I am the father of three children. If my state took them from me without evidence that I had abused them, my outrage would be indescribable.

Thus it was no surprise to me to read that a Texas appeals court ruled last week state authorities had no right to seize more than 460 children in a raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints’ (FLDS) Yearning For Zion (YFZ) Ranch in early April.

The appellate court decision is being hailed as a vindication by members of FLDS who claimed that they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Here’s why.

Every child on the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado, Texas was taken from the FLDS based on uncorroborated “tips” from a caller to a family shelter crisis line who claimed to be a pregnant, abused teenage wife at the ranch. The caller has not been found and authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.

But that is not really the starting point. Texas authorities have been investigating the group for the last four years. It seems that the regular Texas Bible thumpers are not particularly tolerant of non-mainstream religions.

In Texas, bigamy is a felony in which a man is legally married to one woman and either marries OR lives with a person other than his spouse “under the appearance of being married.” Thus it would seem that a man with a wife and a “spiritual wife” could be charged with bigamy (but not the women?).

While I believe in the rule of law, in the United States we have seen a number of occasions in which the courts have overturned lifestyle laws involving consenting adults. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages (1967) and Texas’s sodomy (2005). Moreover, the supreme courts of Massachusetts and California have ruled in favor of gay marriages. Is polygamy next?

Now follow this logic. The warrant authorizing the Texas’s raid on YFZ Ranch was based on apparently false allegations of child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, the warrant is probably still valid.

However, having sex with a person under the age of 17 years of age who is your spouse is not a crime in Texas. Therefore, if polygamy were legal in Texas, and the men had married their spiritual wives, then there would be no child sexual abuse with respect to girls 16 years of age or over (14 years of age or older prior to 2005), the minimum age for marrying in Texas.

So I am greatly concerned that the Texas raid was really for the purpose of breaking up FLDS, and that protecting children was the state’s cover. This conclusion is tentative, but given Texas’s bizarre claim that the YFZ Ranch constituted a single household so that wrong doing by a few could be imputed to the entire group and the lead investigator in the case alleging that the FLDS belief system facilitates a lifestyle in which “male children are groomed to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and the girls are raised to be victims of sexual abuse,” I do not foresee changing my view.

Texas has appealed the appellate court’s decision to the Texas Supreme Court. Given that the state failed to prove imminent harm to the children — a critical requirement to justify taking children from their parents — it is likely that the appellate court’s decision will be sustained and most of the children returned to their parents (except possible several underage girls who are pregnant or recently gave birth).

The bottom line is that while I am concerned for the welfare of the FLDS children, it is important not forget the right of parents to raise their children free of governmental interference (absent evidence of actual
abuse) and what appears to be a general lack of due process at the trial level.

A letter sold on May 15th for the astounding amount of 170,000 pounds ($330,000) in London may help clarify Einstein’s beliefs or lack of beliefs about God. In the 1954 letter to Eric Gutkin, Einstein is fairly blunt about his religious views:

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

“For me the Jewish religion, like all others, is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

An abridged version of the letter is here

Richard Dawkins, one of the losing bidders, said that while he was disappointed with losing the bid, he was pleased to see that people so highly valued this letter. In fact, Rupert Powell, the managing director of Bloomsbury Auctions, said the letter attracted unprecedented interest from around the world. He speculated that the letter had captured peoples imagination because it is such a clear statement of the Einstein’s views.

It is indeed intriguing how highly this letter was valued, it presents no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God, but is only the opinion of one man. A genius in the world of physics both atheist and theist have been trying to make Einstein one of their own for years. But Einstein doesn’t fit either definition very neatly.

His sense of religion and of God owes much more to Spinoza than to any established church. In fact, it probably owes much more to his own scientific investigations than any church. In a separate letter also from 1954 he wrote:

“If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Whether we choose to think of Einstein as a atheist, theist, deist or something else altogether, it is important to remember that we must make decisions about our beliefs for ourselves. It’s nice to feel like smart people think the same way you do, but at one time smart people thought the Earth was the center of the universe. I think Humanist could do a lot worse than approaching religion in the way Einstein appears to have. Making up his own mind and allowing room for spirituality and wonder in the world we live in.

Though I haven’t been following everything that the chattering masses have been saying about NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsement of Barack Obama for president, I wanted to toss out my support for their decision. Not because they endorsed Obama per se, but because they were willing to actually endorse a man, in an election cycle that included a woman.

I don’t know about the specific voting records of Obama or Hillary Clinton when it comes to choice issues, and I don’t pretend to know about the internal deliberations that must have gone on inside NARAL Pro-Choice America when coming to this decision (at a party over the weekend, a NARAL staffer summed it up as “blowback” when talking about the endorsement). However, NARAL for whatever reason, looked beyond just endorsing a woman because she’s a woman, and made an endorsement on who they honestly thought was the best choice.

As a guy who is pro-choice, I’ve always felt slightly unwelcome in the pro-choice/feminist movements. I’m not sure if it’s me projecting, or if there is a disconnect, ever so slight. Where does a man fit in, in the framework of women’s empowerment? Is my support appreciated, or seen as condescending? If it is allowable for my voice to stand out in support of choice issues, what about the man who stands against a woman’s right to choose? If his voice negated because he’s a man and against choice, why should mine be allowed simply because I’m saying the right things?

For NARAL Pro-Choice America to take this step, shows, ever so slightly, the direction they’re leaning in the debate about a man’s place in the women’s movement.

While I generally make it a habit not to read WorldNetDaily, an article that made it into the local meetup list got my curiosity going, so I checked out William J. Federer’s Tyranny of the atheist minority. The basic premise of the article is that since The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life identifies “the people” (as in a government of the people, by the people, for the people, etc) as follows:

This survey “of the people” reported that 80.2 percent of Americans hold Judeo-Christian beliefs (51.3 percent Evangelical/Mainline Protestant Christian; 23.9 percent Catholic; 1.6 percent Orthodox & other Christian; 1.7 percent Mormon; and 1.7 percent Jewish.)

Those not reporting or who said nothing in particular represented 12.9 percent, while 1.2 percent were Unitarian-Universalist-Spiritual-New Age-Native; 0.7 percent Buddhist; 0.6 percent Muslim; 0.4 percent Hindu; 0.3 percent Other World Religions, 2.4 percent agnostic … and only 1.6 percent atheist.

His argument therefore is that since the people are made up of a majority Judeo-Christian people why aren’t all are laws biased in favor of that majority? Federer, of course, believes that the atheists have some how taken over the government and made the laws of the land atheist thereby becoming a tyrannical minority inflicting it’s belief on the majority.

Now given the disparity of beliefs about God and the bible represented in the 80.2 percent of Americans I find it hard to believe that 80.2 percent is a homogeneous group demanding, among other things, forced prayer in school, or that religious displays need to be in courthouses etc and so forth.

If we always let the majority of the people have it’s way, most of our laws would be controlled by the desires of the highest populated states at the expense of the needs of the more sparsely populated states. I suppose since this no longer applies to religion this argument is not relevant, but it is exactly the point.

I wrote a post about California’s requirement for teachers to sign a loyalty oath stating they will “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Sounds reasonable, and in 1952 it was passed into law by California voters. This law discriminates against pacifists, many of whom come from peace churches. So shall we allow a discriminatory law like this to stay on the books just because the majority voted for it? I think this law does much more to interfere with the practice of religion than say saying a teacher or administrator can’t force students to pray in a public school. They’re being forced to pit their livelihood against there religious convictions. A teacher who wants to lead a prayer can go to their church to lead prayers but a teacher in California can’t teach without signing the oath.

It’s wrong. We have to have the checks and balances of our system to keep as many laws like this as possible from remaining on the books. So we need to remember our system works for both the majority and the minority as best as it can. It guarantees the rights of the majority, while protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister and founder of Médecins Sans Frontières has brought up the radical (to some) idea, of having the United Nations bring in food and other relief aid, to the Burmese people, even if the generals in the military junta object. Of course, as Nick Cohen points out in the Guardian:

He (Kouchner) was opposed by authoritarian regimes the world over. A Western diplomat at the UN Security Council meeting said objections came from China, Kouchner’s old enemies in Vietnam, Russia and South Africa… All knew without needing to be told that if the Burmese military were held to be illegitimate rulers whose wishes could be overruled because they lacked a democratic mandate, the same criteria could be used against them or their allies, too, and their desperate arguments reflected their fears.

To say that the American Left has become sadly predictable in its foreign policy would be an understatement. It should be no surprise after some hemming-and-hawing, to see the Left end up as uneasy bedfellows with dictatorial governments such as the People Republic of China in this matter. After all, the people of Burma cannot compete the ugly strain of isolationism that is creeping into America’s body politic. Nor can the Burmese suffering ease the trauma that the Left would surly face by being called Western imperialists from various quarters.

Though pocketbooks have opened up around the world to help the Burmese, the next few days will require tough decisions in order to prevent an already tragic event turn into a mind-blowing catastrophe. The people of Burma need our help. So what are we going to do about it?

Today, I circulated a press release with information about the Star Hill controversy. This concerns the Village of Holmen, Wisconsin, which decided to sell to the local Lion’s Club a small patch of public land on which a cross and a star are erected. The Lion’s Club will pay $600–despite the fact that the American Humanist Association offered $1,000 and the Freedom From Religion Foundation offered $1,200 for the land. This is because the Lion’s Club will keep the cross and star in the midst of government-owned property while the AHA and FFRF won’t. (Those of you who have followed the San Diego Mt. Soledad case should be pretty familiar with this new tactic.)

As an AHA staff member who deals with public policy, I’ve sent out quite a number of press releases during my tenure here. I’ve rarely ever received editorializing e-mails back from media people. However, today I received two of particular note:

From Daniel S. Brandenburg, Publisher/Editor of the Marion Advertiser

“Three Cheers for the Village of Holmen. I think I’ll use this as an editorial to give these leaders the credit they deserve.”

From Ingrid Schlueter, co-host of VCY America Radio Network

“Ha Ha Ha. This is great. Long live the Lions Club and kudos to the village board of Holmen, Wisconsin. God bless America.”

Clearly, we have a lot of church-state educating yet to do.

Manifestos have been popping up on varying modern movements for dozens of years now. Even Humanists created one in 1933. Now, Evangelicals have one, too.

An Evangelical Manifesto, established by a committee led by Samford University (not to be mistaken for Stanford University in California) theology professor Timothy George, was released to the public yesterday. It was created to “take back the term ‘evangelical’ from politics and return it to its theological roots,’” according to USA Today.

So far, there are over 80 signers, including Princeton professor Sam Moffett, and Sojournors magazine founder Jim Wallis. (There is also a mysterious signer known as “Greg,” a “Minister” at a “Baptist church.” For what reason would he choose not to fully identify himself?)

But where are the bigwig Evangelicals—activists like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson, or media pundits like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh?

Well, it looks like a few of them aren’t satisfied enough with it:

The Southern Baptist Convention’s policy chief, Dr. Richard Land, says he wasn’t asked to sign.

Focus on the Family’s Doctor James Dobson says he was asked, but his board of directors advised against it “due to myriad concerns,” including the lack of African-American involvement.

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America worries the manifesto will confuse Christian voters about the issues that are most important: opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

It’s nice to see that Shaw thinks its more important for Christians to focus on negative, hurtful rhetoric than postively assert one’s beliefs and hopes for the future. Perhaps that’s the reason why such a manifesto is needed.

Major General Robert L. Caslen Jr—one of the seven military officers who caused a minor stir (though it should have been a major one) when he improperly appeared in a Christian Embassy promotional video in uniform—is getting a promotion. The change-of-command date is yet to be set, but at some point Caslen will become the commanding general at the Schofield Barracks.

I wonder if he’d be receiving the same promotion had he appeared in a humanist or otherwise atheist video? Actually, I don’t have to wonder—the answer is clearly no. Just look at what the military did to atheist Specialist Jeremy Hall if you have any doubt of that.

The California State University system has fired another instructor over a 1952 pledge that was created to root out communists. This issue first came to the media’s attention back in February, when a Quaker math teacher, Marianne Kearney-Brown, was fired because she inserted the word “nonviolently” into the oath swearing to defend the U.S. and California constitutions. She was rehired after her case attracted media attention.

Now, Wendy Gonaver, also a Quaker and a pacifist, who was offered a teaching job at Cal State Fullerton, lost her position because she would not sign a loyalty oath swearing to “defend” the U.S. and California constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” She offered to sign the pledge if she could attach a brief statement expressing her views, a practice allowed by other state institutions. But Cal State Fullerton rejected her statement and insisted that she sign the oath if she wanted the job.

Zari Wigfall, a Jehovah’s Witness who testified at a congressional subcommittee hearing in 1998 on the matter said,

“Citizens are entitled to certain rights, and also minorities, including religious minorities, are given certain guarantees. And I just didn’t think that . . . because of my religious beliefs I would have two jobs taken away from me. It makes no sense that they do this to people. It’s people who take it seriously who don’t get hired.”

As Kearney-Brown pointed out, “The way it’s (the oath) laid out, a noncitizen member of Al Qaeda could work for the university, but not a citizen Quaker.” I think she makes a very good point. In its present form, the only people it seems to be preventing from teaching are truly believing pacifists, many of whom come from peace churches. Basically it’s discriminating against a group of Americans, who are largely religious. Although, many Humanists, Atheists and other freethinkers are also pacifist and would be disturbed by the need to sign oaths such as these. Humanists, along with churches, should be outraged by this type of statement. These oaths are a legacy from a dark period in American history, and should be put to bed once and for all.

It’s a pleasure to join the Rant & Reason bloggers, especially on this National Day of Reason. For a blogger, that’s where it’s all at—REASON. Everybody else just has opinions!

If you’re from the Dark Ages, today is also the National Day of Prayer.

Personally, and as church-state lawyer, I think that the National Day of Prayer (36 U.S.C. § 119), established by Congress in 1952, is unconstitutional. Same with President Bush’s proclamation (and those of other presidents). Clearly, these are acts of government favoring religion over non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I’m not a conspiracist, but I have to say that there must be a conspiracy going on because the judges on our courts don’t seem to give a hoot about their oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Whether there is a conspiracy, or just a lot of bad people in public office, I leave that to the readers of Rant & Reason to judge.

But why should I care? After all, I gave up praying a long, long time ago because my prayers for family harmony went unanswered. So did my other prayers. And I’ve been an atheist for over 40 years with no regrets or doubts. In answer to my question, I care because our federal, state and local governments are supposed to serve all of us, not merely the most common religious group. We nontheists should not be made to feel like outsiders.

This brings me back to the National Day of Reason. Reason is one of the pillars of Humanism. Let us enjoy the day by letting reason be our guide throughout today and the years to come. There’s even a website about the National Day of Reason to help out.

And please check an announcement today by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition for Reason (supported by the AHA) of a new billboard greeting outbound Interstate 95 drivers north of Philadelphia with an image of blue sky and the message “Don’t believe in God? . . . You are not alone.”