The Washington Post recently reported that a judge agreed to a $660 million clergy abuse settlement between the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and alleged victims of clergy sex abuse. Cardinal Roger Mahony issued an apology an then said Monday that he would spend the rest of the day praying for those who claimed abuse. In reality, it seems that what made the most difference for the abused was not prayer but their taking action and telling their own stories.

Michael Hennigan, the archdiocese attorney, said private meetings with 70 of the plaintiffs made the most impact on him.”It changed us all, and it changed our perspective on what’s happened here,” he said. “I’d like to say that the church would have been reformed without these cases, but I don’t know that’s true,” he said. “These cases have forever reformed the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It will never be the same.” Does it take 70 cases to change an Archdiocese? How many to change a church?

As Westerns from a developed country, there is often the feeling that passion about a cause places the passionate individual above all others. While I cannot fault the Save Darfur campaign for raising awareness about the crisis in Sudan, it cannot be forgotten that much of the work to “save Darfur” is being done by Africans. The African Union has sent troops and aid, and it is mostly Africans on the ground helping the people of Darfur. And while raising awareness is very important, if the campaign will not push the U.S. government to get involved in the crisis (which I doubt will happen), then it is only Africans providing material assistance on the ground. In a Washington Post column today, Uzodinma Iweala writes:

News reports constantly focus on the continent’s corrupt leaders, warlords, “tribal” conflicts, child laborers, and women disfigured by abuse and genital mutilation. These descriptions run under headlines like “Can Bono Save Africa?” or “Will Brangelina Save Africa?” The relationship between the West and Africa is no longer based on openly racist beliefs, but such articles are reminiscent of reports from the heyday of European colonialism, when missionaries were sent to Africa to introduce us to education, Jesus Christ and “civilization.”…There is no African, myself included, who does not appreciate the help of the wider world, but we do question whether aid is genuine or given in the spirit of affirming one’s cultural superiority. My mood is dampened every time I attend a benefit whose host runs through a litany of African disasters before presenting a (usually) wealthy, white person, who often proceeds to list the things he or she has done for the poor, starving Africans… Every time a Hollywood director shoots a film about Africa that features a Western protagonist, I shake my head — because Africans, real people though we may be, are used as props in the West’s fantasy of itself. And not only do such depictions tend to ignore the West’s prominent role in creating many of the unfortunate situations on the continent, they also ignore the incredible work Africans have done and continue to do to fix those problems… How is it that a former mid-level U.S. diplomat receives more attention for his cowboy antics in Sudan than do the numerous African Union countries that have sent food and troops and spent countless hours trying to negotiate a settlement among all parties in that crisis?

I could not agree more with the author’s sentiments. We not only need to better understand the dynamics of conflict evolution/de-evolution and humanitarian assistance in Africa, but we need to give credit where credit is due; not to the Bonos and Angelinas of the world, but to the Wangari Maathais and Dr. Cynthia Muangs. As activists, we must remember what we are doing and why we are doing it. It is to enrich your own ego? Or is it to enrich the lives of others? We need to start looking toward the creation of a new kind of issue-based campaigning — with goals of enabling people who live in and with conflict daily to continue to help themselves. As the old adage goes, “Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day…”

Last month the Supreme Court (in Hein v. FFRF) decided that whether or not taxpayers get to enforce the Establishment Clause will depend on whether Congress appropriated the funds used or the money was funneled through the President’s office. One of the fears expressed by the plurality was that if the executive branch’s actions could be challenged by taxpayers, there would be too many lawsuits.

Surely these jurists know that if a lawsuit is frivolous, not only can the loser be liable for the other side’s costs, but the court can also impose penalties for such abuse of the legal process. Additionally, as the dissenting opinion points out, such frivolous lawsuits could be dismissed and the courts wouldn’t deal with trying these cases. Here’s the clincher: What if there are numerous REASONABLE claims of unconstitutional behavior on the part of the executive branch? The dissent (in a footnote) explains, “To the degree the claims are meritorious, fear that there will be many of them does not provide a compelling reason … to keep them from being heard.”

If we accept Justice Scalia’s reasoning that we simply can’t allow too many claims, then the government would have an incentive to violate the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights as much as possible. After all, we could secure our rights against a government that only violates them occasionally, but if they violate them numerous times, it’s too burdensome on the courts to do anything about it!

“You’ll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want,” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said to a group of atheists last week in Edina, Minnesota.

Over 100 members of Atheists for Human Rights gathered to hear Ellison discuss the recent controversies surrounding the Bush administration, from the Iraq war to Scooter Libby’s prison pardon. However, it was his comparison of the September 11th attacks to the 1933 Reichstag fire that drew the most ire. (An excellent editorial in Minneapolis’ Star Tribune defending Ellison’s comments can be found here.)

Controversy aside, it is refreshing to see another member in Congress, particularly a member of faith, standing up for the rights of atheists. Having members of Congress like admitted nontheist Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) on our side is great, but I’m pleased to see people like Rep. Ellison, who are able to look beyond the differences in our beliefs to protect our right to have them.

Last week I was privileged to attend a unique presentation at one of Washington’s premiere think-tanks, the CATO Institute. The evening was devoted to the DVD release of a very insightful documentary about an icon of conservatism, Barry Goldwater. The documentary was made by Goldwater’s own granddaughter and presents a warmer side to what many people living through the early to mid nineteen-sixties remember as the ultimate “cold warrior”.

Watching clips of the documentary that evening and listening to the question-and-answer session that followed got me to thinking about the tremendous changes that have taken place within conservative philosophy since then. What would a humanist have to say about Goldwater for president, if he were running in 2008 instead of 1964?

It may seem crazy to suggest that Goldwater be uttered in the same sentence as humanism, given that many people recall his extremely hawkish positions on the Cold War and President Lyndon Johnson’s infamous “Daisy Girl” commercial. Yet, not nearly remembered was the fact that he defended the right for women to choose to have an abortion, supported the right for gays to serve in the military and was genuinely disgusted by the antics of people like Jerry Falwell claiming to be conservatives.

In essence, I believe, Goldwater hails from the libertarian strain of conservatism. And while I know that many humanists hold progressive/liberal viewpoints, there are several issues that libertarians and humanists share in common, and in times like these when the influence of religious extremism is growing in American politics, it is important to reach out to those whom we might not agree with on everything, but can at least agree with on the big issues.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed today titled “What Atheists Can’t Answer.” Though the author, Michael Gerson, certainly takes pains to appear fair and balanced – he correctly points out that human beings can be good without God and acknowledges that morality is an innate human condition – I’m still irked by his supposition that only a god-belief provides an objective reason to be good:

“So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it… Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: ‘Obey your evolutionary instincts’ because those instincts are conflicted.”

This kind of argument really bugs me. If the drive to do good or bad things is innate, why isn’t the ability to choose the better between them innate as well? Gerson — and many other theists — would likely argue that without religion it is impossible to know what is right or wrong. But the fact that there are so many religions — and so many sects within each religion — claiming different versions of what is “good” and “evil” should give us pause. So which particular religion’s god or gods is Gerson talking about, and which particular interpretation of that religion then has the monopoly on morality?

Chris Mooney wrote The Republican War on Science, but Christopher Lee’s Washington Post article, “Ex-Surgeon General Says White House Hushed Him,” implies we may just be seeing the tip of the iceberg. In 2005, Susan F. Wood, an assistant FDA commissioner and director of the agency’s Office of Women’s Health, resigned. She offered her frustration with political interference that was delaying approval of over-the-counter sales of Plan B as her reason for leaving. Gathering more publicity NASA scientist James E. Hansen and other federal climate researchers said the Bush administration had made it hard for them to speak in an open and honest manner about global warming.

Today it’s former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona making accusations that he was silenced in the name of politics. Carmona, appearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform made the following statement:

“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried. The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds.”

Are we to assume there will always be some skewing of science when it gets into the political arena, but that the Bush Administration has taken it to extremes? Where do we draw the line? Should it be up to Congress or the science community and the community at large to police the use and misuse of science? Obviously Carmona felt like his hands were tied during his tenure as Surgeon General so he didn’t speak out during the debates on embryonic stem cells and abstinence only versus condom use. How do we empower the position to speak out?

Joycelyn Elders was basically fired in 1994 for her controversial remarks that public schools should consider teaching about masturbation. If we have to fire someone for an unpopular but reasonable remark (and given the state of HIV at the time, Elders remark, although ill-considered, was arguably reasonable), how do we protect current surgeon generals in our now politically and religiously charged environment? I don’t have the answers and it worries me. I hope that the Democrats or some other party are also worrying and more importantly thinking of solutions.

“Deport the Pilgrims,” opines the graffiti on the mailbox at 18th and S St., NW in D.C. This urban art illustrates my point exactly. How does a nation WHOLLY comprised of immigrants decide that the doors are closed?

My family came to America in the period between 1860 and the 1880s (albeit legally). I am sure the Anglo-Saxon immigrants that had already settled in New York and Savannah were pretty unhappy when the boatloads of tired, weathered Eastern European Jews showed up on Ellis Island and elsewhere.

I don’t understand how today is any different. I believe the people and the organizations that represent those who have a fear of illegal immigration really have a fear of the un-whitening of America (one ex: http://www.mothersagainstillegalaliens.org). Help us all if America is not a white majority!!

The ongoing guestimate is that we have upwards of 12 million illegal immigrants in America, largely Hispanic. How does maintaining the status quo of the current system actually help to DEAL with this problem? Should we be rounding up hard working illegal immigrants who create a backbone of the U.S. economy (think seasonal agricultural workers in California)? Some of the fallacious arguments on the subject come to mind: illegal (and legal) immigrants stress our welfare system (we have one?), “they” refuse to learn English, “they” won’t assimilate (assimilate into a melting pot? hmm….), “they” don’t respect our laws.

We have to have a plan that deals with the ills of the current system. The status quo of underfunded U.S. agencies, massive raids and deportations, cities pitted against the feds, and splitting families up is just not acceptable. For once I actually liked a plan endorsed by G.W. Bush. Importantly, I think opposition to the plan had a heavily racist tinge to it. What do you make of this ongoing debate?

When is sex ed really Bible study? Only a few years ago, certain federally funded abstinence-only courses were discovered to have, in their curriculum materials, bible quotes requiring girls to be subservient to their husbands. Even without the quotes, federally funded abstinence-only courses are still telling all students that the only way to express one’s sexuality is to remain abstinent until they marry someone of another gender. Regardless of your individual feelings about this teaching, it is a theological requirement, not the factual basis of a health class or sex education.

Sure, comprehensive sex ed will always include the positive aspects of abstinence–it is the only foolproof way to avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases—but including that along with other factual information is a lot different than preaching abstinence-until-marriage as the only way to deal with one’s sexuality. And it certainly does nothing for the approximately 10% of students who are likely to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender except make them even more invisible and discounted than they already are in our society.

It’s not that sex isn’t always on my mind, but this has been an especially “hot” subject in Congress this particular week, as the House Appropriations Committee gets set to vote on how much money to throw at these abstinence-only programs.

The Washington Post had a nice editorial today regarding the recent proposal in Annapolis, Maryland to ban retailers from distributing plastic bags to shoppers. The idea is to get retailers to offer only recycled paper bags and reusable bags, and thus cut down on the environmental costs of making plastic bags and eliminate the clog of plastic litter that threatens the Chesapeake. Though the Annapolis government certainly has good intentions, the Post rightly points out that paper bags aren’t a particularly green alternative to plastic: they’re costlier to make (plastic bags cost 2 cents each, whereas paper bags cost 5 cents) and create more pollution in the process than recycled plastic. Moreover, banning plastic bags isn’t exactly good for business–retailers can swallow the cost of a ban or reflect the cost in higher prices, but in either case business loses out.

The Post offers a much better solution than a complete plastic bag ban, which is to create incentives for customers and retailers to use and offer reusable bags. Examples include Giant Food, which gives discounts to customers who use reusable bags, and IKEA, which charges customers for disposable bags. (Side note: IKEA was given an A- grade for social and environmental responsibility by Better World Shopper.)

Not only do these solutions encourage customers to go green without the costs associated with a plastic bag ban, but they also raise money that can be spent directly on green causes: IKEA donates all the money they earn from disposable bag sales to local community forests. Whoever said that being pro-business and loving the environment can’t jive?