For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 17, 2010
"Jesus is love."
I have heard that phrase many times in my life. But it is despicable that so many of Jesus' followers stand for hate rather than love.
Take the current case of Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi. 18-year-old student Constance McMillen wanted to attend prom with her girlfriend and to wear a tuxedo. When she was told that she would not be allowed to go to the prom unless she wore a dress and brought an opposite-sex date, she got the American Civil Liberties Union involved to fight the discriminatory policy.
The reaction of the Itawamba County School District showed anything but love and tolerance: they canceled the prom and made all students suffer because they hold onto an ancient hate taught by the Bible. The school district said they made the decision because of "distractions to the educational process caused by recent events" (an ironic excuse, given the massive distraction of the media circus their cancellation caused). However, their job as government representatives was to provide equal protection to all. Instead, they favored their religious beliefs to the detriment of those they were supposed to care for. They should be held accountable for this.
The ACLU has filed a suit against the school district requesting that the prom be reinstated, the opposite-sex rule be removed and that any student be allowed to wear a tux. It is uncertain what the results of the case will be, but an emergency motion is to be filed to obtain a decision in time to restore the prom.
In the meantime, the school district is encouraging "private citizens" to throw a prom for the students--apparently intending for this prom to be straight-only, held privately so that there would be no legal recourse to stop the event. However, their hate-filled ignorance led them to completely underestimate responses motivated by love.
Many offers have now been made by private groups to host a prom. And, counter to the aims of the Itawamba school board, the offers are for proms that are inclusive of straight and gay students. One of those offers has been made by the American Humanist Association. My wife and I offered to donate $20,000 to help the AHA plan and fund a fantastic prom for all students, as we believe that the students should not be punished for the bigotry of their leaders.
I am a Secular Humanist; my wife, Diana, is a Christian. We both agree that the values of love, tolerance and equality should trump the fundamentalist teachings of hate, discrimination and prejudice. We both long for the day that a majority of theists and nontheists join forces to oppose fundamentalism and put reason-based ethics above scripture and dogma. We hope our offer for the prom is another step in the right direction.
In Itawamba County, as in much of the world, the fundamentalists still hold a great deal of power. But it is very encouraging to see the near-universal condemnation of their actions in this prom fiasco. Perhaps this is a sign the tide is turning. Diana and I are both optimistic that time and a lot of teamwork between the faithful and the secular can lead to a society that stands more for love than for hate. This is a noble quest, and one the world cannot afford to fail.
Todd Stiefel is the founder and president of the Stiefel Freethought Foundation. He also serves on the advisory boards of the Secular Coalition for America, the Secular Student Alliance and Atheist Nexus; the National Advisory Council of Americans United for Separation of Church and State; and is a trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
By KAREN FRANTZ
For HumanistNetworkNews.orgLast week, the Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships sent their long-awaited final report to President Obama, detailing their recommendations as to how the faith-based office should be run.
The Council was appointed by Obama a year ago to provide advice about how the federal government should partner with faith-based and community groups--especially focusing on such areas as economic recovery, the environment, fatherhood and healthy families, global poverty and interreligious cooperation. But most importantly--especially to the American Humanist Association and other groups that are concerned about entanglement of religion and government--it was also tasked with recommending how the faith-based office itself should be reformed.
When President Obama came to the White House, he inherited a Faith-based office that was severely problematic (and the AHA argues shouldn't have been created in the first place). Under President Bush, the office was free to ignore many sensible policies and protections that had been hammered out over the years and governed how the government could work with faith-based social service providers. For instance, policies requiring that faith-based groups receiving federal grants set up separate 501(c)3 organizations to receive the funds, that these separate organizations provide services that were secular in nature (in other words, no proselytizing), that the religious freedom rights of social service beneficiaries be protected, and that faith-based groups that receive federal money not discriminate on the basis of religion in their employment decisions.
With the arrival of the new administration, many wondered how these problems would be handled. And at this juncture we're still waiting to see many changes implemented--although I'm pleased to see that the Council's task force on reform of the office has made some good recommendations in the recent report. These include the recommendation that beneficiaries of social services funded by the government be clearly informed about the rights they are entitled to--including the right to choose a secular service provider over a faith-based one--and the recommendation that language barring faith-based service providers from engaging in "inherently" religious activities be changed to "explicitly," so as to cut down on misunderstanding.
However, the task force did not build a consensus on other issues, including whether faith-based providers should be required to set up separate 501(c)3 organizations in order to receive government funds. And we still wait for action from Obama on the issue of whether faith-based groups that receive government funds should be free to hire and fire based on religion--an issue that the task force did not review.
President Obama should move quickly to adopt the recommendations for which the task force reached a consensus, and take steps to address the problem of the religious discrimination in employment for government-funded groups. It's been over a year since Obama took office, and though we've seen plenty of review and deliberation on these important issues, it's time now for action.
Karen Frantz is the Communications and Policy Director of the American Humanist Association.
For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 17, 2010
At its core, humanism is the appreciation of the oneness of humanity. It's the acceptance of the ties that bind us as human beings and a rejection of the ideologies that divide us. The Institute for Humanist Studies--a new think tank based in Washington, DC that will research and advise on public policy, and of which I am the managing director--will seek to infuse our national policy debates with this appreciation. We seek to bring the focus back to the human element and eradicate discourse based on fundamentalist agendas.
Some argue that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation and our public policy should be based in that tradition (and unfortunately have done a good job convincing many in power of as much). But the IHS rejects that assertion as false. In fact, the founders of this nation purposefully drafted the Constitution with the direct intent to have a clear and total separation of church and state. In addition, it does not serve the needs of our society to make decisions based in beliefs that do not benefit the needs of all. The Institute for Humanist Studies takes the position that scientific understanding is the only practical basis for making policy decisions that impact us all--and this is especially true in a pluralistic society, such as the United States, where people come from many varied faiths and ideological persuasions.
Of course, we realize that individuals have the right to believe as they desire and make decisions that affect their personal lives accordingly. But that should never translate into the arena of public policy. A same-sex couple's ability to marry, a woman's right to control her reproduction, a child's ability to receive health care and a soldier's ability to have freedom of conscience are all things that cannot be left to the whims of ever-evolving religious doctrines. These decisions, amongst many others, must be made through critical inquiry based in logic and reason.
That is what the Institute for Humanist Studies represents. We are that voice of logic and reason. By bringing together top minds within the academic and scientific communities, we serve the unique role of providing policymakers with the information they need to make sound decisions, focusing on what we know serves our interest as human beings and removing the justification to make policy decisions based on personal belief systems. We also will promote greater public awareness, understanding and support for humanism, and will provide accessible and authoritative information about humanism and nontheists to the media, academia and the general public.
One of the people leading this charge is Anthony B. Pinn. Anthony is the Agnes Cullen Arnold Professor of Humanities and professor of Religious Studies at Rice University. He is the author of numerous scholarly works, and his professional commitments involve his role as the executive director of the Society for the Study of Black Religion and as co-chair of the American Academy of Religion's Black Theology Group. In addition to all his other responsibilities, he is serving the Institute as its research director. Known for his insight into the complexities of the sociopolitical realm--especially its intersection with theology--Anthony sets the bar for academic excellence at the Institute.
We are in the early phases of our organizational development, but we are poised to make a huge impact in the political discourse of our nation. The conservative fundamentalism that took us into two wars, pushed abstinence based sex-education, upheld Don't Ask, Don't Tell and introduced the Defense Against Marriage Act was powered by think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. It is time that the secular community levels the playing field by offering another voice: a voice of reason, a voice of inquiry. This is why the Institute for Humanist Studies exists.
If you would like more information about us, please visit us online at http://www.humaniststudies.org.
Diane Griffin is the managing director of the Institute for Humanist Studies.
STAFF REPORT
The American Humanist Association last week decried a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the governmental use of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the U.S. Constitution. In a 2-1 decision, the court stated that the phrase does not form an unacceptable government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Thus, they found a California statute permitting teachers to lead students in recitation of the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause.
"I'm disappointed with the court's ruling today," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "What unites us should be a civic bond, not a religious tenet. Government should respect Americans from all walks of life and backgrounds, yet nontheists are still in many ways treated like second-class citizens in this country."
The case was originally brought by Michael Newdow, a lawyer with the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, on behalf of his daughter against the Elk Grove Unified School District in 2000. Newdow argued that school children should not be required to recite the Pledge. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court originally ruled in his favor in 2002; however, the Bush administration appealed, arguing that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not government-backed religion. The U.S. Supreme Court then overturned the ruling in 2004 on the technical issue of standing. Addressing the issue of standing, Newdow sued a second time.
"As long as these two words remain, the Pledge will continue to be a wedge in American unity, dividing us along religious lines. Congress needs to take the lead in restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-Cold War text and once again make the United States 'one nation indivisible,'" said Dave Kong, American Atheists Director of State Operations.
***
The Appignani Humanist Legal Center, legal arm of the American Humanist Association, filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court on Monday, arguing that the Court should affirm a decision made by a federal appeals court that the University of California Hastings College of the Law acted appropriately when the they denied recognition to a Christian-only student group. Click here to read the brief.
The lawsuit involves a chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS), who was barred from receiving school funds, priority access to facilities and use of Hastings' logo because they did not permit non-orthodox Christians and gays to become voting members or leaders. Hastings had denied a request from the group that they be exempt from the school's nondiscrimination policy, which prohibited student groups from discriminating on the basis of "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation" as a condition for receiving access to school resources. The AHLC's brief argues that Hastings and other publicly-run institutions or entities can establish a conditional limited public forum for free speech, as long as the conditions for using the forum are neutral and generally applied.
"A University has every right to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation among student groups that receive school resources," said Bob Ritter, AHLC attorney and counsel of record for the brief. "Public schools have an interest in making sure all students feel welcome, whether they are religious, non-religious, straight or gay. And ensuring that their resources don't go to groups that violate policies of nondiscrimination is an appropriate measure to keep universities inclusive."
***
The Secular Coalition for America has been fighting over the past two weeks against a proposed amendment to a Senate jobs bill that would have reauthorized the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program--a program that uses taxpayer-funded vouchers to subsidize religious institutions. Thousands of SCA members and supporters responded, and the amendment was successfully defeated.
"It's only the latest sign that the secular movement is growing," said the SCA in an e-mail to supporters.
For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 17, 2010
President Obama's 2011 budget calls for a big change of course for NASA. As one of my blog's readers, Ben, put it:
The new proposal has the potential to put a lot of people out of work, depending on how the budget is implemented. This would affect not just NASA employees but people working in the service and other industries around NASA if our NASA center [in Houston] down-sizes.
One local church has chosen to deal with this situation...by praying about it.
Clear Lake Presbyterian Church, near the Johnson Space Center in Houston, is collecting 500 prayer requests. (Because if they only get 499, God won't listen...?) Here's the kicker--Pastor Steve Oglesbee said this about the prayer requests (from an article in Ultimate Clear Lake):
"We wanted to do something to help the community."
Prayer was an obvious choice, and gathering specific prayer requests requires congregants to reach out in a practical way.
"We want to connect with what people's real and specific needs are," he said. "We want to know what people are really worried about."
Of course, the prayers aren't going to get any jobs back. And no one is listening to the prayers.
But it's a nice gesture, right?
Or does it just make you mad when you hear that this is the recourse people are taking? (Got a problem? Let's pray about it.)
If that didn't do it for you, what about this?
Christian blogger/author Jon Acuff organized a 24-hour prayer marathon this past weekend. He had a list of people who would be praying each hour. (Because if you only have three people praying between the hours of 4:00 am and 5:00 am, God just says, "Screw that," and goes to sleep?)
Again, their intentions are wonderful: they want to help people dealing with all sorts of tough situations. That's commendable.
But their solution is to pray.
I can't decide whether to just let it go because that's their coping mechanism.
Or to laugh.
Or to *facepalm*.
Or to tilt my head a bit to the side with a confused look on my face as if I'm looking at an exotic animal.
For what it's worth, I am aware of studies that show people do indeed get better if they know people are praying for them--but it works for the same reason that you get better if you know your loved ones are thinking about you. You feel cared for, and that changes you.
But the people doing the praying aren't thinking that. We know that. They think a god is going to act on their prayers. That's just silly.
Despite my thinking that this is all just an attempt to make those who are praying feel like they're actually making a difference (when they're not), I have no desire to make them stop doing it. I don't want to go on their websites and let them know that God isn't listening. If I met the people who are praying, I wouldn't waste my time telling them it's all useless. They sound like good people who (mistakenly) think they're helping.
Because of that, I can't find a catchall way to deal with their prayer attempts.
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.
For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 17, 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,
My wife and I are atheists, and we have three children aged 10, eight and five. I think it's wrong for parents to impose religion on children, and so I do not feel I can impose atheism on them, either. We have explained to our children that different people believe in different gods, but neither of us believes in God, and when they are older they can decide for themselves what they want to believe.
What we have told them in favor of atheism is that we believe that science can now explain most of what religion was constructed to explain, that morals and ethics are not tied to religion and that people who do not believe in God are good, too. We have also explained the agnostic view that the idea of god(s) cannot be proved one way or another; however, the probability of a higher power is extremely low, to the point where we cannot imagine how it could be possible.
We aren't perfect, of course, and do our fair share of eye-rolling at what we consider religious stupidity. We dismiss religious belief out of hand and discuss the idiocy of fundamentalism in front of them (and with them), as well.
They do have influences favoring religion in their lives. Their grandmother is hoping to instill in them her Catholic beliefs by discussing religion at every opportunity. (We have told them that they are to listen politely--we teach them to show tolerance and respect for others' beliefs--but to largely ignore what she says about religion.)
Additionally, in Australia, where we live, most schools provide religious education through an ecumenical Christian course, which is 30 minutes per week. Children can opt out of the course with parental permission, and we gave our two older boys the choice to attend or not. The oldest wants to continue with the class. He is not particularly interested in religion, but he doesn't want to stand out from the crowd. The middle boy has opted out of religious education, but he is more questioning.
My concern is, our middle child is now questioning the agnostic point of view that we have taught him. If we can't prove God doesn't exist, how do we know he doesn't? We have had no problems discussing issues such as evolution, but he has been asking about the big bang theory and what (who?) caused that. I'm pleased he's asking questions instead of just accepting what he's told, but it makes me nervous, too. While I can field most of these questions (so far) and I will be searching for some age-appropriate literature for him, I am wondering if our liberal, tolerant, "you decide for yourself" attitude will backfire and my children will become religious. Should we be more hardline? And if so, my other concern is, what if they become fundamentalist (Christians, presumably) as a means of rebelling against us? Is there any way we can avoid this scenario?
Of course, I think atheism is the correct worldview, and I would be doing my children a disservice by not telling them what I believe. But at the same time, if they are never-the-less gravitating toward religion, does raising a freethinker mean allowing them to think the "wrong" thing?
--Pete
Dear Pete,
This is what freedom means. When a person is truly free to make a choice, they're not necessarily going to choose what others would prefer. And when a person is truly free to have their own ideas, they're not necessarily going to agree even with those who gave them that freedom. This is why freedom, real freedom, is not as popular a concept around the world as many people might assume. Living in a free society requires a great deal of courage to accept that others will make choices we don't prefer and will have ideas with which we disagree. Many people are just not capable of that level of courage. They want to see their beliefs or preferences embraced by others, even at the expense of freedom.
Here is where you get to see if you have the courage of your convictions. Do you really mean it when you say that parents should not impose either religious or atheist views on their children? Do you really mean it when you tell your children they can decide what they believe themselves? Or does your acceptance of them require that their beliefs match yours--as in the case of so many religious families?
You have taught your children to think for themselves and make their own choices, and they are doing just that. Good!
Your 10-year-old is choosing to go through the motions of religious practice, not necessarily because he's actually interested in it, but for the social benefit of "fitting in." That's his choice, and all choices have their pluses and minuses. He'll have plenty of time to sort out what's in his own best interest.
Your eight-year-old is choosing to question what people present as truth, just as you have encouraged him to do. Right now, he's questioning what the two of you have been presenting as truth, both in your words and your reactions. Later, he will probably be questioning other things he heard presented as truth from other people. Questioning things may be part of his innate nature, and you have wisely cultivated that. Like his older brother, he'll have plenty of time to question his conclusions again and again. So whether he eventually becomes a theist, an atheist, an agnostic or a combination, he will have reached that position through careful consideration and deliberation. He's a very thoughtful kid. I like him.
Remember that they are still children. They will go through several more incarnations as preteens, adolescents and young adults. It will be a tumultuous time of experimentation, differentiation, challenge and, yes, rebellion. But young peoples' most destructive rebellion is usually against oppressive and authoritarian parenting. You have given your children the freedom to be who they are as they change and grow. Whatever expression of independence they may display, they won't have to go to extremes in order to make their statements and plant their flags.
It sounds like you have also taught them that there must be a balance between freedom and responsibility. They are responsible for their social interactions and the effect they have on others. They are responsible for their personal choices and the consequences. And it sounds like you have also instilled in them the responsibility to support and defend their own ideas. So if they choose to believe something, they know that they will be expected to back it up with a strong and thoughtful argument. Just keep promoting and practicing that expectation, and let it run its course as they try on different ideas.
You have promised your children freedom of thought. They know what you would prefer them to think, but they are free to adopt your preferences wholly, partially or to disregard them. Now you must honor your promise by not penalizing them if they choose something other than your preference. Regardless how much or little they agree with your ideas as they grow up, I think they will love you dearly and be grateful you had the courage to give them the skills and freedom to find their own paths--even if their paths might diverge from yours. Be glad that they are using your courageous gift to them. Celebrate as equally wondrous how they are both similar to you and different from you.
They are very lucky kids.
--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.
For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Mar. 17, 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.
Kudos for Saving Prom
I was greatly impressed when I read that the prom in Mississippi will go on. AHA members Todd and Diana Stiefel have restored something precious to those young people. They and you get my thanks for adding a happy ending to that sad story.
--John Swindle, Grants Pass, Oregon
The Case for an Evidence-Based Worldview
(Re: Our Secular Decade: Goals and Tactics of the Nontheist Movement, Humanist Network News, Mar. 10, 2010.)
A major problem with recruiting humanists and advocating humanism is that we don't have a decent conceptual framework to believe in and use. Do rational, naturalistic or any of the other nontheist worldview pitches really work? I suspect not.
I choose an evidence-based worldview. Evidence-based gives us a clear position. It is inclusive of all the flavors of nontheism. And, sure, theists believe they see evidence to back up their positions, but their claims can be refuted easily.
I've developed a conceptual framework at http://evidists.org. It needs some more work but I think this is what everyone is looking for.
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.
Fred Edwords is national director of the United Coalition of Reason (www.unitedcor.org ) and a Humanist Celebrant.
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.
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.
Sean Faircloth is executive director of Secular Coalition for America (www.secular.org). Representing ten national secular organizations, Secular Coalition for America lobbies for separation of church and state, opposes the privileging of religion in American law and works for the acceptance of nontheistic views in Washington, DC.
