A picture of Jesus will be allowed to continue hanging in the Slidell courthouse as a result of some quick thinking by the Slidell City Court.

The court changed the display to include 15 other people who were important to legal history. There is also a reproduction of the U.S. Constitution and a notice posted to explain the significance of the each of the 16 figures.

U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle said that he would have ruled that the lone picture of Jesus constituted a religious display and that one legal question remains—whether the city must pay the ACLU’s legal fees. The judge said that could be the case because the group’s lawsuit was what prompted the change to the display. He scheduled a hearing on that question for October 18.

Both sides are claiming victory in this lawsuit since the image of Jesus remains, but by adding the extra paintings the city court made the religious seem secular. According to the Alliance Defense Fund:

The court today recognized that the First Amendment allows public officials, and not the ACLU, to determine what is appropriate for acknowledging our nation’s legal and cultural heritage.

The ACLU quoted Judge Ivan Lemelle:

As much as we might like the image—I might make a copy and frame it in my house . . . I’m not going to display it in my courtroom.

So who really wins in this case? The separation of church and state was better respected by the new display, but will this inspire more religious works to go on display with disingenuous notes explaining their significance to the legal field? I fear the right has found a loophole in this case. The question remains how big that loophole is, but I don’t rest easy with this decision.

The National Secular Society of Great Britain reported that Prince Harry “declined the opportunity to give a religious reading” at the 10th anniversary memorial service for the late Princess Diana, opting instead to give a personal eulogy. The text of his speech contains no overtly religious themes—or even a reference to God.

But does that mean Prince Harry—third in line to the British throne who would also hold the title of “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” if he were to become King—is an atheist?

Well, let’s not be too quick to claim Harry as “one of us.” His elder brother, Prince William, electing to read Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians in the Bible. Perhaps there was no need to give another, and Harry instead opted to give a special, more personalized tribute to his mother, making the NSS’s wording of Harry “declining the opportunity to give a religious reading” questionable.

Maybe it’s just better that we only call someone an atheist if they’ve stated—loud and clear—that they don’t believe in a god.

This weekend the New York Times reported on a startling occurance in Utah, whereby teenage boys are being abandoned by their parents for having engaged in the “deadly sin” of watching blockbuster movies.

Consider these passages from the story on members of a polygamous settlement largely controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and ponder for a second how depraved and outright “messed up” this is.

When his parents discovered his secret stash of DVDs, including the “Die Hard” series and comedies, they burned them and gave him an ultimatum. Stop watching movies, they said, or leave the family and church for good.

With television and the Internet also banned as wicked, along with short-sleeve shirts — a sign of immodesty — and staring at girls, let alone dating them, Woodrow made the wrenching decision to go. And so 10 months ago, with only a seventh-grade education and a suitcase of clothes, he was thrown into an unfamiliar world he had been taught to fear.

Is it really all that surprising that people this fanatically devoted to a religion would do something so horrendous to their own family members?  After all, this is the same group/cult whose leader was recently arrested for having sex with minors–whom he considered to be his wives. 

I’m tempted to wonder if the First Amendment’s protection between the church and state applies to a group like this?  If so, is any group allowed to claim themselves a religion and then engage in any sort of unlawful activity–all the while proclaiming it “official church doctrine”?  It makes one wonder whether the framers had this in mind when they were writing the Constitution–then again, one has to consider that such crazy religious activity has been with us for centuries (e.g., the Puritans burning of witches).

In an online piece titled “Liberals Love the Sin and Hate the Sinner,” conservative columnist Star Parker tells us that:

“Democratic politicians, who now are quietly luxuriating in the Craig scandal and Republican Party woes, will tell us that what they’re about is fairness, income gaps, two Americas and the poor.”

Her thesis is that Senator Larry Craig’s (R-ID) personal behavior has nothing to do with the validity and relevance of the traditional values he espoused before the scandal he is now embroiled in. I agree with her, it’s just that I don’t think they were valid to begin with. I think raising healthy, happy children who will grow up to fulfilled by being active in society and by following their own gifts are the best family value. I think this can be achieved in a one- or two-parent household, and I don’t think it matters what sex the parents are.

She sites Lawrence Mead, a professor of politics at New York University and author of seven books on poverty and welfare reform. He provides his conclusions as to the roots and causes of poverty:

“Although impediments to working may still affect some people, poverty is overwhelmingly a result of dysfunctional patterns of life. Families are poor in America in 2007 typically because unmarried parents have children and then do not work regularly to support them. … It has become difficult to avoid the conclusion that serious poverty in America is rooted in the culture of the poor.”

Read the rest of this entry &raquo

A federal judge temporarily blocked a new Missouri abortion law Monday after Planned Parenthood said the law would harm women by dramatically reducing the clinics available to provide the procedure. The new law, Missouri Senate Bill 370, would categorize any facility that provides more than five first-trimester abortions a month, or any second- or third-trimester abortions as outpatient surgery centers.

The law requires the facilities to meet specific state building, staffing, and health standards. These standards include regulations such as requiring that hallways at the facilities be at least six feet wide and doors at least 44 inches wide.

U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith granted Planned Parenthood a temporary injunction after hearing the argument that the organization would have to halt abortions at its Columbia and Kansas City offices–either permanently or while expensive and “medically unnecessary” renovations were made. Ortrie will hold a hearing today, September 10, to determine if the injunction should be made permanent.

Some conservatives claim that if Planned Parenthood truly wanted abortions to be safe, legal, and rare, they would be all about supporting this bill. But what about the charges that the law does little to support safety and in reality merely puts “medically unnecessary” blocks up to women getting abortions?

This law and the conservative response to it seem like scare tactics and false advertising to me. If we really want to make abortion safe, legal, and rare, we would provide real sex education, provide condoms, and have better laws protecting women in general against domestic violence and rape. Plan B would be made more accessible especially for rape and incest victims and if an abortion has to be performed we would make it possible early in the pregnancy. I think those are the humane choices, but how do other Humanists weigh in on this issue? Do you agree that clinics should be treated like outpatient surgery centers, even if they only prescribe medication? Or do you think they should be exempted from this law because of the nature of what they do?

1. “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.”
Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003

2. “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.”
Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004

3. “I’m also mindful that man should never try to put words in God’s mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God.”
Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2005

4. “Well, first of all, you got to understand some of my view on freedom, it’s not American’s gift to the world. See, freedom is God — is God given.”
Interview with TVR, Romania, Nov. 23, 2002

5. “And there’s nothing more powerful in helping change the country than the faith — faith in Dios.” National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., May 16, 2002

6. “God bless the people of this part of the world.”
Minneapolis, Minnesota, Aug. 4, 2007

(Thanks to Atheist Perspective for compiling the list from Dubya Speak and bringing it to my attention. The complete list can be found here. )

During the course of a recent online journey through the wonderful world of conservative blogs, I was distracted by an strange advertisement for “The Nazareth Cross: the World’s Largest Cross.” Based on the picture used in the ad I didn’t think it could be real. I was mistaken.

Yes, the Nazareth Cross Project aims to build a 60 meter (180 foot) tall cross in the northern Israeli city of Nazareth, which is widely considered to be the birth place of Jesus.The website for the project is mostly an effort to get people to donate the funds needed to build the cross. Donors will be able to include their personal engraving on one of the 7.2 million tiles that will adorn the cross. These tiles will be made of local stone, gold, silver, or platinum, depending on the generosity of the donor. Since the website exists primarily to bring in donations, I am somewhat comforted by the possibility that this is all a scam.

Of Nazareth’s 64,800 inhabitants, approximately 70% are Muslim. I wonder how they feel about this? Is it really helpful to have a 180-foot cross obstructing the skyline of this predominantly Muslim city? Sadly, the crusades of the high Middle Ages continue to serve as a powerful symbol and starting point in a long history of perceived Western meddling in the Middle East. Well, here we have a newer, more tangible 180-foot, gold/silver/platinum plated symbol of Western meddling.

That oughta win a few hearts and minds, not that we’re doing a very good job anyways.

Common Dreams reports that Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) are demanding an investigation of Daniel Cooper, President George W. Bush’s undersecretary for benefits at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Cooper made an appearance in a fundraising video for the evangelical group Christian Embassy, which carries out missionary work among the Washington elite.

VCS and the MRFF are arguing that Cooper violated the First Amendment by advocating a particular religion while on the job. They also believe Cooper violated ethics rules that prohibit government officials from using their name, picture, or title for proselytizing or fundraising.

In the video, Cooper says of his Bible study,

It’s not really about carving out time, it really is a matter of saying what is important. And since that’s more important than doing the job—the job’s going to be there, whether I’m there or not.

“We’re very concerned about this because hundreds of thousands of veterans are waiting for their benefits while Cooper himself says that promoting his religion is more important than helping the veterans,” Veterans for Common Sense’s Paul Sullivan told IPS.

Sullivan’s right. Even if Cooper had made the video on his own time (which he didn’t) he’s still endorsing a particular religion from an official position of authority. Given the military’s propensity toward proselytizing (see the latest Humanist magazine, or the LA Times, “Not So Fast, Christian Soldiers”), this appears to be just the latest violation of church and state therein. Cooper needs to be letting veterans know they are his number-one priority, not that he’ll amble off to pray since the job will still be there. We as Humanists need to support groups like Veterans for Common Sense and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation that bring issues like this to light. We also need to be sure this isn’t skewed as an argument about Cooper’s right to pray, because it isn’t about that at all. He has every right to pray, just not when he is supposed to be working on the taxpayers’ dime to get veterans their benefits.

A recent Henry Payne cartoon depicts a news editor shouting to his troops “I want that family-values hypocrite senator’s head on a platter…unless he’s a democrat in which case stay out of his private life!” I bet Bill Clinton and Gary Hart wish that were true.

Outing Republicans as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users has become modern sport for hypocrisy hounds and general muckrakers. It’s almost replaced outing celebrities as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users. Unfortunately, it very definitely has pushed aside some other real news and seriously altered the public discourse.

I mean, why are so few people asking, Why are undercover cops hanging out in restrooms instead of looking for terrorists? Did word come down that we are done looking for terrorists and I missed it? How about solving real crimes like burglaries and murders? And while everyone is busy being disgusted and disappointed with Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), why don’t we issue the same level of vitriol at the war in Iraq, or Alberto Gonzales’s failure to seemingly endorse rather than expose the criminal behavior emanating from the White House. Are we not disgusted by that?

Humanists would do well to focus their energy on trying to change the discourse of media spin and restore some reason to the general debate. Is the issue that Senator Craig is a possibly a homosexual or that when he was caught breaking the law, he tried to hide it from his constituency and even his family? Are police officers in public restrooms engaging in a form of entrapment or is it a necessary and legal means of protecting the community? These are the real questions of the Larry Craig scandal and the ones that should be getting the most air time.

As titillating as it is for progressives to watch Republicans implode, is there a way to find something there that brings people into reasonable and rational discussion about Humanist issues such as justice, quality of life, and bringing our abilities to the greater good of humanity? If there is, how do we influence the discussion? If not, how do we move the discussion in new directions?

On August 29, 2007 Buzz Flash awarded its Wings of Justice Award to Mary Pipher. Mary Pipher is best known for her book, Reviving Ophelia which was a New York Times bestseller for 150 weeks. She received the Buzz Flash award for returning the prestigious Presidential Citation award from the America Psychological Association in protest over the group’s policy on military and CIA interrogations.

At its annual convention in August the APA’s policymaking council voted 85% to 15% to reject a measure to ban its members from participating in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and other US detention centers. Instead, a resolution was approved that prohibited psychologists from direct or indirect participation in 19 “unethical” interrogation techniques and called upon the U.S. government to ban their use.

The vote upset Pipher, who has worked with victims of torture and has seen the lifelong harm it can inflict. Pipher also criticized loopholes in the resolution on such techniques as sensory and sleep deprivation, which cause people to fall apart very quickly.

I think Pipher’s actions are in the best spirit of Humanist action even if she isn’t a Humanist. Here is someone taking a stand, even against the community she works in, because the actions of that community are not right. Here is a champion. And if you read her letter or listen to her interview on Democracy Now you will see she is both brave and compassionate even in struggle with an advisary.