The Los Angeles Times recently printed an opinion piece by Nick Street, “Meditation in schools is not a religious practice that raises any church-state issues.” I disagree with this idea (as does the AHA). My letter to the editor was published on July 27th:

Thoughts on meditation

Re: “Take a breath,” Opinion, July 25, 2007

Specific court precedent prohibits teaching transcendental meditation in publicly funded schools. Humanists, Christians, and others came together in the 1979 New Jersey case that led to this ban. They can be expected to unite again should current teaching repeat old mistakes.

If a meditation technique is rooted in transcendental meditation, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other specific religious practice, then it is clearly religious in nature. To pass constitutional muster, a meditation session would need to be completely sanitized of ritualistic sectarian religious undertones. Otherwise it would show a preference for one religious belief over another as well as for belief over nonbelief.

It has been shown that meditation’s benefits can also be attained through a regular midday nap, the use of long-established secular relaxation techniques, and by other means that are clearly free of religious undertones. There is no need to import stealth religion into the public classroom to get children to chill out.

What do you think about meditation in public schools? Is it inherently religious in nature, and therefore should it be banned in public schools? Or can the religious nature of meditation be stripped away to a secular core, making it appropriate for public schools?

And what about the general safety of meditation? The new issue of the Humanist magazine features an interesting story on this topic by Mary Garden titled “Can Meditation Be Bad for You?”

Nick Street’s article is posted online at the Buddhist Society of Western Australia’s website.

Recently, observers of the international scene have noted the declining state of Russian democracy. While it has been over 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of democracy behind from behind the “Iron Curtain,” it seems increasingly likely that the democratic Renaissance has come to an end.

Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his desire to return to the command-and-control years of the Soviet era. For example, he has interfered with the legitimate right of the Russian people to protest. Furthermore, he has clamped down on business owners, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was the founder and CEO of the Yukos oil company, and taken control of these major sectors of the Russian ecomony–under the pretext that these companies owed back taxes to the Russian government.

One of the most widely recognized anti-democratic signals from the Russian administration is of course the mystery surrounding the untimely death of Alexander Litvinenko–the former KGB agent who died from radioactive poisoning in London last year. While there has been no clear evidence to suggest that the Russian government was behind his death, there have been strange signals from the Russian government that suggest they have become wary of the West–namely, their refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, the man that Scotland Yard considers as the prime suspect.

The larger significance? Political trends in one of the world’s top economies affect U.S. foreign policy. So while this country may now be focused on fighting “The Global War on Terror,” it is wise to consider that at some point we may be fighting a Cold War II, if we don’t do something to encourage reforms.

The September/October issue of the Humanist online features a “Web Extra” article by Carl Coon, titled “Beyond the New Atheism.” In it, Coon states:

Something big and creative is happening these days in the continuing search to understand religion from the outside. Theories vary, conclusions have yet to be reached, and division in the scientific community has certainly surfaced.

He briefly describes a back-and-forth between evolutionary biologists David Sloan Wilson and Richard Dawkins, concluding:

While such exchanges wouldn’t appear to unify the secular community, a multiplicity of theories could be turned to its advantage if we were to undertake a full-court press in seriously studying religion from an evolutionary perspective.

What do you think?

Last month after a weekend-long board meeting of the Secular Student Alliance, I sat at the Albany airport for five hours thanks to heavy thunderstorms across the East delaying hundreds of flights. But no complaints, since I was able to finish my newly signed copy of I Sold My Soul on eBay by Hemant Mehta (aka the Friendly Atheist and a fellow SSA board member).

I feel that Hemant’s book is great for Christians looking to understand atheists better. He expresses his honest opinions with an open mind about his visits to several different churches across the country. And even though he could have used the book to convert readers to atheism or badmouth each church he visited, Hemant takes the high road and remains true to his “friendly” form.

So my question to our Christian readers is this: What book would you recommend that could help atheists understand Christians better, without trying to convert the reader? Is there a “Friendly Christian” out there willing to sit with atheists and Humanists and write about his/her experiences?

I tried to blog about a Congressional issue, but it’s too hot, Congress is in recess, and I’m thinking more about my upcoming vacation cruise to Canada with the New York City Atheists, than about how to wrap 200 words around the unwieldy issues surrounding the Christocatic forces pervading the U.S. military (from Christian Embassy video to harassment of nontheistic soldiers to the Pat Tillman investigation, to Defense Department approved “care” packages from religious groups which include evangelical literature translated into Arabic and the Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game, this issue is getting more extensive every day), or the need to hold someone’s feet to the fire regarding the President’s explicitly stated objective of shifting government dollars away from secular social service providers in favor of (and privileging in the process) religious institutions.

No, instead of addressing an issue topic this week, I’m going to brag about what I get to do between now and the end of the month. Before I spend the last week of August on my first real vacation since starting as director of the Secular Coalition for America (in September, 2005), I’ll be heading for New York City later this week, and in addition to a workshop I’m giving and some other meetings this weekend, I’ll have the opportunity to sit down with author Nica Lalli (“Nothing, Something to Believe In”). Nica and I appeared together on a radio show about a month ago, but we didn’t get to chat before or after. Since she lives in New York, we’ll be meeting while I’m there. As I read Nica’s book, I was surprised by all the similarities in our lives – from deciding how not to be a “bad Jew” when you’re also an atheist, to our both having a fundamentalist Christian sibling-in-law. And now, it’s back to work on all those unwieldy, but important, issues.

Maybe you’re a person of a particular religious faith that sees homosexuality as a “mortal sin.” So should you be forced to attend a parade that goes against your religious or philosophical beliefs?

Well, a group of firefighters in San Diego were recently forced to participate in a Gay Pride Parade, despite religious objections:

The firefighters claim parade attendees made obscene gestures, uttered inappropriate remarks and displayed lewd behavior that made them uncomfortable. They also demanded a work environment without discrimination and harassment.

“While I was sitting there waiting for the parade to start, I felt that I was forced against my will to be at the Gay Pride Parade and forced to see men in tight shorts dancing provocatively and other men kissing and hugging wearing sexually suggestive material on T-shirts with writing ‘Girth and Mirth,’ ‘Suit Up Before You Dive In,’ according to the complaint.

“I was forced into a situation that would compromise what I hold true and what I believe in, my reputation, my character, my integrity, my morals, and my religion,” the complaint says.

I’m siding with the firefighters on this one; no one should be forced to attend a rally or parade that they don’t agree with. Your work should provide the opportunity to opt out of such activity due to religious reasons. Hey, I’d complain if a company I worked for made me attend a Catholic Pride event. Why should this be any different?

Note: Special thanks to Rob for passing along this article!

Last week non-religious doctors were lauded for helping the poor. Now comes another case of religion impeding certain doctors from helping certain patients. The Humanist Network News ran a story yesterday about doctors asserting their “right to decline.” More doctors, based on their religious beliefs, are refusing to perform abortions, prescribe the morning-after pill, perform artificial insemination, or even prescribe Viagra.

States are stronger in supporting doctors’ rights not to perform certain services than you might expect. Forty-six states permit the right to refuse to provide abortions, 17 states permit refusal to perform sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation), and 13 states permit refusal to provide contraceptives. Do doctors give up the right to act according to their conscience when they decide to become doctors? Can patients simply go to other doctors or is the embarrassment they suffer when being refused service or being lectured by a doctor too traumatic for patients?

The reason this is in the news again is the case before the California State Supreme Court. Guadalupe Benitez was refused a medical procedure, artificial insemination, because she was a lesbian patient even though the two doctors charged in the case readily provide artificial insemination to heterosexual patients. Other Californians say they were denied artificial insemination or other procedures because of their doctors’ objection to single parenthood.

The doctors in this case want to be able to chose who they will perform services for instead of as in the above issues, choosing what procedures they will or won’t do.

Kenneth Pedroza, the doctors’ attorney, counters that an “all-or-nothing” rule will drive physicians out of certain specialties. But this begs the question, what good is the world’s best heart surgeon to you if he won’t operate on gays and you happen to be gay? Why shouldn’t a doctor be forced at least to choose a specialty based on his religious convictions if he is then going to invoke those convictions to say what procedures he will and will not perform?

See Elaine Friedman, More Doctors Refuse Service Based on Religion and
Freedom of Religion or Discrimination?

Woo Suk Hwang, the leader of the team of disgraced South Korean researchers who claimed to have produced the first stem cells from a cloned human embryo, had, in spite of everything, achieved a significant first. Recent analysis by Children’s Hospital Boston and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts reveals that the cell line Hwangs’ team created represented the first example of parthenogenetic human embryonic stem cells. These type of cells have since been created in several countries and might represent a significant alternative to regular embryonic stem cells, so why aren’t we hearing more about them?

Parthenotes are eggs that divide without sperm, sort of a virgin birth. In some lizards and fish they may produce viable offspring, but not in mammals. Parthenotes typically result in embryos that survive for only a few days or weeks. That still makes them a potential source of embryonic stem cells, and because human parthenote embryos can’t develop to term, this could potentially raise fewer ethical issues around destroying potential life in working with stem cells. The Washington Post goes so far as to say that “embryonic stem cells derived through parthenogenesis cannot develop normally, so they are free of ethical objections.”

After initial genetic analysis on Hwang’s stem cells were inconclusive, Kitai Kim and George Daley of Children’s Hospital and the other Boston scientists got involved. They compared the genetic signatures of mouse embryonic stem cells made through nuclear transfer and those made from parthenogenetic embryos. The pattern seen in the Hwang cell line matched that seen in the mouse parthenote-derived cell lines.

Here’s the kicker– the U.S. prohibits federal funding for working with parthenogenetic embryos. It has been proven that work with parthenotes is much more efficient at producing stem cell lines than the more common nuclear transfer method, and one would think that using parthenotes should be a more sought-after method as we aren’t killing a viable embryo. So where is the hue and cry for this research? Is it too early in the research to know? Does it seem like farming embryos? If so where should humanists come down on this technique?

If ever there was an example of the profoundly “faith-based” nature of Republican politics, than Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is it.

Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts, a stunning fact by itself considering the widely-held view by many Americans that the “Bay State” is a bastion of progressive, liberal politics. Indeed, as governor Romney helped pass a major overhaul of healthcare in Massachusetts that has served as a model for what many progressives believe could be used across the nation. But, what seems to be talked about most is that Romney’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (and only the second Mormon ever to run for president).

Romney has tried to downplay his Mormon faith by saying that the presidency is a “secular office.” But so far it has been backfiring as evidenced by polls that show him trailing front-runner Rudy Guilani in the Republican primary.

The issue came to a head this weekend as evidenced by Jonathan Martin in his Politico.com blog. Romney is shown discussing the issue with a local radio talk-show host in Des Moines, Iowa. As the host presses the issue during a commercial break, Romney clearly becomes more agitated with the issue. While Romney is clearly uncomfortable with the line of questioning, as Martin points out in his blog, the host felt it was an important issue to raise. And I certainly agree. Humanists are all too aware of the increasingly important role that religion and faith is playing in politics and public policy. The interviewer had every right to bring up the issue with Romney and if he is too uncomfortable with the issue, then he needs to consider backing out of the race.

If abortion were illegal, how much jail time should a woman serve for obtaining one?

That’s the question being asked of anti-abortion protesters in a fascinating mini-documentary posted on YouTube. Taking place outside of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill., these series of interviews highlight an aspect of the anti-abortion crusade that in retrospect seems so glaringly obvious that I’m chagrined to admit it’s one which I myself hadn’t considered before. But I’m definitely not the only one — upon being asked how much time women should serve for obtaining hypothetically illegal abortions, protesters in the video appear taken aback, many of them stammering while admitting they’d never given it much thought. When pressed for answers as to the punishment such a crime would warrant, the ones given range from “counseling” to “pray for them.”

If you believe that abortion is murder then it follows that you should endorse severe punishment for women who undergo the procedure. However, most of the protesters seem to shy away from such a position and my guess is that most people in the broader society who identify as pro-life would as well. This logical contradiction — it’s unreasonable to argue abortion is murder but should go lightly punished — illuminates the highly emotional aspect of the abortion debate for anti-choicers: it’s a moral issue, not a rational or even practical one, and who cares about the consequences of a ban? Perhaps if we in the pro-choice camp can begin demanding answers to these sorts of very practical questions we can begin to get anti-choicers to at least consider their position more rationally, if not moderate their stance.