Yesterday the Colorado state legislature voted on a bill that would require the health care providers of pregnant women to give them HIV tests (although the women may opt out). The reasons are pretty clear–if the mother is HIV-positive, it helps to know so that the baby can be protected and treated. The measure passed 32-1. The lone dissenter was Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis. Why did he vote against the bill? According to the Colorado Independent, he claims that HIV “stems from sexual promiscuity” and didn’t want to “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.”

My first reaction was that it’s not the mother being punished for promiscuity; it’s the child who doesn’t get treated for HIV. I was sure that Schultheis had just failed to think it through because he couldn’t really mean THAT, could he? Apparently he could:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

I was horrified when I read that. There are many ways to contract HIV besides careless and promiscuous sex–blood transfusions come to mind. But even for someone who believes promiscuity is a sin, it is despicable to advocate that the child suffer for it. It is contrary to our conception of justice. Luckily the thirty-two other legislators agreed.

On March 6th, 2009, I will be in a room with a group of like-minded individuals, suspending disbelief and hoping that the Watchmen movie does justice to the incredible graphic novel.

For those who prefer a different cup of tea, hoping (and praying) will also be occurring that day across the pond, where a group of British women has declared March 6 Faith of Britain Day. As stated on the group’s website:

Faith Of Britain Day is a day that focuses all of the positive energy in the country towards achieving our hopes and aspirations. For exactly two minutes on March 6th at 11.00am our consortium of psychics and healers will act as a channel for the positive thoughts of the entire country.

Why March 6th at 11.00am?

March 6th has been chosen as Faith of Britain Day because March is a time of seeing light emerging from the darkness of Winter, therefore emphasising hope in an unsure world. Numerologically this date is symbolic because the 3rd month, the 6th day and the 9th year are all multiples of 3 which is about balance – which is what we strive to achieve as humans. The time, 11.00am is a master number, or a powerful 2 (1 + 1) which is the duality of the inner and outer self, encouraging us to look within to find solutions.

Faith of Britain Day will help us all overcome whatever obstacles and difficulties we may face as a country, an economy and as individuals. With over 80 million people concentrating their mental energies at the same time on the same day, we will unleash an irresistible psychic force that will, quite literally, make our dreams come true.

Why will this work?

It is a proven scientific fact that thinking about something often causes it to happen. Some call this quantum physics. Others simply call it “faith.” We ask that you open your mind to joining in with a unique psychic force that will change our lives through the power of thought.

I do wish people would stop lying about quantum physics, misrepresenting science, and peddling psychic nonsense. Unfortunately, the numerology babble takes away from an otherwise admirable idea. There are good reasons to encourage everyone to concentrate on achieving their “hopes and aspirations.” I recognize the potential of 80 million people focusing their attention on a problem, even for two minutes. We also know that a person in a good mood will more likely see the bright side of things and find opportunity in adversity.

My positive thinking makes me more capable of improving what I can actually change and more able to accept the situations that I cannot. But it only affects my abilities and my outlook. Positive thinking and wishing for anything from world peace to a Corvette will do nothing without action towards the goal. It will be our actions and not the “irresistible psychic force” that can “make our dreams come true.”

“Out of sight, out of mind” goes the saying.

So many may think that because the 2009 presidential inauguration is history, a lawsuit brought by Michael Newdow, 30 other individuals, and 11 organizations to prevent the infusion of religion into the ceremony is over. Not so.

Newdow and I are now working on a brief – due February 23rd – to explain to Judge Walton why he shouldn’t dismiss the suit. There are so many reasons, including (1) the plaintiffs were in fact harmed and seek a declaration from the court that their Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Religious Freedom Restoration Act rights were violated and (2) the unconstitutional practices (the Chief Justice adding “so help me God” to the presidential oath and the sectarian prayers in the invocation and benediction) are likely to repeated in 2013, 2017, and so forth if they aren’t enjoined by the court.

While there are a number of hurdles in this case, the inability of the judge and most Americans to recognize the “harm” caused by the religious practices at the presidential inaugural ceremony is most troubling.

In truth, this is a common human shortcoming. When things are going our way, we often fail to recognize that others may be suffering. (I’m trying to be nice by not calling it tyranny of the majority.)

The following is a description by Professor Christopher C. Lund of the harm caused by legislative prayers:

A government whose legislative prayers are acceptable to one religious group but not another makes the latter group feel unwelcome, and it ends up exerting pressure on the disfavored group to change their religious ways.

See Lund, Legislative Prayer and the Secret Costs of Religious Endorsements, page 25. This description applies equally to executive prayers (like the religious activities complained of in Newdow v. Roberts) and public school prayer cases. I encourage all Rant & Reason readers to read Professor Lund’s 56 page article for an excellent discussion of the issues.

Rather than rant on, I invite readers to express in your own words whether (and how) you felt harmed by the infusion of religion into the 2009 presidential inauguration ceremony, or not.

There’s supposedly an anti-Christian provision in the stimulus bill that’s got the religious right in a tizzy (when are they not?) Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) was contacted by the Christian Broadcasting Network and said:

“Democrats are looking for every opportunity to purge faith and prayer from the public square. This will empower the ACLU with ambiguous laws that create liability for schools, universities, and student organizations. This is an attack on people of faith and I don’t think Americans will stand for it.”

Sen. DeMint’s spokesman, Wesley Denton, followed with:

“This is an ACLU stimulus, because any school that gets funds to upgrade a student center or building where Bible studies or religious meetings may be held will be slapped with a lawsuit. This bill declares a war on prayer at college campuses in this country. Students have a constitutional right to use public facilities regardless of their religious views, and President Obama needs to step in to ask Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi to stop this attack on students of faith.”

Let’s actually examine this travesty, shall we? Salon.com wrote an article yesterday titled “Is the stimulus anti-Christian?” Their answer: No.

In the Senate version, the language is:

“No funds awarded under this section may be used for… modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”

Turns out that this sort of language is actually absolutely standard, as both the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State pointed out to Fox. Moreover, the Supreme Court saw absolutely no problem with it as far back as 1971. And the language doesn’t prohibit funds from going to religious schools; it just means they can’t use it on any of their facilities that are use [sic] primarily for religious purposes. Nor would it mean that public schools would have to keep things like Bible studies out of any buildings renovated with stimulus funding. This isn’t some secret, either — it’s legal principle dating back decades.

“Purge faith and prayer from the public square”? “Attack on students of faith”? It’s almost as if the religious right doesn’t care about checking legal history and arguments before launching political accusations and recklessly stirring up popular opinion. Yes, I’m just as shocked as you are.