File this story from Florida under “you can’t make this stuff up.” Except, apparently in this case, they could (h/t to Friendly Atheist):

A Hillsborough public policy group whose Christian platform included a push for a state ban on gay marriage has embraced a new attack on an old target: the separation of church and state.

Ten billboard advertisements against what activist Terry Kemple called the separation “lie” are being put up across Pinellas and Hillsborough counties. Seven or eight of the billboard messages already are in place, and the rest will be by the end of this week, Kemple said.

What do the billboards say? They have quotes from our founding fathers, of course, each explaining why we shouldn’t separate religion from government. For example, the photo included with the article shows a billboard, black with white text, that says, ‘”Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” – George Washington.’

Apparently, though, there is a dearth of anti-separation quotes by the founding fathers — the billboard sponsors admit that some of the quotes that they use are completely fabricated!

Others carry the same message but with fictional attribution, as with one billboard citing George Washington for the quote, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

“I don’t believe there’s a document in Washington’s handwriting that has those words in that specific form,” Kemple said. “However, if you look at Washington’s quotes, including his farewell address, about the place of religion in the political sphere, there’s no question he could have said those exact words.”

Pardon me? Fictional attribution is a rather diplomatic way of saying that the quote is a lie. Making up a quote out of whole cloth, no matter if it’s plausible or not, and then attributing it to George Washington is a complete lie.

Certainly doesn’t put Christianity’s best foot forward, does it?

They may feel justified by some sense that their anti-separation cause is best served by lying. But I think it’s safe to say that most of us, whether we follow the Ten Commandments or secular morals, believe that lying is wrong, even for marketing purposes.

Their willingness to put lies on their billboards is ultimately a matter for their own consciences (some might say that it is between them and their respective god, which is another way of saying the same thing). Remember this, though, the next time a humanist billboard campaign is denounced for being somehow immoral — I promise you that it won’t feature fabricated quotes!

The State of Oregon’s longtime prohibition against the wearing of religious clothing or adornment by public school teachers while on duty has returned to the spotlight. Why? Because recently passed legislation, the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (PDF), now guarantees the right of every Oregon state employee to wear religious garb or accessories while on the job, with the notable exception of public school teachers, who will continue to be prohibited from doing so.

There has already been an outcry from a variety of religious organizations against the continuation of the ban for teachers. Organizations including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund have objected strongly and are asking that the ban be rescinded.

Why would such a ban be necessary? The Oregonian newspaper quotes a spokesperson for the state Department of Education explaining it like this:

“The underlying policy reflects the unique position that teachers occupy,” said Jake Weigler, spokesman for the state Department of Education. “In this case, the concern that a public school teacher would be imparting religious values to their students outweighs that teacher’s right to free expression.”

Is this true? Would students be influenced by a teacher who is wearing a turban, hijab, yarmulke, or a Christian cross while teaching? Is it reasonable for the state to protect students from such influence by prohibiting personal religious expression by teachers?

I don’t believe that it is. While any given student will most likely take note of a teacher’s religious adornment or clothing, this presents an opportunity to learn about religious diversity and pluralism in the United States and around the world. There are right ways and wrong ways to deal with religion in the classroom, and while teachers should always be prohibited from proselytizing to their captive audience of students, nevertheless they do not have an obligation to check their personal identity at the door of the classroom. Indeed, the religious and cultural identity of a teacher can present a learning opportunity for students if it is handled the right way.

I believe that an important part of professional behavior for teachers is ensuring that his or her own personal life does not become too big a part of the discussion in the classroom. But nevertheless, classes are not taught by robots who must present a neutral identity. Religious identity, including personal adornment, is an important part of a person’s identity, and it’s not helpful to make teachers pretend as though their personal religious beliefs don’t exist while they are on duty. This is a far cry from the more reasonable requirement that teachers must always respect the rights of their students by refraining from inappropriate religious content in lessons and activities.

In addition, this prohibition overall doesn’t pass First Amendment muster. State institutions are prohibited from adopting a religious identity or favoring one certain religion over another. However, this prohibition should not extend to the passive religious expression of state employees. This is reflected in the fact that the new legislation reinforces the protection of religious expression for Oregon state employees in every sector other than the public school classroom. But I fail to see how public schools should be a special case.

The Oregon state legislature should rescind this ban and create much less stringent regulations that respect the First Amendment rights of teachers. Having teachers from different religious backgrounds could provide valuable lessons in diversity and pluralism for Oregon students. Otherwise the state is attempting to smooth over religious differences by pretending that they don’t exist.

Yesterday Judge Sotomayor was questioned about her Free Exercise jurisprudence by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD). Here’s a snipped version of the exchange:

CARDIN: Well, let me conclude on one other case that you ruled on, where I also agree with your decision. That’s the Ford v. McGinnis, where you wrote a unanimous panel opinion overturning a district court summary judgment finding in favor of the Muslim inmate who was denied by prison officials’ access to his religious meals marking the end of Ramadan.

You held that the inmate’s fundamental rights were violated and that the opinions of the department of correction and religious authorities cannot trump the plaintiff’s sincere and religious beliefs…

[snip]

SOTOMAYOR: In the Ford case that you just mentioned, the question there before the court was, did the district court err in considering whether or not the religious belief that this prisoner had was consistent with the established traditional interpretation of a meal at issue, OK?

And what I was doing was applying very important Supreme Court precedent that said, it’s the subjective belief of the individual. Is it really motivated by a religious belief?

It’s one of the reasons we recognize conscientious objectors, because we’re asking a court not to look at whether this is orthodox or not, but to look at the sincerity of the individual’s religious belief and then look at what the state is doing in light of that. So that was what the issue was in Ford.

It’s reassuring to see Sotomayor recognizes that what is important in deciding a person’s right to free exercise of religion is not whether an establishment thinks a particular tradition is necessary or unnecessary to the practice of an individual’s religion, but whether that individual perceives it to be. Sotomayor has a good record of upholding that standard, and her rulings have maintained government neutrality between all faiths—whether mainstream or nontraditional.

However, I would like to see a member of the Judicial Committee ask Sotomayor her opinion on government neutrality between faith and non-faith. Is my right to any aspect of my humanist philosophy the same as any Christian’s right to any aspect of their faith? Or, to use an example cited by Sotomayor, would she recognize an atheist as a conscientious objector?

I’m sure you’ve heard of Randall Terry, who for years was the face of the anti-choice movement in the United States. Even though he hasn’t been the head of Operation Rescue, an organization that he founded, since 1989, he has managed to keep his name out there as a prominent anti-abortion and anti-reproductive choice activist. Although his star has faded in recent years, he is trying harder than ever to make a comeback to national prominence.

The Washington Post has an article today about some of Terry’s recent efforts to stay relevant and keep his face on the national anti-abortion brand. It begins with the startlingly creepy image of Terry and his acolytes smearing fake blood all over their hands and copies of the Roe v. Wade ruling while standing outside the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. And it’s all downhill from there, as Terry tells the journalist that using fake blood for his protests came to him in a “vision” (is that what he vaingloriously calls having a thought?) while he was planning ways to disrupt the hearings.

It turns out, though, that this was not his first vision; as the Washington Post article states, in reference to the founding of Operation Rescue:

Terry, 50, was in his 20s when he founded Operation Rescue — the result, he said, of a vision from God that appeared before his eyes at a prayer meeting. The vision was, he said, a scroll with instructions to stop abortion. Along with the scroll, he saw thousands of people gathered in front of abortion clinics to save babies, and he saw himself being interviewed on “Donahue,” the popular TV talk show hosted by Phil Donahue.

After serving as a primary spokesperson in favor of federal interference in the Terri Schiavo case in 2005, the Post states that Terry had more or less faded from view for several years. But he is on the upswing once more, getting his name back in the press for the demonstrations against President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame University and his unbelievably hateful comments after the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. (Amongst other things, he said, “George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God…Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God.)

And now he is attempting to lead the charge against President Obama’s middle-of-the-road Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Adele M. Stan of AlterNet attended Terry’s demonstration this past Sunday on the steps of the US Supreme Court, and reported on Terry’s demand that the anti-abortion senators filibuster Sotomayor’s nomination:

Terry made the camera operators move forward and adjust their mikes. “Pro-life senators have a moral obligation to filibuster Sotomayor,” he began. “Pro-life Republicans, pro-life Democrats seduce us with their words. They use our money, they take our man-hours, they take our votes, and then throw us away like a used-up mistress after an election. It’s disgusting! If Sen. [Sam] Brownback and Sen. [John] McCain and Sen. [Knute] Nelson and Sen. [Bob] Casey believe that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, then they must filibuster Sotomayor. You can’t say you want to overturn Roe on the one hand, and then vote for somebody who will uphold Roe on the other. It is treachery, hypocrisy, laziness and betrayal.”

He certainly sounds frustrated! Perhaps this ties into Amanda Marcotte’s assertion in the Guardian that Republicans overall have not made abortion front and center in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, opting to focus on race and gender-based attacks against her instead. Says Marcotte:

Anti-choice activists used to own the issue of Supreme Court nominations so thoroughly, they were able to bully George Bush out of nominating Harriet Miers, despite her anti-choice views, in no small part because they simply don’t trust women not to stick by their own. Obviously, with Republicans out of power, anti-choice activists can’t block the nomination, but now they can’t even get Republicans to consider their demands a top priority.

The most obvious reason is that gender has been demoted to a second-tier issue so that Republicans can work more efficiently with arguments over race against Sotomayor, playing off anti-Hispanic sentiment and rightwing folk beliefs about a Latino “takeover” to inculcate resentment in their base. Anti-choicers are feeling the sting of falling out of fashion in the circles of rightwing nastiness and resentment.

Marcotte goes on to say that she also believes Republicans may be a little more toned down on anti-choice rhetoric this time around because of the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller. Perhaps they don’t want to be associated with a movement that is so violent in the eyes of many Americans. She’s not optimistic, though, that this distance will last.

I would be shocked if the Republicans filibuster Sotomayor, and I’m sure she’ll sail through confirmation. So the real question here is, what does the future hold for Randall Terry after his stunts at the Capitol are over? The Post notes that some anti-choice activists are less than enthusiastic about his desire to be a more public figure once again:

Leaders of the antiabortion movement are cringing at Terry’s sudden return. They say his incendiary rhetoric and showy tactics turn off ordinary Americans and reflect Terry’s struggle to regain his glory years.

“It’s sad in a way,” said Fredericksburg antiabortion activist Patrick Mahoney, who was close to Terry at one time but, like others in the movement, is now estranged from him. “It’s almost like a heavyweight boxer who’s past his prime. The movement has gone by him.”

While I fear the harmful consequences of his horrific rhetoric and stunts, particularly because they could inspire further violent acts, nevertheless I do feel that Randall Terry serves a useful function for those of us that favor reproductive rights. With his stunts, his jugs of fake blood, his followers disrupting Senate Judiciary Committee meetings, and his references to having “visions” that guide how he organizes his protests, he does represent one idea very well: that his anti-choice position is on the outer fringe. He makes it clear that his strong belief that women should not have control over their own bodies is in fact an extremist position to be defended by fringe and even dangerous characters such as him, operating on the margins of society. His extremist tactics lay bare the extremist nature of the entire anti-choice stance. Even so, we cannot discount the constant threat that Terry’s ugly and explosive language poses. He represents the worst of the intertwining of religion and social activism, when a fanatic believes that he speaks on behalf of his god and that his actions bear a holy endorsement. And we certainly know what kind of trouble that can lead to.

I’ve been watching the confirmation hearing for Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She’ll be replacing Justice David Souter, who was one of the staunchest defenders of the separation of church and state, but we don’t yet know her views.

I perked up when I heard someone mentioning prayer during the hearing. Turns out it was Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). I tracked down his prepared statement, and it turns out to have been this gem:

We have seen federal judges force their own political and social agenda on the nation, dictating that the words “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance[2] and barring students from even silent prayer in schools.[3]

I’m dying to know what those footmarks are, because I can’t find them actually citing anything.

Regarding [2], I assume he’s referring to Michael Newdow’s famous case against Elk Grove. It’s a bit of a stretch to say that judges’ interpretation of the Establishment Clause is “forcing their own political and social agenda on the nation,” but at least I know what he’s talking about. I think he’s wrong, but he’s in this version of reality.

But on [3], I really have no idea what Sessions is talking about. I certainly haven’t heard of any cases of federal judges “barring students from even silent prayer in schools.” Know why? Because there are none.

My co-worker made a good point to illustrate how false it must be: how would they enforce it? I can just envision a teacher saying, “You! You look thoughtful and distant. You’d better be daydreaming and not praying!”

Sigh. This is just another example of people spreading misinformation. Except that this time it’s a senator making public comments on record. Senator Sessions has a background in law, so one would expect him not to misrepresent court cases. Wonderful.

On Wednesday, July 8, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed suit against the Federal Government. Massachusetts alleges the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “exceeds the powers granted to Congress and violates the United States Constitution.”

On state sovereignty grounds, Massachusetts petitioned the court for an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of DOMA’s section 3 within the Commonwealth. The petition argues DOMA “creates two separate and unequal categories of married couples” and “commandeers state employees into implementing federal policy that contradicts state law.”

Essentially, Massachusetts argues, Health and Human Services funds and services are improperly distributed in the Commonwealth and in violation of Massachusetts law. It is a little crazy to say federal funds need to be distributed in accordance with state law before federal law, but in this case Massachusetts may have something.

As a rule of thumb, federal law trumps state law. The Constitution, however, states that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government remain with the states or the people. Historically certain clauses of the Constitution have been read quite liberally, for example the interstate commerce clause, and allowed for federal involvement in matters the Constitution did not foresee. Massachusetts argues DOMA is a historical anomaly and does not comport with past understandings of federal power and that the federal government has no legal jurisdiction to define marriage within Massachusetts borders.

Whether or not the judiciary agrees with Massachusetts remains to be seen.

Apparently some people believe that denial of an exorbitantly expensive government resource for exhibition purposes to a previously favored religious group somehow amounts to religious discrimination. Or at least that’s what I gather from reading this story from the Idaho Press-Tribune (hat tip to Crooks and Liars):

NAMPA — Organizers of the God and Country Family Festival say the Pentagon denied a military flyover, which the celebration has featured for 42 years, because of the event’s emphasis on Christianity.

“Basically, we applied to have a military flyover,” Director Patti Syme told the Idaho Press-Tribune Thursday. “We were given (Federal Aviation Administration) approval, and then had to apply through the Pentagon. When we applied they denied our request because, as the gentlemen stated, our Web site specifically stated that this is a Christian event.”

Upon first reading this, I was genuinely shocked. Not shocked that the Pentagon had denied the flyover this year, but that the Department of Defense had been providing military planes and pilots for a flyover of this event for the past 42 years!

Writing on Daily Kos, Chris Rodda of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation explains that the denial of the flyover might reflect increasing responsiveness to the MRFF’s demand that the Pentagon follow the First Amendment:

MRFF began exposing these events, which included flyovers on the five holidays when flyovers at civilian events are permitted, and even a few at National Day of Prayer events, and began to see some decline in their frequency, but we weren’t sure if the number of flyovers at these events was really decreasing, or if the military and organizers of these events were just being more careful not to make the nature of the events so obvious.

Well, needless to say, the following letter denying, for the first time in 42 years, the request for a flyover at one Christian rally, released on many websites in conjunction with a Christian Newswire article titled “Pentagon Denies Flyover of Patriotic ‘God and Country Rally’ in Nampa Idaho Because of its Christian Content,” was the best 4th of July present MRFF could have asked for.

The organizers of the God and Country Family Festival and their sympathizers see it a little differently, however. The Idaho Press-Tribune tells us:

Christian activist Brandi Swindell sent a text message about the lack of the flyover from Wednesday night’s event at the Idaho Center amphitheater. She followed up with another message Thursday.

“This is unbelievable and deeply troubling,” Swindell wrote. “The Pentagon does not have the authority to discriminate against Christian groups or events. This type of religious bigotry is unconstitutional. How sad to see this lack of respect and level of blatant bias surrounding the 4th of July celebration.”

Perhaps in the space of a text message Ms. Swindell was unable to elaborate on the nature of discrimination. But I really would have liked to hear her explanation of how denying a costly flyover by military aircraft to a sectarian religious event is unconstitutional. Or does the U.S. Constitution guarantee all U.S. citizens the right to a military flyover?

Religious discrimination does exist in this country, but people like Ms. Swanson muddy the discussion when they throw around the term, well, indiscriminately. By no measure is the Pentagon discriminating against Christians. Now, if she could point to an instance of the Pentagon granting flyovers to a Buddhist or Muslim festival but still denying the Christian festival, then she indeed would have a case.

Lest anyone doubt the real purpose of the God and Country Family Festival, I direct you to their mission statement found right on their own website:

Our mission is primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. We believe this Festival, started in 1967, is an incredible tool to share this Good News by strengthening the fabric of our society through our connection to family and country.

We want to encourage believers everywhere to get out in their communities, not just to strengthen each other, but to encourage family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers to learn more about who Jesus Christ is and what He’s done for each and every one of us.

We have religious freedom in this country. That means that they are free and welcome to hold such a festival. But we have a secular government that is prohibited from endorsing or favoring one religion over any other, and that means, sorry, no costly taxpayer funded flyovers for religious events. Unless we all get them! In which case I would like to sign up right now for a flyover for the next humanist conference.

Frankly, I would prefer to see the Pentagon be rather parsimonious when granting such a huge and expensive privilege as a flyover by military aircraft to any event, whether it be religious or not.

I recently attended a panel discussion at the Capitol on the Sotomayor confirmation. The event was chaired by Sammie Moshenberg of the National Council of Jewish Women.

The first speaker was J. Brent Walker, director of the Baptist Joint Committee, who noted that the First Amendment contains two clauses: establishment and free exercise. Historically, he argues, both clauses have been read quite broadly. This has begun to change; whereas historically government has been forbidden from touching religion in anyway, today government must simply treat religion as it would any other group. So, government can use money to provide services through religious groups and can issue education vouchers. Walker argues that Sonia Sotomayor has, in the past, espoused a rather broad view of these clauses. That said, it would be tough for her or basically any candidate to fill David Souter’s shoes in terms of taking a broad view.

The second speaker, Melissa Rogers of Wake Forest University, picked up where Walker left off and argued what is important in a judge is that he or she understands it is the individual who counts, not the established church. To draw the point out, a person who takes some tiny facet of their religion such as a feast or some beads very seriously is as entitled to those markings of their faith as a Christian is to the cross. Their belief need not be reasonable or mainstream, simply deeply held. In the past Sotomayor has adequately upheld this doctrine.

The third and final speaker was Richard Katskee, assistant legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Katskee argues that church/state separation issues come down to essentially three facets: where a display is allowed, who has standing to sue, and whether the government can fund. Sotomayor has ruled in two cases affecting standing and display. In both the Flamer and Mehdi case she has upheld precedent set by the higher courts and many argue ruled correctly even if the outcome was less than desirable. As for funding, no case that has come before her has given the opportunity for her views to come out.

The Baptist Joint Committee recently released an analysis of Sotomayor’s decisions. They come to the same conclusion the speakers did: “Sotomayor’s written record raises no red flags.” She has ruled on very few free exercise cases and no establishment clause cases. Her “writings include few, if any, statements articulating how the First Amendment protects religious liberty, promotes the voluntary nature of religion, prevents governmental interference in religion, and tends to reduce conflict among religions.”

Confirmation hearings begin July 13^th.

I recently had some contact with a Boy Scout camp counselor facing termination due to his atheism. I took a keen interest in the case and wanted to share my take on the issue.

I am an Eagle Scout and I work for the AHA. Because of my non-theistic outlook (I am not an atheist, simply an agnostic), according to policy the BSA should never have awarded, and may at any time revoke, my Eagle, an accomplishment I value far beyond my college degree. And yet, despite all that, I received my Eagle, served as my troop’s leader for the longest period in the troop’s history, was a counselor at National Junior Leadership Training, hold many awards including an Order of the Arrow membership, and remain in good standing with the BSA.

To earn and maintain my Eagle I did not perjure myself. After all, the first point of the Scout Law is “a scout is trustworthy”. My troop–and many others, I suspect–had an unspoken “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (forgive the phrase). I have no doubt everyone knew I was an agnostic, but I never called attention to it and they never pushed on it. I was at times obligated to attend semi-religious events, but nothing more extreme than a prayer before meals.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not a perfect solution, but it worked for me and worked for my troop. In my case, and I suspect in most others, the issue of faith only really becomes an issue in two circumstances. The first is if you make it an issue, the second is at your Eagle Board of Review.

To advance most ranks in Boy Scouts you sit before a group of adults, usually the parents of your friends and peers, and these folks audit your requirements and conduct an interview. They can use the chance to push whatever issue they so please. It’s usually not a big deal; requirements have been checked in advance, the Scoutmaster has given his okay, and unless something major happens you’re getting through. The Eagle Board is different. They audit everything, you must present signed proof of all requirements throughout your scouting career, the interview is much more involved, and there is a representative from the council present.

The Eagle Board of Review makes a point of bringing up religion. I believe I was asked, “will you avow a belief in one God?” I never answered the question. Instead, I unfolded a statement prepared in advance on just this issue. In classic humanist fashion I stated there is something beautiful in people that allows them to overcome what the law of self preservation dictates and allows people from around the world to communicate in a shared human language. Whatever this happens to be is worthy of our awe, humility, and reverence.

One woman on my board of five, a Christian fundamentalist from a megachurch, went on the attack. I didn’t have to say anything; I was immediately defended by the other four, including the man from council whom I had met once. After practically no time deliberating, I received my award.

I learned a lot in my time as a Boy Scout, including about the program itself. The religious side is there, I don’t mean to downplay it. But it is so insignificant and so liberally applied as to not be that big of a deal. There are bigger fish to fry. Despite whatever the policy may say, my experience, and that of many others, is that there is a tacit agreement you can openly believe basically anything you want. The one thing that BSA has said is off limits is actively promoting an atheist worldview. You could probably be an atheist in Scouts and get away with it without lying or hiding it, you simply cannot publicize it.

The camp counselor didn’t proselytize, nor did he share his atheism with the students he was counseling. Instead, he did something even more oafish, he flaunted it. After being a youth participant in BSA, the counselor continued his involvement through summer camp counseling. As was the case in my experience, most people were aware of his beliefs and opinions. This counselor’s beliefs were not an issue until he sent an email and letter to the camp directors, the council executive, and others stating his atheism and seeking assurances that he would not be disciplined for his beliefs.

The logic of the counselor’s move is really quite odd. BSA had given tacit approval of him, so somehow he thought he could get Boy Scouts to publicly allow an atheist. It would be nice if Boy Scouts would, but it was not about to happen for the counselor and he knew it. The counselor thought he could get away with it, and was, in effect, rubbing people’s faces in what he had done.

After making the misstep of publicly “outing” himself, the counselor sought help and began an appeals process. As Martin Luther King observed, when one breaks an unjust law it is to be done “openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the consequences.” It seems our counselor was hoping for no consequences.There is a word to describe those who break the rules publicly and think they are beyond consequences: arrogant.

Boy Scouts requires the recitation of the Oath and Law. The Oath contains the line “do my duty to God and my Country.” Through his atheism, the counselor was probably in violation of this but could very well have made a case that he need not believe to do his duty. The law, on the other hand, contains 12 points, including “a scout is reverent.” If you look up reverent in the dictionary it has no relation whatsoever to God, it is in fact not necessarily a religious term. Reverence is about humility and deference.

The counselor was removed from his position because he violated the Scout Law, specifically the part about reverence. The counselor violated it not through his atheism, but through his arrogance. In removing the counselor, BSA has a shot at teaching him some humility. If they do, they will prove the continued value of including “reverent” in the law.