Stark Statement: Congressman Says He Has No Belief In A Supreme Being

by guest blogger Rob Boston

A milestone in American politics was reached this week when U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) stated that he has no belief in a supreme being.

Stark is the highest-ranking public official to come out of the closet as a non-believer. His emergence came about after the Secular Coalition for America, a Washington group that lobbies on behalf of non-religious Americans, sponsored a contest to find elected officials who openly hold no belief in God.

Stark’s name was among 47 placed in nomination, and he agreed to a public airing of his views.

Learning About The Bible: A Choice, Not A Command

by guest blogger Rob Boston

Stephen Prothero, chair of the Religion Department at Boston University, thinks classes on the Bible should be mandatory in public high schools. In his new book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – and Doesn’t, Prothero outlines his argument.

Prothero’s thesis is provocative – and it may sell a few books – but he is misguided. In a press release issued today through the Christian Newswire, Prothero says, “We have a major civic problem on our hands.” He goes on to endorse mandatory Bible classes and the book The Bible and Its Influence published by the Bible Literacy Project, as the remedy.

Beyond Pharmacists: Moralism on Wheels

by guest blogger, Dr. Marty Klein

An increasing number of pharmacists are claiming their "right" to refuse to serve people if they disapprove of their behavior--generally their sexual and contraceptive behavior. These druggists demand the government support their right to practice their personal religion--which requires them to control others' personal decisions.

As I said when discussing pharmacists, "Shall there be any limit on people's right to enforce their morality on others? If pharmacists demand this right, what about other people demanding their "rights"? These might include:

* A cab driver refusing to take you to a Planned Parenthood clinic;
* A 7-11 clerk who won't sell you alcohol because you shouldn't drink;
* A Bloomingdale's clerk who won't let you spend any money on goods made in China;
* A toy store clerk who won't let you buy toy guns or sexy Barbies;
* A physician who won't let you have a blood transfusion that's against God's will;
* A lawyer who won't write a will leaving your money to your lazy son;
* A high school counselor who won't help a girl get into MIT because girls shouldn't be scientists.

Now welcome to 21st-century Minnesota.

At the Minneapolis airport, almost 3/4 of the taxi drivers are Muslims from Somalia. These drivers have been refusing to drive passengers carrying alcohol, such as gift wine or liquor purchased at duty-free shops. Over 5,000 airport passengers have been left stranded in this way. The drivers claim that carrying alcohol is as sinful as consuming it. A local fatwa by the Muslim American Society has confirmed this interpretation.

In virtually the same words as anti-contraceptive Christian pharmacists, the Muslim cabbies claim that America's freedom of religion (which of course doesn't exist in Somalia) allows them to impose their beliefs on others. 

Cabbies who won't drive legal passengers are like pharmacists who won't dispense legally-prescribed drugs--they are not qualified to do their job. When you apply for work as a cabbie you must disclose disqualifications like epilepsy, blindness, and a dangerous driving record. Anyone refusing to carry certain passengers because they disapprove of their (legal) behavior is similarly disqualified.

The real question here, of course, is about pluralism--something unknown in Somalia, most of the Muslim world, and in the society envisioned by America's evangelical Christians. Pluralism is a radical idea: I tolerate your private behavior that violates my beliefs and tastes, in exchange for the privilege of behaving in ways that you find distasteful. Or disgusting, wasteful, sinful, or self-destructive.

Pluralism even allows people to choose not to work at a job that compromises their beliefs. And they don't have to justify their decision to the authorities or anyone else.

But if cabbies have the right to choose whom to serve based on their judgments of others' behavior, what else might they demand--refusing to transport women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals, unmarried couples? Hindus, atheists, bartenders, bankers?

What if they become bus drivers, train engineers, pilots? The transportation system would be crippled. Couldn't happen? Tell that to someone freezing just trying to get a cab at the Minneapolis airport.

Why is it that so many true believers believe in a god who is both so insecure and so severe that he/she/it demands they destroy any social contract of tolerant cooperation? The old religious divisions--Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.--are now obsolete. There are only fanatics scared of everyone else, and everyone else scared of fanatics. James Dobson and Osama Bin Laden are the same person with different weapons.

Ann Coulter's OTHER crass comment

Much has been written about Ann Coulter’s anti-gay slur of John Edwards, but what hasn’t received much coverage by the mainstream media is the other vile comment Coulter made that day.

Speaking at the “Reclaiming America for Christ Conference”, hosted by TV preacher D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries, Coulter also made light of the murder of doctors and clinic personnel who provide abortion services.

Noting that seven doctors and clinic personnel had been killed, Coulter said:

“Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened....The number of deaths attributed to Roe v. Wade about 40 million aborted babies and seven abortion clinic workers; 40 million to seven is also a pretty good measure of how the political debate is going.”

Way to Go, Idaho!: Science Teachers Say No to ‘Intelligent Design’

by guest blogger Jeremy Leaming

Religion may have its place in the public school curriculum, but science courses are not the proper forum.

Recently the Idaho Science Teachers Association (ISTA) stood up for science education and church-state separation by declaring that “intelligent design,” the latest variant of creationism, has no place in science class.

“In a public school setting we are charged with teaching methodology that’s been approved by the scientific community,” said Rick Alm, ISTA president. “It basically would be unethical to teach creation science or intelligent design because it is not science, and it does not belong in a science classroom.”

Coming Soon to a Town Near You: Government-Funded Churches?

by guest blogger Rob Boston

Yesterday’s "Wall of Separation” noted that the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case dealing with the right of taxpayers to challenge the “faith-based” initiative in court.

The stories in today’s newspapers reporting on the arguments are startling for one thing: They underscore how extreme the Bush administration’s view on church-state relations is. Unfortunately, a high court majority may be poised to accept it.

Standing for What's Right

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. Outside the Court, the American Humanist Association (a FFF Jefferson Society member) organized a rally. The following are comments I delivered on behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The case being argued is not just about whether the White House can spend money to promote religion through its `faith-based' initiatives. The question before the Court is actually whether or not we will continue to be able to make sure that the government respects our Constitutional rights.

What's in a name?

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recently unveiled an expanded project allegedly designed to protect religious liberty, an effort that, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, reeks of hypocrisy.

“Expecting the Bush administration to defend religious liberty is a little like asking Col. Sanders to babysit your pet chicken,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This administration has repeatedly worked to destroy true religious freedom by merging church and state.”

As part of the new initiative, dubbed the “First Freedom Project,” Gonzales unveiled a 43-page report detailing the department’s intervention in several cases dealing with religion over the past six years. He vowed that the department would do even more in this arena.

Sorry, Jim Wallis: Rumors of the Religious Right’s Death are Greatly Exaggerated

by guest blogger Rob Boston

Periodically, a self-appointed political pundit comes along and announces the death of the Religious Right. You can count on it happening every two or three years.

This time, moderate evangelical minister Jim Wallis is presiding at the Religious Right’s alleged funeral. Wallis, author of the popular book God’s Politics, asserted recently in Time magazine that America has entered a post-Religious Right era. He insisted that other religious voices will now dominate.

“[M]any Republicans have had it with the Religious Right,” Wallis writes. “Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.”

Driven To Distraction: Focus On The Family Agonizes Over Optional Bus Board Oath

by guest blogger Rob Boston

It’s amazing the things that get the Religious Right all worked up.

In Denver recently, a member of the Regional Transportation District asked about the possibility of altering an oath of office to remove a reference to God. Dave Ruchman said he was acting on behalf of a former member who felt uncomfortable taking a religious oath.

The oath reads, “I do solemnly swear by the ever-living God…that I will faithfully perform the duties of the office of director of the Regional Transportation District to which I have been elected/appointed.”