial was one of the latest episodes of the seemingly never-ending struggle for the hearts and minds of public school students. This is a fight between those who feel that Science describes nature pretty well, and those who believe that anything other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible deserves a trip to hell and excommunication from polite society. The trial itself was a gripping account of small-town drama unfolding over the course of a year, of parents and children enduring intimidation and humiliation. Witnesses from both sides turned the courtroom into a fascinating arena of scientific evidence versus faith dressed in science’s clothing. At least three books have come out of the case (see further reading below for details), and Ed Humes’ Pulitzer Prize-winning writing style and even-handed coverage make Monkey Girl a compelling choice. Humes not only covers the case, he describes the town as the trial transforms it:

Dover sits firmly astride the front lines of America’s culture war, occupying the uneasy space between America’s religious faith and its longstanding fondness for scientific progress, between an idealized past and an uncertain future, between education and indoctrination, between the natural and the supernatural. For the next several months, the ninth floor courtroom in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building will belong to Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District, an unintentionally epic lawsuit filed by a group of parents against their evolution-doubting school board. The case does indeed have much in common with the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, a public spectacle in which Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union unsuccessfully challenged a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. But unlike its illustrious predecessor (which, popular imagination and classic films notwithstanding, had exactly no impact on the law or educational practice at the time), the Dover case is positioned to define (or redefine) for decades just what children are taught about where we come from. [prologue, Monkey Girl]

The controversy has shifted a bit since the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, which first questioned the legality of teaching Darwin’s theory of Evolution in public schools. World War II and the Cold War demanded that the United States produce competent scientists. This demand seemed to effectively muzzle fundamentalists for a few decades. High School Biology classes approaching the Theory of Evolution would often involve an uneasy truce involving the words “changes over time” and neatly sidestepping the origins of life. Until reading this book, I assumed that all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists were fine with this truce. Humes’ book shows precisely how much this has changed.

While the book mostly focuses on the Dover trial, Humes also takes us to a similar trial in Kansas, the controversy involving the gift shop at the Grand Canyon, where Creationists have had some success in censoring information about the geological age of the national monument. Most importantly, Humes follows the trail of intellectual and legal deception to the pseudo-scientific think-tank called The Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who exclude any scientific evidence in conflict with Christian Scripture.

The Dover Trial is full of drama and bad debate, A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st century, or Inherit the Wind, Redux. Humes shows in the Dover case how Creationism in public schools, having been defeated in courts during the late 20th century under the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment, evolved (pun intended) into the virtually identical Intelligent Design movement, to Dover, Pennsylvania among other places. Some of the most shocking moments of the trial feature the ironic displays of dishonesty which ultimately brought down the school board members who were trying to bring religion into the local biology classrooms. Humes covers the scope of the grand scheme of religious activists, who plan on infusing not only science classes with Christian dogma and bias, but History, Government, and other classes as well.

This very book elicits criticism from those whose definition of “Fair and Balanced” have been warped to Orwellian proportions by Fox News and today’s most hyperbolic propagandists. Humes compassionately portrays how the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs in this case, were attacked and their children mocked at school out of ignorance. The Dover case pitted one kind of Christians against another. Those who favored the separation of Church and State were attacked as “not Christian enough”, in a great example of how the separation of these two functions protects freedom of religion. Another surprising turn of events showed how the presiding judge, a Bush-supporting Republican was branded as a liberal judicial activist for defending the constitution.

While it is clear on which side Humes’ sympathies lie, the reader is necessarily confronted with the heart of the so-called controversy: regarding extreme religious views which by definition do not tolerate any opposing views, what are the limits of tolerance in society? How can a democracy defend pluralism from those whose religious beliefs clash so vehemently with the definition of reality itself by the rest of the world, both secular and religious? The Framers of the Constitution were historically not far away from centuries of religious wars in Europe which constantly threw governments into turmoil. They saw the value of the separation of church and state to both church and state. Back in those days religious persecution meant death or incarceration because of one’s beliefs, not what passes for persecution these days in the minds of some.

One gets the strong impression reading Humes’ insightful analysis, that this latest version of the old Darwin-vs.-God controversy is the product of the removal of Critical Thinking skills from the mainstream public school curriculum, and the lack of a Cold War Era push towards developments in Math & Science, supported by all but the most outspoken of Bible literalists, who constantly attempt to couch the debate as “God vs. Darwin”, when in fact, most religions don’t require people to choose between the two. In my opinion, this is a clear case of the old adage, “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”. Young-Earth Creationists might benefit from not ignoring the history of the Catholic Church’s censorship of Copernicus and Galileo hundreds of years ago, and ask themselves why the Pope doesn’t have a big problem with Darwin’s theories today.

-Philadelphic

Further reading on the Dover Trial: (after the break…)

Web sources:

Ed Humes’ blog chronicles his continuing experiences with Monkey Girl, including book signings, media coverage and informative links regarding the case.

www.edwardhumes.com

From the Wikipedia article on Kitzmiller v. Dover: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

I.D.: The Politics of Intelligent Design Columbia University Political Union video presentation by Joel Cracraft, Nick Matzke, Barbara Forrest. Contains lecture on contributing to the winning of Kitzmiller by Nick Matzke. February 2006. (Quicktime movie file)

Science Wars: Should Schools Teach Intelligent Design? Video of American Enterprise Institute forum that took place during the Kitzmiller case, originally broadcast on C-SPAN. Featuring Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, Paul Nelson and Mark Ryland of the Discovery Institute and Barbara Forrest. October 2005. (Windows Media file)

A presentation given by Kenneth Miller covering the Intelligent Design movement, with considerable detail to the Kitzmiller trial, at Case Western Reserve University. January 2006. (Flash FLV File)

Intelligent Design: Should It Be Taught in Public Schools? Post-trial meeting of the Commonwealth Club of California featuring Casey Luskin and Cornelius Hunter of the Discovery Institute and Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education and Eric Rothschild of Pepper Hamilton LLP. May 2006. (RAM media file)

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688

The complete pdf file of the ruling:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Other Books regarding the Dover Trial:

Barbara Forrest was a crucial witness for the plaintiff, revealing the deceptive strategy employed by Creationist groups. The paperback edition includes a chapter on the Dover trial. $19.95, Oxford University Press ISBN 10: 0195319737
ISBN 13: 978-0195319736

Chapman, Matthew (2007). 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania. Harper Collins. ISBN 0061179450.

Matthew Chapman is a direct descendant of Charles Darwin.

Slack, Gordy (2007). The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA. Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0787987867.

Originally published at State of Protest on November 1, 2007.

For instance,

He said even though a diverse group of faith leaders and lawmakers read different religious texts and follow different traditions, one law unites them all — “the Golden Rule” — the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”¹

Implying simultaneously that faith is acceptable as a source of guidance, but is not the foundation of morality, which brings into question the purpose of focusing on faith as a benefit rather than merely focusing on benefit. (In other words, why not laud, in general, those people who help others, rather than trying to establish that there’s something inherently good about faith itself?)

More disturbing, and fringing on an attack against non-believers, a guest speaker at the Prayer, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, stated that “The extreme believers and aggressive nonbelievers come together in an unholy alliance.” Funny, I don’t recall, by the nature of my aggressive nonbelief joining up with suicide bombers and bible-thumping clinic bombers. Non-belief is non-belief. It’s the lack of something, whereas belief is the addition of something, and extreme belief is the extreme addition of something. How can one have an extreme absence of something? It’s like trying to multiply by zero.

But, am I even remotely satisfied that Obama has taken Bush’s outlandish and non-working faith-based extremism and molded it, through compromise, into something that somehow includes non-believers with an overall goal of improving the lives of others? No. I can’t say that I am satisfied at all. I think every moment that Obama takes to focus on faith itself as a benefit is a moment that he tramples upon his own assertion that there exists and should be maintained a separation of church and state. Obama even recognizes that not all faith-based actions are beneficial, and excludes the extremists and the self-righteous, but he still can’t bring himself to the logical conclusion that if instead of focusing on “faith” as a factor, we focused on actual benefit as a factor, we could accomplish the same goals without risking establishment and without isolating those who would bring benefit to others without unsupported belief in the supernatural. Is this just another political maneuver to keep the religious groups from rioting, or is this Obama continuing to show his religious favoritism?

Regardless, President Obama isolates religion from scriptural fact when he says that “No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate…. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” He might actually be correct with regard to religion, but he’s certainly way off the mark with regard to God, depending on which god is the subject, and depending on one’s definition of “innocent.” Did Obama skip his bible lesson where the God of the Old Testament laid waste to millions of people, or does Obama consider them all to have been guilty in the eyes of the Lord, and thus not innocent? Either answer indicates that Obama is either fabricating a reality that doesn’t match what the good books say, or he truly believes that God’s word is the higher law. If the former, should we worry about his ability to read and comprehend? If the latter, is he not advocating the combination of church and state while alleging that he supports separation? Remember, he thinks having faith in such a deity is a good thing.

By the way, there will be an Unholy Alliance meeting at the Elk’s Lodge on Main Street this Sunday. Coffee, donuts, and pitchforks will be served.

Carnival of the Godless entry at The Greenbelt

1. Washington Times

Friendly Atheist is one prominent member of the camp that supports such a notion. He states:

There’s no reason Barack Obama should be swearing an oath to God when he takes office. (If he chooses to do so personally, that’s his decision, but it shouldn’t be part of the official ceremony.) There’s also no reason we should have prayers — in this case, Christian ones — at the inauguration.

Although Friendly Atheist believes that the lawsuit stands about the same chance as Newdow’s failed 2004 lawsuit of the same calibre, he thinks that the upside to such litigiousness is that it brings attention to the secular versus religious issue with regard to government.

On the other side of the aisle is Atheist Ethicist, arguing that because this is an issue of freedom of speech, it should not be fought with violence, but, instead, with speech. Violence, he says, because the court enforces its decisions with the force of the government (i.e., police), in the form of intimidation and sometimes actual force. The proper way to act in retaliation of the decision to meld the pulpit and the presidency is to condemn and criticize, but not prohibit the speech of others, particularly the president’s. Essentially, if we act through the courts to stifle the president’s ability to say a prayer or swear to God, then we make a mockery of our own arguments to protect our own right to not pray or swear to God.

Both arguments have valid points. It’s a good idea to bring to America’s attention that we haven’t always been a “Christian” nation, and that, as Friendly Atheist notes, our allusions to the biblical God were all fabricated and implemented fairly late in U.S. history. And it’s also proper for us to enforce the notion that government is supposed to be separate from religion, at least with regard to endorsement. On the other hand, it’s potentially risky to establish a precedent that we wouldn’t want applied to ourselves or to others, regardless of their belief.

I’ll add something to this. Obama won’t be passing any laws during the inauguration. The First Amendment protects us from Congress passing law respecting an establishment of religion. It’s got nothing to say about the president being sworn in by the Chief Justice, or about an invocation, or if the president-elect wants to wear a turban or a cross or a clown suit.

So, which argument is stronger? The one supporting the lawsuit or the one opposing it? Is there a limit to which rational people should go in pursuit of separation of church and state, and is this the limit?

-Procrustes

In mostly chronological order:

JNTB debunks the Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls
—
Philadelphic challenges the idea that there can be “fundy atheists.” in Readings… The Hilariously Bad, The Good, and the WTF
—
Laura analyzes the impact of pro-abstinence laws on public school sex education, in Sexual Education and the Implications of Senate Bill 155
—
Velkyn doesn’t like living within A Culture of Lies
—
Procrustes rants about the meaninglessness of prayer in Mourning Cards and Tornadoes
—
Laura dissects the Watchtower and puts it on display in Jehovah’s Witnesses Unearthed
—
Velkyn debunks Dr. Brandon Carter’s “God did it” claims with regard to those nasty gaps in the universe, in Secrets: God: the Evidence, part of the Unearthed series (which is really very good!)
—
Procrustes addresses Roger Severino’s arguments against gay marriage in Regarding Roger Severino’s “Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Spark Lawsuits…”
—
Procrustes’ early criticism of Obama’s fierce loyalty to Christianity, in Thank God Obama Worships the “Right” God (follow up with The Trend of Obama Doubt)
—
FormerFundy argues that Personal Responsibility is Paramount Especially in the Political Realm
—
Spider details and then skillfully criticizes Catholic World Youth Day 2008
—
Procrustes agrees that we should be teaching creationism in schools, but Why Stop at Creationism?
—
In light of the inability of certain groups to protest outside the Democratic National Convention, Laura questions limits to the right of free speech in Run DNC
—
Procrustes, with help from Velkyn, explores what it means versus what it should mean to be tolerant today in Intolerable Tolerance
—
Apropos, JNTB asks, Would a Christian Bail You Out?
—
As the Bush era is finally ending, many of us acknowledge the fact that it’s not really ending. It’ll take decades, if ever, to undue all the harm he’s caused. Procrustes gives us a reminder of all that harm (if you can stomach it) in More U.S. Anti-Contraception in Africa, Plus a Look Back on Bush’s Anti-Choice Legacy (You can follow up on this by reading Laura’s article: Bush Administration Makes Last Ditch Effort to Diminish Women’s Rights)
—
Laura identifies the Mormons as having a terrible amount of power and coercion in the Proposition 8 debacle, in Proposition 8, the Mormons, and the New “Separate But Equal” (Also see the follow-up: Erasing Decades of Moral Progress with Proposition 8)
—
JNTB questions the American ideological pursuit of spreading democracy in Spreading Democracy?
—
Shar’iah Law Rocks (Unfortunately, literally)
—
JNTB examines the perception of what life is, and what human life is, with reference to Motl Brody, in Life and Death
—
Mutha (rearing her head, finally) discusses what real patriotism is (or should be) in Waiter! There’s Dogma in My Primordial Soup!
—
What’s really the State of Christmas?
—
Procrustes asks, Why is there a Legal Provision Allowing a Lighter Sentence Based on Religious Beliefs?
—
If you hadn’t already heard, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand
—
Laura and Absinthium for their amazing Comics (and I’ll take partial blame for most of them, as I was the idea person, they were the artists — were it not for them, all StOP comics would look like a take-off on xkcd or Stick Figure Death Theater)
—
Finally, and out of order, but appropriate for the time of year, Procrustes asks, Is Banning the Words “Christmas” and “Easter” an Appropriate Secular Goal?
—
There’s so much more that I really enjoy, but I can’t rightly put them all on an end-of-the-year list. If anything, be sure to check out the Unearthed series, which really sheds some light on a variety of religious beliefs. For easy access to all StOP’s articles, see the Archives in easy-to-open/read format in the sidebar. Thanks for reading State of Protest!

(Oh, and if you have a favorite StOP post that’s not on the list, let me know in the comments!)

(man, that’s ugly — My fault!)

On Tuesday, a judge in Georgia charged a Muslim woman with contempt of court and ordered her jailed for ten days because she refused to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint.¹ Although she didn’t serve her full sentence, due to the intervention of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, she claims her civil rights had been violated, and she was reminded of the stories she had heard about the civil rights strife in the southern U.S. ²

The incident shouldn’t remind her of such stories. The premise is distinctly different. In the south, black people were segregated and barred from entry from places solely because of the color of their skin. That was the litmus test sufficient to perpetuate that heinous behavior. Lisa Valentine, the alleged victim of the civil rights infringement in this story, however, was not punished arbitrarily for having an attribute that was genetically gifted to her. She was punished for wearing a piece of clothing on her head that she insisted remain on her head, presumably to honor and obey her husband, Islam, and Allah. Her reasoning is irrelevant. The practical nature of the request to have her head scarf removed trumped her religious preference specifically because of the narrow scope of that request — that it was for the purpose of safety and security in a government operated public facility. In short, it’s hard to identify someone on security tape footage if that person’s head is covered.

How do we test this to determine whether Mrs. Valentine was being unjustly singled out for her religion? Walk into a Georgia courthouse wearing a motorcycle helmet, and then refuse to remove it, because, you’ll claim, “It violates my civil rights to have my cherished helmet removed.” For whatever reason you’ve donned such garb, it will be insufficient to override the universally applied restriction. You’d have to take off your helmet. I’d have to take off my baseball cap. It’s the same idea as if someone at an airport refused to succumb to a wand search, or removal of shoes. Regardless of the reason, religious, secular, paranoia, custom — that person would be refused access to the planes, and would likely spend a few hours in interrogation.

So, instead of a passive trait, such as skin color, being the target of hate-filled men with prejudice, where everyone possessing that characteristic would be equally mistreated, this is a case of a choice, an action that the actor tries to justify using religion and culture, being barred in a narrow circumstance, applied only to those who act similarly in that circumstance.

Although there is apparently no state law permitting or prohibiting head scarfs, it’s the discretion of the judge and sheriffs whether to allow or disallow them, and the courthouse security officers enforce that decision. I really would like to see if someone wearing a baseball cap could get through security. If that happened, then it’s obvious that there is a double standard at that courthouse, and Mrs. Valentine’s rights were, indeed, violated.

Despite my overall argument that religious rights should have no extra bonuses over basic civil rights, due process, and free speech, among other things, I must confess that I have serious issues with any decision a judge in the U.S. makes regarding religious tolerance or intolerance when that judge quite likely has on the wall behind him the big, bold words, “In God We Trust.”³

-Procrustes

1. Last year, the same judge apparently did the same thing to a different Muslim woman.
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/muslim-woman-jailed-over-_n_151858.html
3. According to Wikipedia, “In God We Trust is found on the flag of Georgia, flag of Florida, and the Seal of Florida. It was first adopted by the state of Georgia for use on flags in 2001, and subsequently included on the Georgia flag of 2003.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

The Daily Dose: (I’m a day behind on some of these, but, hey, it’s early — or, at least it was early at some point today)

On Godriddance, AIGBusted reviews the Problems with Presuppositionalism and the Transcendental argument

Presuppositionalism is a term describing the philosophy of a branch of Christians Apologists who either hold that 1) One must choose a worldview upfront, before looking at any evidence, and must use this worldview to interpret all other evidence, and/or 2) Christianity must be assumed in order to use logic, inductive reasoning, or have a consistent worldview.

Barry Leiba, at Staring At Empty Pages, criticizes a recent study linking sexual content on television to teen pregnancy: Carrie Bradshaw might get you pregnant

If you’ve read some of my other complaints about survey-based studies, you’ll know what my complaint about this one is: they have shown correlation, but not causality.

It’s entirely likely that teens who are inclined to be sexually active are also inclined to want to watch TV shows that talk about or depict sex. Inversely, teens who would prefer not to have sex are likely to be more put off by titillating TV.

The New Humanist Blog asks if Obama is a “real” Christian. Sad that they didn’t link to StOP’s “Thank God Obama Worships the “Right” God” article, but I guess since StOP is fairly obscure, I’ll forgive them. An excerpt from their post:

Apparently it all comes down to an interview the now president-elect gave in 2004 in which he described Jesus as “a bridge between God and man”, which some say suggests he doesn’t believe Christ was literally the son of God. According to some bloggers, this amounts to a denial of the Nicene Creed…

Vjack, at Atheist Revolution, proposes a secular community, making the following recommendations:

1. Even though a broad secular community (i.e., atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, etc.) may be our ultimate goal, we should start with building atheist community.
2. One of the more important initial steps should involve atheist identity, educating our fellow nonbelievers about the meaning of atheism and giving them something with which to identify.
3. Initial efforts to develop atheist community should emphasize common political concerns where support is likely to be nearly unanimous (e.g., preserving separation of church and state, opposing religious extremism, ending informal religious tests for political office, opposing anti-atheist bigotry, etc.).
4. When encountering resistance from our fellow nonbelievers, we should frame the issue as one of ensuring political representation.

My response:
1. Why? Would that create a greater segregation within the skeptic community, or is it a way to join together those with a solid and unwavering characteristic, which might be more effective than trying to add in agnostics, deists, etc.? If the latter, might work.

2. What’s the meaning of atheism? Do you think an organized community of so-called atheists could agree on a definition, and do you think that by doing so, it would dissuade potential members who have slightly different definitions? I’ve seen this happen a lot in atheist forums where different factions emerge, some claiming that atheism is merely a passive godless point of view, while others claim that atheism is an active position against theism.

3. That’s a good one.

4. That’s a start, certainly.

Note that Vjack does address some of my questions in his post, so go take a gander.

However, we have had cases where death has occurred somewhere in the middle, leaving a dilemma for bystanders who see medical professionals and grief-stricken relatives arguing about the state of the patient and the likely outcome of a course of treatment. The most well-known case of recent times was that of Terri Schiavo, who existed in a persistent vegetative state without any reasonable chance of recovery and whose sole existence was provided through parenteral nutrition.

Today, we have in the news yet another case of the game of When Does Death Occur.¹ A young boy named Motl Brody is confined to a hospital following unsuccessful treament of cancer — unfortunately, Motl’s brain stem has “no electrical function”. Motl is dead. While this case would simply end by the patient being removed from life support, Motl’s parents are Hasidic Jews who follow their religious definition of death: the cessation of lung and heart functions.² The irony is that the life support system that supports Motl is entirely man-made and without it Motl’s body would immediately cease to function. The religious definition of death has collided with technology.

How long can medical technology keep Motl’s body alive to satisfy the Judaic definition of non-death? Though no one knows for sure, Motl could live another 10 or 20 years before the actual tissues of his heart or lungs disintegrate (Motl is currently 12 years old). Yes, he is being pumped full of drugs that do the things that his endocrine system cannot since there is zero neurological function. Do we allow religious beliefs, however antiquated or insufficient to deal with modern life, continue to rule the rest of us?

With all due respect to grief-stricken families who wish to allow their loved ones to be maintained, in perpetuity, by a machine that replaces all bodily functions while the standard human functions are irretrievably gone, we should demand that logic and reason withstand the emotional pleas or the silly, outdated religious definitions of when life begins or when death occurs. We are a nation of secular laws that continually suffers from the intrusions of those who believe that an ancient book which speaks of an imaginary sky-daddy somehow should take precedence over the intellect of the human mind.

It will now be up the court system to decide if Motl Brody has passed away. If the court wishes to decide that Motl has not passed away, whether by acquiescing to a religious definition of death (a heinous outcome) or by concluding by some other means that Motl is still alive, the court system should also find that since there is no reasonable hope of rehabilitating Motl to a state which can be considered minimally interactive for a human, the family can surely keep the loved one alive if the family is willing to pay for the entire cost.

Though it is unlikely that the court system will find in favor of The Brodys to keep young Motl connected to life support, even if the court system agrees with the religious beliefs of The Brodys there should be no further demands placed upon those who do not share the same religious beliefs.

UPDATE

Motl Brody has died. He was still on life support at the time of his death, so the legal issue of death is no longer present.³

Download the Podcast – Narrated by Huntingdon

1. MSNBC.com: NY Family opposes end to care for brain-dead boy. November 8, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27603719/
2. See Transplantation Ethics, Chapter 7, The Conscience Clause: How Much Individual Choice Can Society Tolerate in Defining Death?, by Robert M. Veatch. http://books.google.com/books?id=aNcbKssW30IC&printsec=frontcover#PPA114,M1
3. WashingtonPost.com: Boy whose religious parents battled hospital dies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111601226_pf.html

One cannot help but draw a parallel between other past civil rights issues, such as the now embarrassing ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that blacks would receive “separate but equal” treatment under the law.² This is not the first time in our nation’s history, nor do I expect it to be the last, that religious groups have rallied together to fight against moral progress. If today’s typical Christian woman were alive in 1923, she might have argued that the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would force her into the workplace. And in a way, the women and men who did believe this were right. The U.S. economy has changed drastically since the Civil Rights Act was passed (40 years after the ERA was defeated due to Christian opposition), and it is likely harder now for single-income families to make a living. But would any sane person argue that it wasn’t worth it? Sometimes, in fact most times, doing what is right costs something. There is no question for most people now that women and minorities should have equal rights, in the workplace and elsewhere. There is no question among many of the same organizations that fought against these exact issues.

So, what exactly is the cost of giving homosexuals the right to marry? From what I’ve seen, the only cost would be the swallowing of pride among those fighting against it. We have all heard the arguments that by preventing homosexuals from marrying, Christian groups are protecting the “sacred bond” of marriage and “traditional family values.” They say their own marriages will somehow be affected if homosexuals are permitted the same rights as heterosexuals. Surely they must realize that thousands of same sex marriages have already been performed in California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. Has this had a negative effect on Christian marriages? Is it measurable? Is it quantifiable? If so, I’d like to see the evidence. If not, then I’d say they need a new argument. Additionally, there are plenty of heterosexual unions performed which Christian groups, in theory, ought to be vehemently opposed to, such as a marriage between two sadomasochists, a marriage in which the bride used to be a man, or a drunken Las Vegas marriage that is annulled within 24 hours. Christian groups might not like these situations, but they recognize that they do not have the right to take away these freedoms from these people. This creates a stunning double standard.

What about the belief that Christian groups hold that they will be forced to perform same sex marriages? As has been shown again and again, this claim is patently ridiculous. Religious organizations are currently permitted to discriminate as they see fit. As a non-Mormon, I am not permitted to even attend, much less participate in, a Mormon marriage ceremony. Our country allows this, because it gives private organizations and individuals the freedom to practice their beliefs. It should be this way… and it already is.

Speaking of the Mormons, they deserve special attention in this article. On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a letter calling on its 770,000 members located in California to give their full support and to donate as much money as they can within their means to the Prop 8 campaign.³ A complete list of Mormons who have donated $1,000 or more, with a running tally, can be found here. This is particularly sickening to me in that there are many people on this list whom I know personally. Mormons currently account for 31% of pro-Prop 8 donations, although that number is expected to rise dramatically as more data is collected.⁴ The Mormons’ opposition to gay marriage is quite ironic when you consider their history. They themselves have endured incredible persecution due to their own unorthodox views on marriage, i.e. their previous practice of polygamy. They were also much slower to react than the rest of the nation in treating blacks as equals. It took them until 1978 to give black males the same authorities that white males enjoyed.⁵ (Women still currently are given no authority at all.) Just because the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy and now give blacks equal status, they would do well to remember their history.

One of the biggest problems I see here is that Christian groups are behaving as if marriage is a specifically religious contract, one they hold a monopoly on. Certainly religious ceremonies can be performed and beliefs held surrounding a marital contract, but the contract itself is secular in nature. The contract itself is from the U.S Government, which has an obligation to ensure equal rights and freedoms to all of its citizens. Not just Christian, white, male, or heterosexual citizens. All citizens.

I believe that in the years to come, future generations of Christians will look upon the issue of equal rights for homosexuals much the same way they view equal rights for blacks and women today. Let’s not wait another 40 years to treat everyone as equals. The most wonderful thing about the U.S. is people can believe whatever they want without persecution; our country was conceived on this principle. If you enjoy these rights and freedoms, it is your moral responsibility to apply them to all people, and that includes people who don’t believe the same things you do. Please, if you live in California, vote NO on Proposition 8. Let’s together set a precedent for basic human decency. VOTE NO ON PROP 8. 

UPDATE 1:

On Friday, October 17th, a group of Mormons who support gay marriage delivered protest letters, bundles of carnations, and a petition with over 400 signatures, to church headquarters in Salt Lake City. A church spokeswoman accepted the package as the more than 40 people making the delivery sang church hymns.⁶ The group, called Sign for Something, believes that “each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities.”⁷ They also write that “The Constitution of the United States of America assures us that no person or group’s religious views are allowed to be binding on the public… We are dismayed at the dilemma of choosing between the voice of our conscience and the advice of our church’s leadership on this issue.” This group of brave members should be applauded for standing up for the Constitution, and for what they believe is right, in the face of so much adversity.

UPDATE 2:

This past Sunday, October 26th, a large group of people came out to protest Prop 8 in front of the Mormon temple in Oakland, CA.  You can read more about the event and see some great photos of protest signs here.  In other news, I’m thrilled to report that Prop 8 opponents have now taken the lead in fundraising!  As of late September, things were looking bleak for the anti-Prop 8 campaign, but the month of October has seen a ton of money pouring in, giving opponents of Prop 8 a strong advantage.  Hopefully it will see us through to the finish line!

UPDATE 3: (Cross-posted here)

According to the CivLib Blog, “By making the passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.”  The blog lists all the individual documents required for filing a complaint, but our own JNTB has compiled all of these documents into one PDF for convenience. Per JNTB:

This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS.pdf, is the official form to submit to the IRS completed with the information offered by the CivLib.com blog. If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 installed, it should allow you to open the PDF, add your own personal information (name/address/date of complaint) and then save the PDF to your own computer for use in an email later. If for some reason your version of Acrobat doesn’t allow the entering of info, just print, write it in, then scan back into an email to send to the IRS. Or, you can fax and snailmail, but beware …
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS Supporting Documents.pdf, contains all the supporting documents (57 pages) that are required to file Form 13909 with the IRS. Email would be easier because faxing and snail-mailing can be annoying and costly. It’s up to you!

-Laura 

—–

Related StOP articles:

Regarding Roger Severino’s “Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Spark Lawsuits…”

Mormonism Unearthed:
Part I
Part II
Part III

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002993.html
2. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/sepbutequal.htm
3. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage
4. http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=108
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement
6. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7Ee9lkE23iWetMMU1Vy5nxReXCgD93SKREG0
7. http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?page_id=2