Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in Washington, DC

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 10, 2010

The day when same-sex marriage became legal in the District of Columbia--March 3, 2010--the American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing that its celebrants, certified through the Humanist Society, were "ready and able to perform nontheistic marriage ceremonies for the Washington, DC LGBT community." The Humanist Society had already taken out a series of advertisements in the District's most prominent LGBT magazine, MetroWeekly, declaring its readiness to serve the community. Later, Howard Katz, president of the Humanist Society, said:

The Humanist Society and humanists in general believe in protecting marriage in all forms--which should be a right between two individuals to decide for themselves. We applaud the District of Columbia in realizing that the state has no business in promoting a religious viewpoint of marriage, but instead has decided to promote human dignity by allowing same-sex marriage to take place. 

All of this was the culmination of a political effort that began with a proposed bill, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, put before the Council of the District of Columbia (the city council of the local government of Washington, DC) in October 2009. On December 15, this bill was passed by a vote of 11 to 2, and then signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty on December 18, 2009.

However, by law, the U.S. Congress has thirty legislative days to review Council acts. During this waiting period, a lawsuit was launched to force the DC Board of Elections and Ethics to conduct a public referendum on the Council vote. The suit was quickly supported in a January 7, 2010 friend-of-the-court brief filed by 39 Republican lawmakers in Congress. But a DC Superior Court judge ruled on January 14 that such a referendum could have effectively authorized illegal discrimination. Gay marriage opponents immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court refused to sign an emergency-stay order, thereby allowing the bill to become law after the congressional waiting period ended on March 2.  

The new law amends existing marriage laws in the District of Columbia by creating Section 1283a. EQUAL ACCESS TO MARRIAGE, which declares that:  

Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements . . . may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated "bride," "groom" or "spouse."

The law goes on to declare, "No priest, minister, imam or rabbi of any religious denomination and no official of any nonprofit religious organization authorized to solemnize marriages, as defined in this section, shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Because the law grants full marriage rights in DC, "The ability to register a new domestic partnership in subsection (a) shall sunset as of January 1, 2011." Existing domestic partnerships can be converted to marriages with the payment of a $10 fee.

In making these changes, the government in the nation's capitol became the sixth in the country to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The others are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. California had temporarily been among them. (And as a footnote, on the same day that same-sex marriage became legal in Washington, DC, it also became legal in Mexico City.)

All of this comes at a time when the American Religious Identification Survey reveals that 25 percent of those aged 18 to 42 profess no religion, and are therefore unaffected by religious injunctions against same-sex marriage. According to Trinity College sociologist Barry Kosmin, co-director of the survey, the present situation is "a standoff between young people with a tremendous sympathy for civil rights and what appears to be biblical injunctions from religion." All of which suggests that time is on the side of same-sex marriage in the United States.

So Goes the Nation

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 10, 2010

Let me take you back to May 15, 2008. It's very nearly 10 am, and I am sitting in my statistics class, laptop open, trying desperately to catch a whiff of broadband signal. My professor is lecturing about regression, variance, means, modes and medians, but it all starts to blend together nonsensically, like a Peanuts-esque muted trombone. 9:59. One minute more until the California Supreme Court announces their verdict on same-sex marriage.

I began fighting for marriage equality in the 1990s at the age of 16. I remember standing on the steps of the Nebraska State Capitol, holding up a sign that read, "Equality Begins At Home." To my grandparents' dismay, my image was broadcast on the front page of the B section of the local paper. "Our friends are going to see that," my grandmother said. I replied, "Good, I hope that they do."

It's finally 10 am, and my eyes furiously scan the ruling I've managed to find with my tenuous internet connection. "Domestic partnerships are second-class marriage." In one fell swoop, I bag my laptop, get out of my seat and bolt for the door. In 20 minutes I've called at least 40 people. Can this really be happening? Is the curse broken? They say that California is a bell-weather state. As California goes, so goes the nation. Massachusetts broke the marriage barrier first, but now we finally have it!

The feeling was a surge of adrenaline and endorphins, fogging my head in a stupor of shock and removing long-endured disappointment. It was like a first kiss from an unrequited love. A kiss from a culture promised to us--but until that moment not bestowed.

A spirit of celebration engulfed California's LGBT community following the ruling, and my local humanist group, the Humanist Association of San Diego, was eager to join in the revelry. The San Diego LGBT Pride Parade was coming up, and earlier in the year my group had decided to stage an act of protest during the parade. We were going to find a good-looking couple and perform a mock wedding ceremony for them along the parade route in opposition to marriage apartheid. We had everything worked out. But now, with the new ruling, we could turn our act of defiance into an act of celebration.

The day of the Pride Parade tends to be one of the hottest in San Diego. It's also day in which the San Diego Police Department brings out their Equine Division to stand as a barrier between those of us participating in the parade and those protesting the parade, holding life-sized wooden crosses and courteously giving us advice on our afterlife itineraries. And, unfortunately for the almost exclusively Christian protestors, it's a day that the police horse brigade--which turns their backs to our detractors--elects not to don their horses with diapers. How metaphoric!

For our protest-turned-celebration, the Humanist Association of San Diego found two women who wanted to share their love and union--and did so with the largest unsuspecting wedding guest list in San Diego history. 165,000 guests, to be specific. As the Humanist Celebrant officiating over the union, I had to perform this ceremony at least four times in order for the entire three miles of parade-goers to witness the extraordinary event. It was the first legal ceremony I performed in California, but not the last. While same-sex marriage was still legal in the state, I continued to perform several more weddings. But, sadly, those days did come to a close.

From the perspective of a gay man and a wedding officiate, it annoys me that people who are neither are so vehement to destroy and restrict access to something which they themselves have no direct connection. But, unfortunately, too many Californians proceeded to vote to do just that on Election Day 2008. With the passage of Proposition 8, we lost equal marriage by a small margin. A flood of Mormon and Catholic donations built an insurmountable resistance, and thus, even before the sticker-shock of full civil equality wore off, we lost it. We lost it to the cacophony of pearl-clutching lunatics, ranting about protecting children.

This exclusion is not like being the last person picked on the team; rather, it's like not being allowed to play at all. And then, when you assert your rights, you are called hateful. You're accused of removing someone else's rights, destroying their institution, harming their children. Their meaning was clear: we are not full Americans; we are perverts; we are misguided miscreants who do not deserve a full shot at the American dream.

Of course, they are the ones who are wrong. Jim Crow marriage is unfair, unethical and quite frankly offensive. Yet, it persists. And even where rights have been won for same-sex couples, powerful forces are working to scale them back. Forces that, in a rational and secular society, should have no business imposing their will onto others. Can you for one second imagine what it feels like to be told repeatedly that you aren't good enough by people who believe that this world is six thousand years old, wished into existence by a divine being--a being who promised his followers the only real estate in the Mideast without a drop of oil and who only speaks through his clergy when it is politically pertinent? The lunacy of implementing social policy with their pathology as the driving force is enough to make you go mad!

I know what Washingtonians are experiencing right now. I know the elation, the euphoria. But I also know the angst that the LGBT community is experiencing in places such as Maine, where a same-sex marriage law was recently repealed. As humanists, it is our luxury to celebrate our hard-earned wins, but it is our obligation to stand up and fight back where there is work still left to be done. As coordinator of the American Humanist Association's LGBT Humanist Council, I congratulate Washington, DC for their recent achievement in expelling outdated and unnecessary divisions which hurt our human family. But I also urge the humanist community to keep fighting against affronts to dignity and reason where they still exist. Together we can put human needs and human happiness above superstition everywhere. 

Jason Frye is the coordinator of the American Humanist Association LGBT Council and a Humanist Celebrant.

Our Secular Decade: Goals and Tactics of the Nontheist Movement

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 10, 2010

Secular Americans have been perceived unjustly as a marginal group, a cranky group and--sometimes with justification--an infighting group. If we want to return American life to its secular heritage, we must define ourselves as an organized, optimistic and pragmatic group that fully participates in American public life. At the Secular Coalition for America (SCA), of which the American Humanist Association is a member organization, we have a plan to do just that.

In this decade, we Secular Americans will claim a major national leadership role, becoming an undeniable political force that must be taken into account by elected officials and policymakers. We're not there yet, but how will we know when we are? Here are some of our goals: 

First, national reporters will instinctively seek quotes and analysis from SCA about public policies that privilege religion--just as now they seek quotes from the ACLU on civil liberties. Soon after, our stands on issues such as the protection of children from religiously-based abuse, military discrimination and emergency contraception will be automatically understood by the general media to be a call for civil rights and justice based on a compassionate adherence to a rational worldview. We'll see thousands more people become active, dues-paying members of our ten coalition organizations, spurred by the enthusiasm and pride that comes from joining a great movement for justice. By 2019, we will help see to it that ten or more members of Congress will state publicly they are nontheist--just as Representative Pete Stark did in 2007 as the first-ever member of Congress to "come out" as not believing in higher power.

To realize these milestones, the movement must grow, and Secular Americans must be unified. Public policy is a pivotal unifying force that can diversify our constituency and increase our base of activists. Secular Americans internally debate many issues, but our diverse coalition unites when it comes to almost all matters of public policy. Lobbying and grassroots advocacy on public policy will drive the success and unity of our movement. It is our central strategy.

In addressing substantive issues that affect real people in their real lives, our public policy positions will help broaden the base of our member groups. We will champion causes and principles around which our community can rally and which will inspire new members to join our movement. In order to achieve our goals and meet our challenges, the Secular Coalition for America will speak out more compellingly to more people on more issues. We will present the secular movement more professionally and in more diverse venues, backed by a stronger grassroots infrastructure for which the Secular Coalition for America will be a prime catalyst.

We will earn media attention by passionately and knowledgably addressing religiously-based injustice against real people--injustices that connect on a gut level with an emotional impact. We want to connect secularism with the American people, appealing to the American sense of justice, freedom and fairness.

With our overarching strategy in mind, we have identified eight primary tactics that will lead us to our goals. We will:

1.      Expand our issue base;

2.      Increase our lobbying efforts in Washington;

3.      Produce communications materials that connect emotionally;

4.      Engage in more robust networking of secular and nontheist Americans;

5.      Undertake a "50-state strategy" in which we spark a grassroots effort leading to active volunteer advocacy networks in all fifty states before December 2019;

6.      Seek out the "apatheistic" and the functionally secular, expand outreach to women and younger people and bring our message to other potentially sympathetic groups, such as scientists, libertarians and LGBT nontheists (this effort will increase membership for our ten member organizations and strengthen our coalition);

7.      Hold a secular policy summit that is narrowly tailored to policy and leadership strategy; and

8.      Institute an internship program on Capitol Hill.

I presented this vision and plan to the Secular Coalition for America board on January 10, 2010.  The board took the bold step of telling me to move forward, and together we will do so.

This is our decade. 2010 is an exciting year, but 2019 will be even better because we will have achieved the secular goals that we have set for ourselves today. We believe strongly in a rational worldview, and our compassion and decency mandated by that worldview leaves no one out--even those with whom we disagree. This plan will lead Secular Americans to our rightful national leadership role. 

Help right now by getting going to our website and signing up for our Action Alerts and telling five friends to do so as well: www.secular.org.

Smut for Smut is a Bad Idea

Adapted from "The Friendly Atheist."

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 10, 2010

Members of the Atheist Agenda group at the University of Texas at San Antonio ran a "Smut for Smut" campaign recently--similar to one run in previous years by the same group. Essentially, it works like this: You give them your Bible. They give you pornography. It's all smut, right?

It certainly gets them media attention (though less this year than in previous years). It does spark a debate. It does get people to join the group. And I get the point. The Bible has smut and violence, and that needs to be pointed out. It's not all rainbows, flowers and Jesus. But if the group's goal is to get people to consider atheism as a reasonable way of looking at the world, it's the wrong way to go about it.

I can't imagine anyone changing their mind over such a campaign. If anything, they'll just push atheists (and their ideas) further away. Moreover, who's joining the group over stunts like this? Probably people I wouldn't want to be in a group with in the first place--the type that get off on pushing religious people down instead of doing something meaningful and productive.

Several atheist groups have gotten attention for positively promoting their ideas--the United Coalition of Reason's billboards ("Are You Good Without God? Millions Are") are not denigrating religion at all. They get attention. And they make religious people look bad when they protest those innocuous signs.

There are so many reasons people should not be religious. Why not give them a compelling reason to toss faith aside? Letting them know that atheists can be just as jerky as evangelical bible-thumpers isn't helping the cause. I understand that not everyone appreciates a "gentler" approach to all this. We need all types in a movement. But why revel in a publicity stunt that only makes atheists look bad?

The Society of Non-Theists at Purdue University planned a much better event a couple years ago when they ran a Fiction for Fiction campaign. Why is it that this event went so much more smoothly--without a mass of protesters--than the Smut campaign? Because it sparked a real conversation, it got people interested in the group and they didn't go out of their way to piss people off.

That's the type of group I would be proud to join.

If Atheist Agenda was the only campus group available for people like me, I probably wouldn't join it. I don't think I'm alone. And at a time when we need campus atheist groups more than ever, it's sad that some non-religious students may choose not to join a group at all because they don't want to be lumped in with that crowd of atheists.

I suppose it could be worse. They could've burned the Bibles (in support of free speech) instead of the current plan to donate them to libraries. Still, I would love to hear from any UTSA student changing his/her mind (in a good way) about atheists as a result of this.

Hemant Mehta is the Chair of the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) Board of Directors. He has worked with the Center for Inquiry and also is an SSA representative to the Secular Coalition for America. Hemant received national attention, including being featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, for his work as the "eBay Atheist." Hemant's blog can be read at FriendlyAtheist.com, and his book, I Sold My Soul on eBay, (WaterBrook Press) is now available on Amazon.com. He currently works as a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago.

Ask Richard: Why Do I Still Pray After Decades of Not Believing?

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 10, 2010

You may send your questions for Richard to AskRichard@ca.rr.com. (Questions may be edited.) All questions will eventually be answered, but not all can be published. There are a large number of requests; please be patient.

Names are randomly changed for added anonymity.

Dear Richard,

I've been an atheist for many years and an agnostic for many years before that. I grew up with born-again evangelical parents, and I was a believer until the age of about 16, when I started to have doubts. I'm now 40 years old and I can honestly say I'm confident that the God of Judeo-Christian religion does not exist.

My question is: Why do I still pray? I often find myself praying, "God, show me that you're there and that you exist." I don't pray every night, but every now and then.

I've come up with four possible explanations for why I do this:

1) I'm hedging my bets. I pray just in case there is a god that could damn me for all eternity--even though logically it seems very unlikely there would be a god that would need me to believe in its existence and would punish me mercilessly if I didn't.

2) Force of habit. Since I grew up praying every night, it has been a ritual I've practiced time and time again. To give up this habit would be extremely hard.

3) There may be a part of me that still believes in God. I think that nobody is 100% sure God doesn't exist, and that atheism is just agnosticism with a little more confidence. Under this definition, I'm consciously an atheist--but could I still believe subconsciously?

4) Maybe I have a mental problem that compels me to talk to beings that don't exist? But I don't exhibit any emotional problems, so this explanation seems unlikely.

Do you have any insights into why I pray? Do any other atheists have this problem?

--Stuart

Dear Stuart,    

What a candid and poignant letter! I'm always reluctant to analyze people's psyches because the chances of being wrong are enormous. But I'll offer up a possibility as to why you continue to pray as long as you take it as only one possibility of many--a shot in the dark with maybe a bit of hit and probably a lot of miss.

Yours is a good example of the predicament humans face as animals with large, active limbic systems and large, active frontal lobes: we have powerful feelings and powerful thoughts and, when they conflict, either may overcome the other but neither can ever fully banish the other. We are consistently inconsistent creatures, feeling and thinking mismatched things. It's what makes us interesting to each other and to ourselves. 

People seem to experience religious belief in two ways: through thought and through emotion. I wonder if when you stopped believing in God intellectually, you did not stop experiencing the emotional aspect of belief that had been deeply set by the time you were 16.

The way you describe your prayers, I wonder if instead of praying to God to show you that he exists, you're actually saying to yourself that you want him to exist. After all, if God doesn't exist, to whom are people talking when they pray? Themselves. It's the emotional and intellectual parts of their minds communicating with each other. Sometimes our desires can be so strong that simply thinking them silently to ourselves is not enough. We must speak our longing out loud into the physical world and hear it echo back to our ears. We must be sure that all the parts of our minds have heard it.

Many atheists describe a period after abandoning their intellectual belief when the emotions associated with belief continued on. But, lacking the familiar supportive thoughts and activities, those feelings began to turn into grief. This feeling of loss or mourning can last for weeks or months or sometimes even years as it gradually fades away. Perhaps you're experiencing this phenomenon with a longer time lag than usual, and you're expressing your grief in this wishful, wistful way: expressing the nostalgia of your believing years.

So my hypothesis is a little bit like the first and third possibilities you suggested. Mine suggests lingering emotions associated with your past belief, while yours suggest a remaining intellectual belief, but they might overlap.

I don't think the second possibility you mention is likely by itself. If praying was purely a force of habit, the habit would probably fade away after so much time without anything to reinforce it. As for the last possibility, I don't see anything in your letter indicating a psychotic process. If you had a serious disorder, other areas of your life would have serious problems.

Which brings me to my question for you: Is this really a "problem" or is this simply a quirk? If it doesn't interfere with important things in your life, such as keeping a job or keeping a relationship, then perhaps it should just be considered an eccentricity.

However, it did at least perplex you enough for you to write your letter. So if I'm correct that you are experiencing something like the extended grieving period I described, perhaps you need to find something else besides prayer to satisfy that old neglected emotional need that your belief used to fulfill. If you're not sure what, look at your secular, rational and logical life and see if there is something--not necessarily rational or logical--that's missing or that you could add. It could be something involving joy, play, creativity, whimsy, humor, beauty, awe, wonder, thrill, belonging, worthiness, connectedness, gratitude, meaning, passion, challenge, love or a hundred other "things-that-aren't-things" that enrich and complete our humanness. If you find something that fulfills your emotional need, perhaps the praying will finally cease.

So, Stuart, that's my shot in the dark. Maybe a little bit of hit and probably a whole lot of miss. Take it as a suggestion or a clue, or just as encouragement to always stay at least as curious about yourself as you are about the world around you. As you explore your interior continent, maintain an attitude of affection and humor, and disapprove of nothing that you find. Waste no time with either of the twin vanities, pride and shame. Some things about yourself you'll understand and others will remain enigmas, but just keep exploring.

Perhaps it is the wondering that is more important than the knowing, anyway.

--Richard

Richard Wade identifies as both a humanist and an atheist. He has worked as an artist and as a marriage and family therapist with many years in the specialization of addiction. Now retired, he has counseled more than ten thousand patients. Questions to this advice column are welcome from any perspective or belief, not just that of humanism or atheism. Richard Wade's column can also be read on a regular basis at The Friendly Atheist blog.

Letters to the Editor

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 10, 2010

To send a letter to HNN, look for "Letter to the Editor" link in the small box in the upper right-hand corner of every article in HNN.

Empathy for Alienated Atheist

(Re: Foreign Policy + Religion = Disaster, Humanist Network News, Mar. 03, 2010.)

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs should send someone to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to see how making religion "integral" to foreign affairs works in practice. In fact, all 17 Islamic member states of the Human Rights Council have done just as the Chicago Council recommended--to the detriment of human rights around the world. Criticism of Islamic terror (a phrase we are not actually allowed to use), attempts to defend freedom of expression or promote women's equality, and discussions about the evils of Sharia law are all are greeted with cries of "Islamophobia."

The real problem with the Chicago Council is that they fail to distinguish between secularism --which demands neutrality in matters of religion and champions equal rights for believers and non-believers alike--and hostility to religion.

--Roy Brown, IHEU Main Representative, United Nations

  Geneva, Switzerland

Confront True Believers

Reading Humanist Network News can be very frustrating. Every issue points out many examples of nasty, unfair, illegal, violent and religiously bigoted treatment of humanists, atheists and agnostics. At the same time, you admonish the so-called New Atheists for confronting these people for their demonizing attitude toward non-believers.

History aptly teaches us that a passive, non-confrontational approach to achieving social equality and acceptance is doomed to failure. It took nearly three quarters of a million dead to abolish slavery; women took up signs and marched in the streets to get the vote; and blacks marched, rallied and used in-your-face civil disobedience to overthrow segregation in the United States and apartheid in South Africa.

Never forget that "true believers" of supernaturalism are immune to evidence and reason. They must be verbally confronted whenever and wherever they espouse demonstrably false, illegal, unconstitutional or socially unacceptable beliefs. We will likely never change the true believers themselves, but we must actively challenge their vile disregard for the human rights of non-believers and others.

--George Kalis, Brooklyn, Michigan

Nontheists Go to Washington: The White House Gives Us a Seat at the Table

By KAREN FRANTZ

On Friday, February 26, I had the privilege of attending the Secular Coalition for America's Briefing with the Obama Administration for what was a truly a remarkable moment in our movement's--and the nation's--history. Of course, the Obama administration routinely holds many such briefings with other groups. But this particular briefing was singularly important. It was the first time a presidential administration has held a national policy briefing with the nontheist community.

"We are very pleased to have had this opportunity to talk with the White House about issues that are important to the nontheist community," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, in a statement to the press. "Too often, nontheists have been disregarded by politicians and the public only because we don't happen to believe in a god. But by President Obama giving us a seat at the table, he has sent a powerful message that we hope others will also embrace: What unites us is that we are all Americans--not that we all share a belief in the same god or any god. There is no faith prerequisite in wanting what's best for our country."

Some radically conservative groups slammed President Obama for inviting us to the White House, arguing that the policy briefing indicated an anti-religion bias in the Executive. But they have it completely wrong. The briefing did not indicate an exclusion of anyone--only the inclusion of a group that had previously been left out of the political discourse. Moreover, the issues discussed at the briefing should be of importance not only to nontheists, but to all Americans. The issues we presented included how to reform the Faith-Based Initiative, the importance of ending proselytizing in the U.S. military, and the need to restore government oversight over faith-healing treatment providers. (To read the official statements presented to the administration click here.) These are aspects of our national policy that affect all of us, regardless of faith.

And that's where I see a particular triumph in the Secular Coalition for America's Briefing with the Obama Administration. It indicates in an impressive way that nontheism is not a fringe movement--as some no doubt wish we were--and that we are gaining relevance in society and in government. And why shouldn't we become a major player? After all, the "nones"--those that don't declare any religion--make up a full 15 percent of the American population. That's more than the number of Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews in the U.S. combined.

Of course, although impressive, the briefing isn't the only indicator of the growing acceptance of nontheists. President Obama has often mentioned nontheists in a positive and inclusive way when speaking about the broad religious spectrum in America. In 2007, Representative Pete Stark came out as the highest-level government official who doesn't believe in a higher power. And nontheist groups continue to make gains in numbers and in influence.

Friday's briefing was the first such meeting of its kind with the nontheist movement--but I think it's safe to say that it certainly won't be the last.

Karen Frantz is the director of communications and policy at the American Humanist Association.

We’ll Miss You Helen Kagin--Thanks for Many Years of Happy Camping

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 03, 2010

The following is written in remembrance of Helen Kagin, beloved co-founder of Camp Quest, who died two weeks ago at the age of 76.

It's hard to begin writing about what Helen Kagin has meant to the freethought movement. There is simply too much to say.

Helen contributed to our movement in so many ways. She was a founder of her local group, the Free Inquiry Group of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, which was established in 1991. In 1996, Helen and her husband Edwin founded Camp Quest, a camp for the children of nontheists, where Helen was the registrar and co-Camp Director for ten years. She also helped others start new Camp Quests in other locations. In 2005, Helen and Edwin were awarded the Atheists of the Year award at the national convention of American Atheists. In 2007, Helen helped organize the Rally for Reason outside the gates of the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky. Most of these accomplishments came after she retired in 1995 from a long, successful career as an anesthesiologist.

But that long list of what Helen has done barely scratches the surface of who Helen Kagin was, and what she meant to us. Helen's kindness, amazing smile and gentle caring welcomed me, and so many others, into the freethought community. I met Helen and Edwin in 2003, not long after realizing that there was an organized atheist and humanist community. They immediately made me feel like part of the family, and encouraged me to get involved.

Helen had that effect on many people. Over the last two weeks, I've seen so many Facebook posts and blog entries from Camp Quest campers and counselors talking about what Helen meant to them. Here's one of those stories, shared by a longtime Camp Quest counselor, Sarah Menon:

I met Helen (and Edwin!) back in 1997 at a Center for Inquiry event. Somehow they convinced me to join the staff of Camp Quest that summer, and so I found myself on a 20-hour trip by Greyhound bus from Boston to Ohio a few months later. People don't always believe me now, but I was a very shy and quiet kid, even in college, and going off to be a camp counselor in a faraway land with a bunch of strangers was extremely nerve-wracking for me. I spent the whole bus ride thinking this was a huge mistake and way beyond my abilities. Then I walked in the Kagins' front door and Helen greeted me with a hug and integrated me right into the ongoing pre-camp activities.

Helen, I am so incredibly grateful to you for reaching out to me and drawing me into the community--the camp family, really--that you helped to found and shape. In bringing to Camp Quest your intrinsic kindness and warmth, and your infectious enthusiasm, you helped create a safe place for me and so many others to share our experiences and thoughts, and to form our identities as freethinkers. You probably never knew how much you helped me grow as a person. I feel honored to have known you.

Edwin Kagin, co-founder of Camp Quest, wrote of his wife Helen, "If you would honor her accomplishments and memory, do not send flowers; do not send money to some charity. Help send a kid to Camp Quest." Thus, to honor Helen's legacy, and in keeping with Edwin's wishes, Camp Quest has established the Helen Kagin Memorial Campership Fund. The Kagin Fund will provide free or reduced registration fees at any Camp Quest camp for campers with financial need. Donations to the Helen Kagin Memorial Campership Fund can be made through PayPal at http://www.camp-quest.org/ or by mailing a check to Camp Quest, Inc.; P.O. Box 2552; Columbus, OH 43216 and writing "Kagin Fund" in the memo.

Helen died two weeks ago at age 76 from complications following lung surgery. She will be greatly missed.

For more stories about Helen, please see the following links:

Edwin Kagin's Remembering Helen and poem For Helen

Friendly Atheist

Cincinnati Enquirer

Pharyngula

Camp Quest UK Camp Director, Samantha Stein's Blog

Foreign Policy + Religion = Recipe for Disaster

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 03, 2010

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs recently recommended in an 85-page report that the U.S. government develop a strategy to make religion "integral" to American foreign policy. Here's the good news in the report. It recommends that Foreign Service officers learn more about the religious and cultural beliefs of people in other countries, so we can more effectively communicate with them. This is a no-brainer. Religious and cultural literacy should be a prerequisite for all diplomats. Many conflicts in the Middle East and other parts of the world make no sense apart from recognition of the role that religion plays in them. If we are to have any hope for a solution, we need to understand better the problem.

Now here's the bad news in the report. It claims that American foreign policy's uncompromising Western secularism fuels religious extremism throughout the world, and recommends that we remove obstacles to constructive engagement with religious groups overseas. What does this mean? Unfortunately, the report is ambiguous about the importance of religious freedom and human rights, and would seem to open the door for U.S. officials to make our precious First Amendment secondary when we try to ingratiate ourselves with religious leaders abroad. Such oversights could have disastrous outcomes. We have enough problems at home with government officials chipping at the fragile wall that separates church and state. We don't need to export those troubles to our work abroad.

The idea that our country is too secular in its foreign policy seems like some kind of tragic joke. We started a war in Iraq after President George W. Bush consulted a "higher" father, rather than his "lower" father and former president who likely would have advised against it. (I'm not sure if Bush's reference to the Iraq War as a "crusade" was a sign of cultural illiteracy or a core belief of his.) And the First Amendment is slippery enough for some government officials, who interpret freedom of religion as the right to promote and proselytize for Christianity. This so-called brand of "Western secularism" could very well be why other cultures might rightly view us as imperialists.

Here are our dilemmas. We should not act as cultural imperialists, but we must not condone horrendous human rights violations perpetrated by religious leaders, either. We can't ignore religion when dealing with world conflicts (since that's often the cause); however, making religion an "integral" part of foreign policy is fraught with danger and difficulties. Thus, as far as the relationship between religion and foreign policy goes, it's easier to see what we shouldn't do than what we should do. (For a list of ten "don'ts" when it comes to foreign policy and religion, see my answer to a recent question posed to the panelists of the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog.)

However, when it comes to our engagement overseas, it makes sense to follow many of the policies that have worked well for us at home. We try to avoid entanglements between government and religious agencies here in the States, and so it stands to reason that such entanglements likely would be even more problematic abroad.

The Difference Between What Is and What Should Be: What the Joint Statement on Religious Expression in American Public Life Gets Wrong

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 03, 2010

Last week, I had the opportunity to discuss the publication Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law with the leader of the group that drafted the 32-page statement, Melissa Rogers. The statement, which was released on January 12, brought together a number of leaders from religious and civil liberties organizations to provide a consensus on the complex legal issues relating to the separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

Achieving a consensus among a large group of attorneys that represent a diverse array of organizations was a daunting task. Or was it? It achieved the consensus without the participation of representatives from secular organizations, such as the American Humanist Association, American Atheists, Center For Inquiry and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I accept Melissa Roger's explanation for the non-invitation. Ms. Rogers, the director of Wake Forest University School of Divinity's Center for Religion and Public Affairs, which produced the document, said that she wasn't networked into nontheist groups. And the good news is that after an hour and a half lunch with Wendy Kaminer and myself, Melissa is now networked into the secular community.

But my concerns about the Joint Statement remain.

The purpose of the Joint Statement, which will be sent to schools and government agencies, is "to provide a summary of how the law currently answers some basic questions regarding religious expression and practice in public life." There's a caveat--the "document describes what is legally permissible, not necessarily what is desirable."

Quite frankly, there are many established laws and court decisions that are not consistent with the principles of separation or church and state or religious neutrality, the legal principle that government may not favor one religion over another or religion, or religion over nonreligion.

Let me give a couple of examples. First, the current law permits a lot of ceremonial deism and religious acknowledgements that members of the secular community find offensive. Examples include the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the phrase "under God;" coins and currency bearing the words "In God We Trust;" city council meetings with invocations praying "in Jesus' name;" and passers-by being accosted by Christian crosses and Ten Commandment monuments on public property. While these practices may seem inconsequential to some, such endorsements of religion at any level of government will not end until we end religious practices in Congress, the White House, and that temple of American justice, the Supreme Court of the United States.

And here's another example. The Joint Statement answered a question about whether public schools may teach about religion this way: "School officials may teach about religion if they are neutral in their treatment of faith, neither promoting nor denigrating religion. ... [S]uch teaching should be fair, objective and based on sound scholarship ..." The problem with this answer is "teaching about religion" in the public schools has become a code word for teaching the Bible as "the word of God."  So while the Joint Statement's answer is legally correct, many school administrators will read the Joint Statement as a green light for teaching the Bible in an indoctrinating manner.

Thus, being an accurate statement of current law is not good enough. What is really needed is for government officials to be faithful to the Constitution and the principles of separation of church and state and religious neutrality embodied in the First Amendment. These principles serve as my legal compass and guide me as legal coordinator for the Appignani Humanist Legal Center.

Bob Ritter is the legal coordinator of the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the legal arm of the American Humanist Association.