I hate starting the week off with a depressing news article, but stories such as these are becoming all too common in a society that should be rooted in reason.

An 11-year-old girl from Weston, Wisconsin, died from diabetes after her parents relied on prayer to save her rather than bringing her to the hospital when her situation worsened.

Turns out the parents don’t actually belong to any organized faith:

“Her mother, Leilani Neumann, told The Associated Press that she never expected her daughter, whom she called Kara, to die. The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God, but they are not crazy, religious people, she said.
…
“We just believe in the Bible, that’s all. …This is our faith.”

Her husband added that, “We believe the word of God and live according to its precepts.”

Leilani Neumann said the family is not worried about a police investigation into her daughter’s death because “our lives are in God’s hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do.”

But the worst news of all? The girl’s diabetes was treatable.

How many more children need to die before we all realize that prayer doesn’t work?

A judge in Scott County, Iowa has come up with a new solution to prison overcrowding–send offenders to church instead. According to a story in the March 20 Quad-city Times, Judge Christine Dalton has sentenced Pachino Hill to a church-run counseling program for charges of eluding and driving while barred stemming from a police chase from Rock Island to Davenport in October. Hill must also attend church for eight consecutive Sundays, pay a fine, and be on probation for one year. In fairness, Hill can choose two years in prison if he prefer. The optional prison sentence aside it’s pretty clear this is a violation of church and state. I mean even the idea of sending Hill to a church-run counseling program is pushing the envelope.

Two things come to mind: What happens if Hill acts out at the church and robs or injures a church member? And what happens next time? Who will receive the next would-be convict—Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Or should we check out some religions that we haven’t thought of.

In all seriousness, in America no one should be forced to attend church even as punishment. That isn’t coming out quite how I mean it but I think you get the idea. You can’t force someone to convert to any religion any more than you can demand that they have no religion. The state shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what citizens’ religion should be. And relating it to crime and punishment is even more incendious as it makes freedom dependent upon one’s beliefs. This absolutely should not be tolerated in a just society.

In Sunday’s New York Times, Paul Berman writes about “Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die” and offers up his theories as to why it is that extremism survives in Iraq, as well as why it flourishes in the West, too. Berman states that,

Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

A dismaying development. One more sign of the power of the extremist ideologies — one more surprising turn of events, on top of all the other dreadful and gut-wrenching surprises.

This critique by Berman can also be extended, to some degree, to the humanist movement. For example, in the January/February 2008 issue of the Humanist, in a piece about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, authors David Schafer and Michelle Koth conclude, in part, by saying,

Her approach is poorly informed about the past and present of Islam, ineffectual at best, mainly counter-productive, and at worst potentially catastrophic in its consequences. It is here, too, that the influences of her principal intellectual environments since 2003—the VVD Party in the Netherlands and the American Enterprise Institute in the United States—taken as a whole, have clearly discouraged her development as a well-balanced defender of human rights and security.

Schafer and Koth are perhaps correct in stating that,

Hirsi Ali’s prior experience of Islam was confined to her youthful and often painful life in Africa: the tribal variety in Somalia, the strict Wahhabi version in Saudi Arabia, and in Kenya the Islamist political formulations of the Muslim Brothers and even more radical Sayyid Qutb—all followed by her intense contact with mainly African (e.g., Somali and Moroccan) immigrant women who had suffered abuse in the Netherlands. She knew little about the complex history of Islam in other times and other places.

While her views on Islam aren’t based on years of study, her intense, personal understanding of the religion also cannot be dismissed. Though what she dealt with is not the form of Islam practiced by every Muslim, it is also difficult to argue that she is taking her stand purely because of the ideology of the VVD Party, and the American Enterprise Institute.

Indeed, as the West continues to encounter Islam, not only on grand geopolitical scales, but everyday at the corner store or in a school hallway, it is imperative to recognize the vast and heterogeneous nature of Islam. What is perhaps forgotten, then, is that this also extends to the varying types of critiques of Islam. For Schafer and Koth to deride Hirsi Ali’s analysis of Islam simply because her view doesn’t conform to their understanding of the religion leads them down the same narrow path that they’re alleging Hirsi Ali has taken. It’s unfortunate that Schafer and Koth have fallen into the trap that so many others on the Left have fallen into.

A shocking article published in The Nation, written by social critic and 1998 Humanist of the Year Barbara Ehrenreich, takes a scathing look at presidential contender Hillary Clinton and her involvement with an ultra-secretive conservative group known as “The Family.”

Also known as “The Fellowship,” members of The Family are Capitol Hill legislators that gather for Bible study and group prayers. Hillary has been an active participant since winning the Senate in 2006, and evidence shows she was involved in The Family’s activities as early as 1993.

Perhaps this is nothing more than a gathering of dedicated religious leaders for private group worship. But Ehrenreich suggests it goes far beyond that, referring to an upcoming book by Jeff Sharlet, who uncovered the following:

The Family’s most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes–knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs.

At the heart of The Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum. They get to use The Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family’s young women’s group. And, at The Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already powerful.

Humanists often say that religion shouldn’t play a role in politics, but that doesn’t mean it does anyway. So when the time comes, how will Hillary explain her relationship with “The Family” to the millions of church-state separation supporters in America?

It’s always troubling for me to see the emptiness of the rhetoric and the lack of coherent arguments that has emerged from our movement regarding the liberation of Iraq. T.F. Kelley’s recent online column for the Humanist is unfortunately no different in this regard (for a more nuanced view of Iraq at this five-year anniversary, check out a Week in Review article from the New York Times). I am continually astounded that when the topic of conversation turns to Iraq, we, who claim the mantle of critical thinking and humane values, suddenly cannot help but point out the conspiratorial hand of Big Oil, and the supposedly secular utopia that was built by Saddam. Only two of Kelley’s points appear to require any serious rebuttal.

Kelley writes, “I don’t believe it’s a ‘tragedy of the Left’ to be unwilling to apply the idea of justice for all by supporting an illegal war, not one declared by Congress and in contradiction to [the] will of the United Nations.” If Kelley wishes to be told by politicians and bureaucrats what is ethical and what is not, he is free to do so. However, considering the social and legal struggles humanists, atheists and all freethinkers have fought for, we know that the institutions that we as a society have created are not always fully just, and that what is right and wrong is not always the same as what is legal and illegal.

The implied claim by Kelley that liberal hawks did not apply any rigorous or critical thought to the question of Iraq in the lead up to March of 2003 is laughably ridiculous, at best. By simply typing “liberal hawks” into Google, readers will find a plethora of articles by liberal hawks discussing amongst themselves the difficulties in rendering a decision on this matter, as well as articles about the choices – and reasoning behind those choices – that were made. Liberal hawks were not drawn into the right-wing culture of fear created by the White House, but they also refused to stand alongside a Left which is becoming increasingly isolationist in it’s outlook. Our first and foremost concern was, and continues to be, the people of Iraq. Kelley may not wish to acknowledge that, but the weight of evidence easily available on the Internet belies his claims.

At the end of his essay, Kelley speaks of the Iraqi boys in the photo that accompanied the print version of my article. It’s encouraging to see him show some concern for their wellbeing. I wonder, though, if Saddam were still in power, would Kelley still have been concerned about their fate? Or would they simply have been someone else’s problem?

Nica Lalli, author of Nothing: Something to Believe In, writes a fantastic opinion article in USA Today about the questions atheist parents often get when asked about how their children are raised. Do atheists raise their children as atheists? Do they learn about organized religions?

The answers to these questions aren’t always the same for every atheist parent. It would only be natural that a child raised in an atheist household adopt the beliefs of their parents. An atheist parent isn’t going to church on Sundays or praying before meals. But does that mean we are indoctrinating children into atheism?

Lalli points out that children can learn about all religions—in addition to learning about atheism, humanism, and other non-religions. Encourage freedom of choice, and your child can make his or her own decision as he or she gets older. Whether you believe in God or not, a child shouldn’t have to be forced into any belief system. Giving your children the opportunity to explore the vast and diverse beliefs and nonbeliefs out there is the best way to go.

I made a comment in a post “My Supporter Has Wilder Views than Yours” about how Senator John McCain, when asked about the support of John Hagee, replied, “I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. … They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.”

It’s frustrating that this can’t work for Senator Barack Obama. On March 14, he came close to having to disown his pastor of twenty years and has had to let Rev. Jeremiah Wright go from an unpaid and largely ceremonial role on the African American Religious Leadership Committee.

Obama repeated the view, which is his standard response on the campaign trail, that voters should focus on what he himself believes, not the words of his longtime pastor, who retired from Trinity United Church of Christ in February.

Is it lack of political savvy or is Obama just not going to stick up for his friends when it’s not politically expedient?

McCain knows Hagee and may have even courted his endorsement. Hell, Hagee endorsed Bush, although I can’t remember if it was as big a deal then as it is now. But McCain didn’t reject Hagee. Obama is now rejecting a twenty-year relationship. You have to read this blog, Obama’s judgment Wright or Wrong, to get the full force of the impact of this turn. I can’t say it better.

I’m nervous about Obama’s need, real or perceived, to dump people when the going gets tough. I don’t know if it’s the media or the pressure of an ugly election, but religion is definitely not working in Obama’s favor.

Listen to heart-wrenching testimony from Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans from Winter Soldier, a four-day event that’s currently in day two and will last until Sunday. The description from Iraq Veterans Against the War:

The…event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan—and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans’ health benefits and support.

Find out how to watch or listen here.

This morning Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! broadcasted Vietnam vet’s testimony from the first Winter Soldier, held on January 31, 1971. Names and places have changed, but otherwise the testimony from then and now are eerily similar, particularly with regards to policy, enforced by military higher-ups, of abuse of detainees and innocent civilians.

On Tuesday a Judge ruled that a lawsuit would go forward against a Santa Ana History teacher who was making disparaging remarks against Christians during his class. James Corbett had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by his former student, Chad Farnam, and his parents. Farnam tape recorded some of Corbett’s lectures, thus bringing us the now infamous line: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” This situation is quite similar (in the reverse) to the Matthew LaClair case where he recorded a teacher proselytizing a type of Christianity to his students.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a reason to say that Chad Farnam was less courageous than Matthew LaClair, and given what we know now, I can’t say that this teacher is much different from the other teacher. More people are jumping behind Corbett because they seem to think he was trying to engage students in intelligent discussions. Just because a conversation seems to start from a secular proposition does not guarantee an enlightened discussion or even a free discussion. Certainly, opening with, “When you put on your Jesus glasses” isn’t likely to encourage everyone to feel like they can join in the conversation or keep to facts rather than opinions.

Yesterday I attended a panel discussion, “Has the Religious Right Lost Its Way? Religious Leaders from the Left and Right Discuss the Future of Faith in Politics,” featuring Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition; Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; and Rev. Jim Wallis, president and executive director of Sojourners. The event was held to discuss the forthcoming book, Personal Faith, Public Policy, co-authored by Perkins and Jackson, in which the pair argues that the Evangelical movement is not, in fact, dead (as so many pundits are quick to report) but merely regrouping and expanding in breadth to include issues such as poverty, the environment, race, and immigration to its primarily pro-life/pro-marriage platform. They also made the point that “Religious Right” is actually becoming a misnomer—one of the Evangelical movement’s main focal points is to transcend categories of Republican or Democrat and to reconfigure themselves as Independents, or as Wallis put it, the “ultimate swing vote.”

I agree that—for better or worse—the power of Evangelicals isn’t extinguished, only perhaps waned. The pendulum will inevitably swing back. And in terms of socio-political movements, the power of faith should never be underestimated or devalued. As long as the wall between church and state remains strong I welcome the moral imperative to change society that can be derived from religion. We should be focused on protecting the environment and alleviating poverty, and if religion is compelling people to do so all the better. It’s only when religious movements try to impose rather than promote their morality by using the government to force it on others—such as in the case of trying to outlaw abortion—that I have a problem.

The most compelling portion of the event was an exchange between Perkins, Wallis, and moderator Michel Martin of NPR’s Tell Me More, during which health care made an entrance. Perkins made the argument that it’s wrong to force pregnant women to test their fetuses for Down syndrome but then not offer them government aid if the test turns out to be positive, leaving them in the heart-wrenching position to choose between abortion or the astronomically high cost of raising a Downs child. (My two cents: bravo for Perkins. It’s hypocritical to claim to want to reduce the abortion rate but then not make the costs of raising a child more affordable. Now when are we going to talk about comprehensive sex education?) Martin challenged that that’s a good argument for universal health care, which is eschewed by the Religious Right. Perkins said he agreed there needs to be more affordable health care but that it shouldn’t come from the government—do we really want to rely on an inept government for our health care needs? He called for more personal responsibility as a solution (so in a more free-market system people might be more likely to rethink eating from McDonald’s three times a week if they knew they’d have to pay later on if they developed heart disease). Wallis jumped in, arguing that health care should be a universal right—if a person is genetically predisposed to cancer it’s not a matter of personal responsibility. Wallis reasoned that government isn’t the answer or the enemy; we need to strike a balance between personal responsibility and the responsibility of society to take care of those in need.