I began to research this post intent on writing about reports from last week that James Dobson, the longtime Christian right wing leader and recently retired head of Focus on the Family, had conceded in a farewell address to FF staff that the Religious Right had lost the culture wars. But I soon found that this really wasn’t the case.

The story seemed to emanate from a report by a UK newspaper, the Telegraph, that bore the provocative headline “US religious Right concedes defeat.” The article quoted Dobson as saying:

We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.

That seemed like pretty compelling evidence that Dobson, if he hadn’t seen the errors of his ways, at least admitted the inefficacy of his approach.

But Right Wing Watch provides a more complete view on it. With a little more context, it’s obvious Dobson didn’t say anything new:

The battles that we fought in the Eighties now, we were victorious in many of those conflicts with the culture, trying to defend righteousness, trying to defend the unborn child, trying to preserve the dignity of the family and the definition of marriage. We fought all those battles and really it was a holding action.

Dr. Mohler mentioned the pornography struggle; we made a lot of progress through the Eighties but then we turned into the Nineties and the internet came along and a new president came along and all of that went away and now we are absolutely awash in evil. And the battle is still to be waged. And we are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say that we have lost all those battles, but God is in control and we are not going to give up now, right?

The world has turned colder for the family in recent years and there is such hostility to anyone who holds to a faith and we’re going to take the heat. But I have been assured by the board and by many of you that we’re not going to cow, we’re not going to be discouraged. We’re going to continue to express the love for the Scripture and the principles that we find there and if we are made fools for Christ, that’s okay too because our purpose is to serve him and that he be pleased.

Really, this is just a typical Religious Right statement. To paraphrase: sure, we’ve had some victories, but they didn’t go far enough. Our enemies are strong, and we have lost some battles. So we need to redouble our efforts.

This is hardly an admission of defeat! It’s more of a request for donations.

There seems to be an eagerness to declare the demise of the Religious Right. But even as Americans overall are becoming more secular, the Religious Right persists and even thrives off the news that Christianity is slowly (and I do mean slowly!) waning in influence in the United States. It seems to me that reactionaries need enemies and threats everywhere in order to form a cohesive movement.

But there have been many encouraging signs lately that the Religious Right has been losing steam in recent years. Just one of many pieces of evidence I would submit to you is the fact that, following the ruling of the Iowa State Supreme Court in favor of marriage equality, legislators in Des Moines have so far been unable to gain any traction for their efforts to introduce a constitutional amendment reintroducing the ban on same-sex marriage. Even the formerly anti-marriage equality governor of Iowa, Chet Culver, so far refuses to support amending the state constitution.

We can be certain that, for the years to come, every advance in favor of marriage equality, the separation of church and state, religious freedom for all, and reproductive choice will be met with the hateful and apocalyptic language of the Religious Right. But I think that the overall trend is encouraging. And perhaps in a few years James Dobson will actually declare the Religious Right’s loss in the so-called culture wars. Or at least he’ll be a lot quieter.

I don’t support violence, except in self-defense. I’m appalled at terrorism. And I’ve been a civil libertarian for five decades — since picketing a segregated movie theater as a youth in the 1950s.

In this context, the Becket Fund’s ad in the New York Times in defense of Latter Day Saints is baloney to me. Yes, I am very aware that churches, under the tax code, can lobby (to a degree) on issues of importance to their faiths.

But the LDS and representatives of the Catholic Church (also a sponsor of the ad) are, in some respects, America’s version of Islamic extremists, by their attempts to impose their religious views on others. Their enormous wealth and use of religious doctrine coercively are weapons, not merely a shield.

When five Supreme Court justices, all Catholics (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito) in the 5-4 Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) decision, side with a papal edict and deny women their reproductive rights, its time to stop kidding ourselves that religion isn’t dangerous. As the Surgeon General would warn, “religion is harmful to individual rights.”

I am equally troubled by Gordon Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, letting the signatories of the ad off so easy when he said in a press release today (Dec. 5) that: “I agree with the signers of the ad that they have every right to their opinion. ” My problem is the term “right to their opinion.” Opinion yes, but throw their considerable weight around with the purpose of denying people their rights — NO. At least not if there is any such thing as fundamental rights that should not be subject to public whim.

My point simply is this. We humanists, atheists and freethinkers are in a cultural war as is obvious from public ads or posters by the American Humanist Association (“Why believe in a god? …”), Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists and others. We are fighting for more than a place at the table (i.e., equality), we are fight for fundamental rights — religious rights, gay rights, reproductive rights — you name it.

Rather than sit idly on the side, we should engage religious intolerants in the public square with our message for human rights. And then engage again and again — until the day we are free, free at last.

Minutes ago, I read a religious legal news story that read: “23-year old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was executed by stoning after being convicted of committing adultery — an offense to which she had confessed.”

Duhulow was burred in the ground up to her neck and her head covered with a black sack before . . . (it’s too horrible to write). This occurred yesterday, on the 27th of October, in the Somalian port city of Kismayo.

I don’t claim to know or understand Shariah law. I guess I only hear about the bad side because that’s what typically makes the news.

But I have no hesitation in saying that the above punishment is way out of line with the offense — indeed, it was barbaric — and the judge who imposed the sentence and the stoners are guilty of murder, in my book.

I’ve read some articles recently that in some non-Islamic countries Shariah law is cropping into judicial decisions involving Muslims. This, I must caution against, because Shariah law appears to lack fundamental notions of justice like equal justice under law (what happened to the man who participated in the offense) and that the punishment is commensurate with the crime (capitol punishment for sex?).

Guest post by the AHA director of communications, Fred Edwords:

A Public Religion Research poll commissioned by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University is most revealing. Released this past Thursday, September 11, and reported today in USA Today, the poll found that 57 percent of white Southern evangelicals regarded torture as often or sometimes justified in efforts to get vital information from suspected terrorists. This is a higher rate of acceptance than the 48 percent of the general public that expressed similar views in an earlier Pew Research Center poll. Only 38 percent of those in the latest poll regarded torture as never or rarely justified. But this figure rose to 52 percent when the Golden Rule was brought into play with the statement: “the U.S. government should not use methods against our enemies that we would not want used on American soldiers.”

Clearly, conservative religious doctrine and certain aspects of Southern culture seem capable of trumping one’s humanity. But it’s encouraging to learn that many of these individuals–when reminded of their humanity through a reference to empathy, fairness, and reciprocity–may be able to set that doctrine or culture aside.

As to how much these opinions are attributable to religion and how much to culture (itself influenced by religion in many ways), the new poll revealed that 28 percent of white Southern evangelicals said they rely on Christian beliefs or teachings to inform their views about torture while 44 percent said they rely on common sense and life experiences. So this study, taken by itself, doesn’t give strong evidence for any claim that Christianity is an inherently heartless belief system or that people are necessarily or largely made heartless by it. (Though Leonard Doyle comes close to this position in his provocative Independent blog post entitled “Who would Jesus torture?”) The study does, however, show that there’s something about membership in this demographic group that coincides with increased heartless attitudes on this subject.

What, then, would an appropriate humanist response be?

Well, first, we need to remind people that some form of the Golden Rule has existed in every culture and religion. It is thus regarded by humanists as a product of our evolved social nature, as further developed by reason and experience.

Second, we need to note that the American Humanist Association, as an organization, has taken official positions against torture in resolutions in 1978 and 1998, has supported basic human rights in numerous other resolutions, and has pointedly challenged the logic of torture in articles and essays published over the years.

And third, we need to be vigorous in our appeal to humane ideals as superior to religious doctrine, political doctrine, and culture. Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein put it most boldly in their closing paragraph to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.” We thus call on white Southern evangelicals, and everyone else, to place their humanity first.

“A descendant of mine other than a child of mine who marries outside the Jewish faith (unless the spouse of such descendant has converted or converts within one year of the marriage to the Jewish faith) and his or her descendants shall be deemed to be deceased for all purposes of this instrument as of the date of such marriage.”

The wording above has created a bit of controversy in Illinois. Max Feinberg, who died in 1986, stipulated in his will that any of his grandchildren who married outside of Judaism would be considered dead for the purposes of his will. The Illinois Supreme Court may now get involved after an state appeals court (read the full ruling here in PDF) ruled that the above clause is invalid. The appeals court cited previous Illinois case law which invalidates any provision that “acts as a restraint upon marriage or … encourages divorce.” The wording is from an 1898 Illinois Supreme Court case, and the majority decision in that case cited other cases in which an Illinois court invalidated a provision in a will that had to do with the heir’s marriage.

At first blush, this decision seems to fly in the face of the idea that a person can dispose of his or her money as he or she see fit. One of the deciding judges admitted that she saw honoring the will as a way that would “open a door toward bigotry”. I hate to say it, but that door has been pretty wide open for a long time, even in the cases of wills, though it’s just usually not stated in this manner. How many LGBT people have been disowned? Or people who married outside their race? Or even married a Jewish partner? Are these wills illegal and should they be?

Does the State’s desire to protect marriage outweigh a person’s write to plan their estate as they choose? Does preventing bigotry outweigh the individuals right to bestow money as they choose at the time of their death? This case really highlights these difficult issues. This is an important question for Humanists to consider. Is freedom from bigotry more important than individual rights? Or is the case of a will somehow different from the everyday freedoms we hope to enjoy?

The Washington Post ran an opinion piece taking on Dobson’s critique of Obama’s theology.  While normally theology isn’t an issue that Humanists are going to jump in on it was curious to see the reaction to Dobson’s statement.  I generally agreed with the Post article, however, I found another article that really cut to the core of the matter.

While Landover Baptist isn’t the first place I would normally go for a hard hitting critique of the events of the day, I’m realizing how much the Reverend Fred and Landover really has to say.  The article “Focus on the Pharisee” points out in no uncertain terms the differences between Fundamentalist pronouncements and the words of Jesus. Just reading the table comparing Jesus’ words to an interpretation of the far rights position, is startling. While the comparison is meant for an non-theist group, it would resound for many Christians as well. Some might judge it too harsh in its general mocking of the church but read Jesus’s words and think about the opposing views. Think also about Obama’s statement:

“And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”

While Father Fred is waaaay over the top, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I don’t think you can accuse him of not reading his bible. Maybe if we all we’re more familiar with the bible we’d realize as the Washington Post’s author points out :

“…why the words of Scripture do not provide a ready policy blueprint for modern American society. Indeed, many of us have grappled with how to arrive at a theologically informed and fair-minded reading of the Bible that takes its moral principles seriously without simplistically applying to our time the cultural norms of previous eras.”

I don’t base my morals on the bible, but I’ve got a lot more to talk about with someone like the author of the Post article than with someone trying to impose the cultural norms of the bible onto the current world.  I hope they have an inclination to talk with Humanists as well. Til then, we can read Landover Baptist and smile while getting a pretty good education.

Did Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution advocate racism and genocide?

Ken Ham thinks so. He is the leader of the Christian group Answers in Genesis and the founder of the Creation Museum built last year in Petersburg, Kentucky. Ham just released a book titled, Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots.

The New York Times includes several of Ham’s comments:

”What Darwinian evolution did I would say is provide what people thought was a scientific justification for separation of races,” Ham said in an interview.

In the new book, Ham says that Darwin’s theory that natural selection caused gradual biological changes over time, puts some races ”higher on the evolutionary scale” and others ”closer to the apes.”

”Although racism did not begin with Darwinism, Darwin did more than any person to popularize it,” Ham writes.

Ham further contends that the theory fanned the flames of ”ethnic superiority.”

”Stalin, Hitler and Mao were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions — and it can be shown they did this because of the influence of Darwinian naturalism…,” Ham writes.

The Darwin Report has this to say:

Historically speaking, Charles Darwin came from a family of abolitionists. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, strongly disapproved of slavery. And Charles Darwin wrote negatively about the slavery he witnessed on his travels in his book, The Voyage Of The Beagle. Darwin’s The Descent Of Man is also an argument against racism, since one of the points in it is the common ancestry of all the humans races. And simply using the word “savage,” as Darwin did, in its 19th century context doesn’t make a man a racist. Political correctness and cultural sensitivity were more than a century away.

But of course, David L. Schultz, associate professor of biology at Nicholls State University in Louisiana, sees the bigger agenda, calling Ham’s attempts as “a ploy to get evolution out of the curriculum.”

”Of course everybody’s against teaching children racism, so if you call it racist, you can have it removed,” said Schultz. He testified before a Louisiana legislative panel that took up the bill that would have tied evolution with racism. The measure was eventually stripped of any reference to Darwin.

I think I’d rather take the words of a true biologist with scientific reasoning on his side instead of a non-scientist, creationism-loving nutcase who believes that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together.

It just wouldn’t be the holiday season without Bill O’Reilly and his contrived ‘War on Christmas,’ would it?

The Fox News pundit is back again to yabber on and on about our attempts to “diminish Christmas for secular progressive reasons.” Apparently, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado, and their decision to choose white lights over the “more Christmas-y” colored lights has really gotten Bill all riled up (a video of the segment posted on the blog Think Progress can be seen here).

Despite what O’Reilly would have you believe, we Humanists do respect Christmas, as we respect Hanukkah, Kwaanza, Eid, and other December holidays (we even have our own in HumanLight). Every religious and nonreligious holiday in the month of December celebrate similar themes: happiness, peace, love, joy. However you want to celebrate is up to you.

O’Reilly is the only one fighting in this so-called ‘war.’ For someone who cherishes this time of year so much, his hate-filled mongering is about as un-Christmas as you can get.

The world is at a very strange place when a letter from 138 senior Islamic clerics and scholars to 25 Christian leaders, most notably Pope Benedict XVI, has seeming made little difference in the world. The 29-page letter was sent on October 11, 2007 from well-known figures from the Sunni, Shiite, Salafi, and Sufi branches of Islam representing more than 40 countries throughout the Middle East and beyond.

The letter states, in part, that “Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest religions in the world and in history. The relationship between these two religious communities [is] the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world.”

This is good, maybe even wonderful, but why is no one really cheering? Well, it has been suggested that the Vatican is more attracted to creating diplomatic relations with Muslim governments than in engaging Muslims in theological dialogue.  

In an October 19 interview with the French Catholic daily La Croix (reported on by Reuters), French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, called the letter “an eloquent example of a dialogue among spiritualities.” He also noted that Christians would have to discuss curbs on building churches in the Islamic world.

While Tauran seemed to want to discuss important issues between the two religions, he went on to dismiss the possibility since “Muslims do not accept discussion about the Quran, because they say it was written under the dictates of God. With such an absolutist interpretation, it’s difficult to discuss the contents of the faith.” Interreligious dialogue can take place “with some religions,” Tauran continued, “but with Islam, not at this time.” Christians aren’t exactly meeting the group of Islamic clerics halfway if this is the attitude to be taken.

Conservative critics have also jumped on this line from the letter:

As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them—so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.

This has struck some as a half-extended olive branch. Perhaps we need to get some humanist or atheist to moderate since we wouldn’t take a stance on the Quran or the Bible or Papal infallibility. Maybe I’m joking, but then maybe not.

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. )